100-400mm canon L vs 50-500mm sigma

[timmyquest]

Think college student, $7.75 an hour....

I doubt anyone has both, but that would be a real treat.

I'm sure the canon is more sharp, but by how much?

50-500...talk about versitile.

Not to mention the price, it would allow me to get another more useable lens.

I'm so torn that if i must (and i should) throw the 80-400mm in there i might go insane.

Only MAJOR thing the 50-500 lacks is any form of IS.

[timmyquest]

Oh yes, i forgot to mention that the f/6.3 and wanting to shoot highschool football which is played on friday nights...scares me

[CyberDyneSystems]

The Sigma is heavier.. a lot heavier.. :)
You MUST use the Sigma with a monopod or tripod.

The Canon can be used hand held.

I had the Sigma 50-500mm and only sold it once I got the 500mm prime and simply found I didn't use the zoom anymore.. (this sounds like deja~vue?) But I thought it was an exceptionally well made lens that gave remarkable results.

The 100-400mm IS is a better lens,. but it is shorter and it is pricier.
The 50-500 zooms with a twist,. the 100-400mm zooms with a push pull.

And of course there is the IS.

IF you can not justify the cost of the Canon,. I think you will certainly be pleased with the Sigma.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Er,. just caught site of your second post.. Night football will be tricky with either of these lenses.. but obviously, f/5.6 is better than f/6.3..

...on the other hand,. when the Sigma is zoomed to 400mm ,. it is at f/5.6

[timmyquest]

Er,. just caught site of your second post.. Night football will be tricky with either of these lenses.. but obviously, f/5.6 is better than f/6.3..

...on the other hand,. when the Sigma is zoomed to 400mm ,. it is at f/5.6

The fields are well it, and it's hardly the only reason i'd like to get one of these lenses.

Also, note that i have access to anywhere on the sideline and flash is allowed everywhere but endzones.

[Ferdinand]

Totally know how you feel, I found the lens that suits my needs and it just happens to be the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM :( And now I am on a Slim Fast diet $2 per meal for first 2 meals of the day :D And $1.00 McD Chicken Sandwich or double cheese burger (have 3 for dinner). Things we do for things we want and need. :roll:

Regards,
Ferdinand

[KennyG]

I doubt anyone has both, but that would be a real treat.

I'm sure the canon is more sharp, but by how much?

Now, here is a treat. I have both, well my wife has the Sigma now, and I know what I prefer. She is parting with the Sigma because of the weight and very stiff zoom twist.

The Canon has better contrast and is sharper wide open. I wouldn't like to quote a percentage as regards sharpness, but if I get a chance over the next couple of days I'll post a direct comparison and you can make your own mind up. I had better get it done before my wife sells it!

Most Sigma owners use the lens above 300mm, usually at 500mm. I found it pretty awful under 200mm myself, but acceptable at long lengths. As a budget long zoom it is probably the best value for money lens, with above average quality. However, the Canon is the better lens overall.

I suppose the advantage of the Sigma is you wouldn't have to sell a kidney to pay for it.

[martcol]

I suppose the advantage of the Sigma is you wouldn't have to sell a kidney to pay for it.

Errr....

Anyone know how much a kidney's worth? :wink:

Martin

[iwatkins]

Timmy,

I don't know what the price difference is in the USA, but over here in the UK, the Canon 100-400 ships for nearly double the cost of the Sigma 50-500.

That hurts.

Add to that that the Canon is 100mm shorter and it hurts more.

But on the flipside, the Canon is "L" and it also has IS. Doesn't hurt so bad now.

But is "L" and IS worth the lack of the additional 100mm and almost double the price ? I really don't know.

I have the Sigma 50-500mm and if I'm honest I would say the quality of output is good - very good but isn't what I would call gobsmacking. In addition, when it is in use it is usually used at between 400-500mm so the 50-400mm range is basically unused.

I am actually considering the Canon 100-400 and the 1.4 Tcon. But simply cannot (at this time) justify the cost.

Not much help I know. :?

Cheers

Ian

[Canuck]

Now, here is a treat. I have both, well my wife has the Sigma now, and I know what I prefer. She is parting with the Sigma because of the weight and very stiff zoom twist.


