Sigma 50-500 vs. Canon 100-400L IS . . .

[RJSorensen]

I have been using the Sigma 50-500 for the past few weeks now and today my Canon 100-400L IS came via UPS from B&H. I know many of you are much like me, in trying to work out which of the longer lens to get and or save up for. I have only taken a few hundred shots with it but I have some thoughts regarding this pair of lens to share.

•Sigma costs less, but weighs more, 1.1 pound.
•Viewfinder seems to be brighter with the Canon lens.
•Canon seems to focus much faster & on what I aimed it at.
•The IS feature is very nice with hand helds.
•The Canon pans much easier for me.
•The Canon balance seems much nicer for me.
•In similar light the Canon works much better/quicker.
•IMO the photographs taken w/Canon are MUCH sharper.
•Color is better & brighter for same subjects w/Canon.
•Object detail is better and or more refined ie. feather details w/Canon.
•I miss the extra 100mm of the Sigma 50-500.
•Build of the Canon is just better. (My first L lens)
•The build of the Sigma . . . wiggled near the mount on the copy I used. But is generally robust.
•I don't like the focus ring and tension ring layout on the Canon lens . . . adjusting focus changes tension.

I am thusly very pleased with the Canon all in all . . . even at a shorter mm length. I could use a 1200mm very easy. LOL!

Just my thought from the first days shoot. I have a couple of shots up in the Nature forum if you would like to see. Everything prior to today was taken with the Sigma 50-500 BigMa. I returned the lens this evening to my friend whom lent it to me. Thanks Jim for the loan.

I hope that this can help those of you whom are looking for long lens . . . good luck. Keep shooting!

[tim]

•The balance seems much nicer.
•IMO the photographs taken are MUCH sharper.
•Color is better & brighter for same subjects.
•Object detail is better and or refined ie. feather details.


You might like to clarify which lens you're talking about in the above four points. I think you mean the Canon, but since you're talking about both i'm not sure.

[RJSorensen]

Sorry Tim, Yes they all refer to the Canon 100-400L IS.

I have updated the original posting to reflect Tim's suggestions.

[Adam Hicks]

I only borrowed a 50-500 once or twice, but boy did I miss my IS (especially since I was just shooting at the zoo!) Your panning comment is dead on as well, use the IS Mode 2 to turn off the horizontal stabilization and pan away!

It's a fantastic lens, and is incredibly sharp at f7.1-f8. F4.5-5.6 disappointed me in bright light, but it made up for it stopped down a few notches.

Here's a quick example at f7.1 that hasn't been USM'd or anything to enhance sharpness. Just as it was from the camera (minus a basic resize.) Check the little 'nipples' on the tire. I *really* like the 100-400L!

http://www.golilm.com/images/irl/IMG0708.JPG

Adam

[aam1234]

As Adam mentioned, the 100-400 is a disappointment when wide open, and you need that most of the time for such a lens.

[zach]

I'm getting ready to order my 100-400 and can't wait.

Adam, at what distance did you take that from? Super sharp!

[blackviolet]

•The build of the Sigma . . . wiggled near the mount on the copy I used. But is generally robust.

i had this, and ultimately the internal screw came undone (as a result of heavy use of my 1dmk2 on the monopod, sigma said). the good news is they fixed it for free and had it back to me in a few short days. also they tightened all of them 'to spec' and said that it will definitely not come loose again (lots of loctite??).

since then i will definitely say it's a billion times more 'solid' feeling.

please, oh, please let the rumours regarding a 100-400 IS L replacement announcement be true - and may it not be push-me pull-you style (i could never get used to it :( )

[cc10d]

and may it not be push-me pull-you style (i could never get used to it )
__________________
I did not think I would get used to it either, but now that I have used it for a while, It ain't that bad. Sometimes I think I prefer it. Zoom is quick and no wrenched wrist either. I don't think either is superior to the other (twist or push pull) the main thing is how much range vs. ease of use. Anyway I get along with the push pull fine now. FWIW

[RJSorensen]

My old Minolta zooms were of the push-pull type and I am quite tickled with it. It handles like a little Browning double barrel skeet gun . . . fast and accurate. I noticed this morning that as an added benefit, I have a lot more shots that are acceptable. My reject rate for out of focus, blurry and etc. et al., is far less. In a way it makes one more productive . . . my time seemed better spent.

Also my many thanks to those whom can and have commented on this thread.

[Adam Hicks]

Yeah you know I just can't imagine being able to find the zoom points between 100-400 as quickly with a twist zoom vs. the current push/pull. I know it's weird, and different from the rest of the lenses, but out at the track, when I need to zoom all the way in, I can do it in a fraction of a second, vs. twisting a ring to get from one end to the other. If they made the twist zoom fast enough to compare with the speed of the 100-400 it would be difficult to find points in between as easily, but if they made it slow, it would take too many twists to get from one end to the other. That's my concern and the reason I'm perfectly happy with the current design.

Adam

[Cadwell]

I don't really find the push-pull zoom a problem; in fact it works quite well. Swapping between lenses of different zoom types isn't an issue either... I can only thing of one occasion when I swapped from the 100-400 to a twist zoom lens and tried to pull the front off of it... :lol:

For me, the great advantage of the 100-400L is it's relatively light weight and compactness. It makes a great walkaround zoom for trackside.