KennyG,
Interesting you should mention that...I have a very stiff zoom on the 120-300mmF2.8EX. I think it might be all the glass you are moving. I can't speak for the 50-500 but the 120-300 weighs 5 3/4 lbs.

[KennyG]

I just pulled the Sigma out of its case and the zoom is as stiff I as remember it. My wife is quite dainty and she just can't operate the zoom unless she uses a tripod and takes her two hands to it. I think it is more than just the weight of the glass, I feel it has a lot to do with the guides for the inner and outer tubes. Ugh, the AF, I never did like it.

She has been casting eyes on my 100-400L and I have warned her off. We have decided to sell off all her Sigma lenses and replace them with Canon. I think it has now come down to the 17-40L (I'll borrow it from time-to-time) and the new 28-300L. She already has a 50 1.8 and that will give her all she needs in three lenses. It will also help keep the peace :lol:

The 120-300 is a nice lens, with good reports. Practical Photography this month gave it a 92% rating for image quality and it was only beaten by the 100-400L.

[Cadwell]

Now, here is a treat. I have both, well my wife has the Sigma now, and I know what I prefer. She is parting with the Sigma because of the weight and very stiff zoom twist.


KennyG,
Interesting you should mention that...I have a very stiff zoom on the 120-300mmF2.8EX. I think it might be all the glass you are moving. I can't speak for the 50-500 but the 120-300 weighs 5 3/4 lbs.

Really :?: My Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 only needs finger-tip pressure on the zoom ring.

[Ferdinand]

I suppose the advantage of the Sigma is you wouldn't have to sell a kidney to pay for it.

Errr....

Anyone know how much a kidney's worth? :wink:

Martin

USD$10,000.00 Blackmarket value.

Regards,
Ferdinand

p.s. a lot depends on your age, whether you drink or smoke as well.

[OviV]

Any body ever heard of hotbuyselectronics.com? They are selling the Sigma 50-500 for $678. Looks fishy to me.

[Belmondo]

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1938.html

Consider yourself warned. Among the worst!!

[OviV]

That's what I figured. Thanks.

[iwatkins]

Kenny,

Suprised also.

My 50-500 zooms with only a light twist with one hand. I admit it was a little stiffer when first bought, but this loosened off after the first use.

Even so, it can feel stiff if the lens isn't horizontal, but otherwise, nice and smooth and very easy to twist.

Maybe you have a bad one ? Or myabe I have a good one ? :)

Cheers

Ian

[KennyG]

Kenny,

Suprised also.

My 50-500 zooms with only a light twist with one hand. I admit it was a little stiffer when first bought, but this loosened off after the first use.

Ian

I used it for one long shoot shortly after getting it and ended up with a wrist that really hurt. If I had continued I am sure it would have developed into RSI. I did try another two belonging to friends and they felt the same to me.

Its a personal choice thing when it comes to ergonomics I suppose, and what suits one person may not suit another. I know a lot of people that can't stand Canon's push-pull zoom, and even I had to work at it until it became second nature. As most of my shoots run to 6 or 7 hours I have to be comfortable with the gear I'm using.

[timmyquest]

Maybe i should voice how i feel about this whole situation and then you guys can pick apart it's inaccuracies.

100-400mm L

Faster lens then the 50-500.

IS @ night, handheld, or at 400mm. More importantly...a mixture of the three. To me it just seems like something i'll need.

Ok so what about the sigma 80-400mm with the OS. I've read it seems to be about a stop less effective. That and it's only a few hundred $'s cheaper, i'd much rather have the canon...and i'd be willing to spend $250 more for a proven lens.

Next issue.

Color, from the pictures i've seen the color from the canon (and even the 80-400mm) just seems much more vibrant then the 50-500.

*edit*

Screw everyone who tells me the push pull design is poor design. I had a cheap push pull 300mm lens for my AE-1 and i personally like it...perhaps more, then my current sigma zoom which has a twist zoom

Lastly, shooting at 500mm f/6.3 without IS...i just dont see how that can work without a mono/tripod.

More then likely i'm going to get the canon (as it is, only about $600 more in the US for those of you who didnt know).

Ok...pick apart my apparent justifications.

I'd also like to add that i intend on keeping my 300D body for at least 4 years...not much longer then 5. I intend on keeping my lenses for well more then that. These initial investments are rough, but they wont be occurring as frequently as if this were a topic of computer parts.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I used the 50-500mm as my main lens for about 8 months.. I "vaguely" remember the zoom seeming stiff at first,. but it really broke in well. Three fingers.. no problem.

Weight does play a part with that lens though, you can actually get quite a speed boost by using the "tilt zoom" method,. aim up to zoom in,. aim down to zoom out and gravity does the work,,.. again,. I only needed to do this at first,. soon it loosened up quite nicely.

[aeroshots2003]

I have no long-term experience with either of these lenses. Yet I had the opportunity to check them out from colleagues, and I was not so impressed myself.

50-500mm :
at first it looked very intimidating. When holding it, it indeed felt like a ton - dragging this piece along for below 200mm shots seems rather unlogical to me. When a lot of zooming in and out is required, I wouldn't want to work this tube for a long time - the zooming ring is a mega pain :( I saw several photographic results of this lens but was not impressed as to sharpness or color.

100-400mm :
here's a lens that feels a lot better. Smooth zooming, better weight and L + IS as a definite bonus. Yet, personally I'm less happy with push-pull - therefore I would consider 70-200 2.8 (with or without IS) + 2x Tcon.

My advice :idea:
spend the extra $$$ for the Canon stuff - you won't be disappointed :wink:

If the extra range to 500mm is necessary, a prime would be more suitable (but would also eat your wallet).

Cheerio,


Johan

[timmyquest]

[quote]f the extra range to 500mm is necessary, a prime would be more suitable (but would also eat your wallet).

Cheerio,


Johan[/qutoe]

I'm fretting about $1400 and you want me to go buy a 500mm canon prime!

ahhh!

[iwatkins]

I'm fretting about $1400 and you want me to go buy a 500mm canon prime!

ahhh!

Doesn't have to a Canon :D

Anyway, $1400 = £772 which is how much the Sigma 50-500 costs in the UK. I.e. you can buy the Canon 100-400L IS for what we pay for the Sigma.

If we convert the £1150 it costs in the UK for the Canon 100-400L IS, that works out at $2083.

I.e. you have it easy. :wink:

(Must book myself a flight to the USA to buy lenses)

Cheers

Ian

[aeroshots2003]

Uuuhh, Ian?

Do you have any spare room in your bag to haul some more Canon stuff across the pond?

I'd like to get my hands on 70-200 2.8 L IS and 1.4x Tcon. Also the 17-40 4.0 L would be nice :D


For Timmyquest :
A 500mm would indeed cause a big hole in your wallet. I ment something like a 300mm 2.8 (the Sigma should also be a nice tube) - combining it with 2x Tcon would make it an effective 600mm 5.6, Nice 8) My advice : look for a good second-hand, should be about 1400 € or 1700 $

Greetz,


Johan

[blindman9135]

USD$10,000.00 Blackmarket value.

Regards,
Ferdinand

p.s. a lot depends on your age, whether you drink or smoke as well.


I cant help but wonder, how do you know this? And......I've got a spare :D

[crn3371]

And you realize you've resurrected a 6 1/2 year old thread.

[Grimm75]

Zombie thread! ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!!

[artyman]

If budget is a factor and you want IS then consider the Sigma 150-500, a great lens.

[Riverlander]

I have had the Canon 100-400, the Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" and currently own the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and the new Sigma 50-500 OS.
I use the new 50-500 at f/8 @ 500 and it is as sharp as a tack, and will be my birding lens from now on. It is not as good at f/6.3.
The OS works very well and is silent - yes! SILENT. There are no problems with focus (or anything else) on my Canon 7D.
The 120-300 is excellent for night sports, and autofocusses well (in sunlight) with a Sigma 2x teleconverter on it.
Both the 120-300 and the new 50-500 have reasonably stiff focus rings, but I am sure the 120-300 has eased up a bit in the last year or so that I have had it. Both of them creep if pointed downward - there is a lot of glass to move.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Closed:

replying to a question asked in 2004 by a banned user....