[Jon]

Coming from the old MF days when one-touch was best (focus and zoom without readjusting your hand), I think if you give it a chance, you're going to like it. It has the advantage that as the lens extends further out your hand supporting the lens goes with it too. Result - better support for the camera-lens combination.

[condyk]

I'm wondering if this is a fair comparison? Maybe the 80-400 OS sigma would be better to compare with at the price point ... and given they both have OS/IS and both go to 400mm.

Of course, it's just sour grapes because I have a Bigma and can't afford the 100-400!

[Adam Hicks]

How on earth did you find this thread :) It's from early Feb...

But welcome to the thread!

[condyk]

I was being a good boy and checking out reviews/polls of wide(ish!) lenses rather than asking 'the same old questions' via the forum and there was my baby, OK, my big fat baby ... or even my very big fat heavy baby ... being beaten up by a much more expensive foe! Given the almost orgasmic review of the 80-400mm OS posted last year, also posted here-abouts, it seemed the logical comparison! Gawd ... I'm almost tempted to consider one myself: could swing it if I sold my two big Sigmas ... just kidding, erm, I think!!

[RJSorensen]

LOL, My wife can swing the Canon but not the BigMa . . . that was all we needed to know in the end. If you know what I mean. I have many good shots, some posted from the BigMa, it is all where you want to be via weight and price. Or is that price and weight.

[raylks]

[QUOTE=RJSorensen]

I am thusly very pleased with the Canon all in all . . . even at a shorter mm length. I could use a 1200mm very easy. LOL!

QUOTE]

How could you have 1200mm with 100-400mm L. Are you using 2x t-con?

[RJSorensen]

I only have a 1.4 TC, the other is a wish and or plea for more length. "I could use a 1200mm very easy." That is true however, lol, always needing more.

[Andy_T]

LOL, My wife can swing the Canon but not the BigMa . . .

So your wife actually thinks that size isn't everything :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[grd003]

Coming from the old MF days when one-touch was best (focus and zoom without readjusting your hand), I think if you give it a chance, you're going to like it. It has the advantage that as the lens extends further out your hand supporting the lens goes with it too. Result - better support for the camera-lens combination.

I'm wrestling with the Sigma-Canon long zoom issues right now (5-weeks more and counting the days till I buy) and I worried about the push-pull, but then noticed what a pain it is to twist-zoom then reach back to manually focus (of course if I trusted the automatic focus on my Sigma 70-210 f2.8 this would not be an issue). So, I really appreciate your comment on the pleasures of push-pull -- I'm 75% sure I'm going Canon 100-400 and not Sigma 80-400 (eventhough I'd like the extra 20mm).

[luisv]

I'm wrestling with the Sigma-Canon long zoom issues right now (5-weeks more and counting the days till I buy) and I worried about the push-pull, but then noticed what a pain it is to twist-zoom then reach back to manually focus (of course if I trusted the automatic focus on my Sigma 70-210 f2.8 this would not be an issue). So, I really appreciate your comment on the pleasures of push-pull -- I'm 75% sure I'm going Canon 100-400 and not Sigma 80-400 (eventhough I'd like the extra 20mm).

I had your same thoughts and concerns, but it was about the Canon vs Bigma. After approx. 30mins of playing with both lenses in a local camera store I decided to purchase the Canon. The hardest part for me was justifying the price difference between the two lenses as both are excellent... both have weaknesses and strengths... but the weight and IS finally won me over. I justified the price difference of the Canon to the IS feature and L build quality. Maybe it was the copy I was looking at in the store, but the Bigma was much stiffer to zoom and I sometimes needed to point it downward before I could extend it. Once I set the Canon to a comfortable friction setting, pumping the zoom was a piece of cake.

I guess this test session gave me a slight edge in adjusting my zoom habits to the push/pull design, as it doesn't bother me at all now. As others have mentioned, it's pretty easy to get used to and I too find it faster to pump the zoom across the full range rather than twisting.

I know the 80-400 is a different lens than the Bigma, so I highly recommend that you visit a local store and try them both on your camera and test them side by side. I didn't think I would get used to the pump action either, but it's not as difficult as you might think. Best thing is to try it for yourself as you might feel totally different than what Canon 100-400 owners have experienced.

Keep in mind that like everything in this hobby... lenses are tools... it doesn't matter what people think, it doesn't matter what people say... it all depends on how you use the tool... don't buy the Canon becuase I say I like it better... buy it because you feel you can use it better than you can use the Sigma. What's better... having a lens that you can use well or having a lens that others say is better...

Hope I was helpfull... here's a recent picture of an old friend with the 100-400...

http://www.vazweb.com/images/cdp_forums/IMG_1566c.jpg

[grd003]

luisv -- I do waterfowl around here in SW.Florida and have looked at a million online images of them, but your shot, above, is the downright flatout best I have ever seen. Nice example with the 100-400.

I know I need the Bigma's reach -- you never have a long enough lens when you're out and about, hiking, trudging, tired, thirsty and the darn wildlife just keeps moving along ahead of you, just out of range. For me, a prime would not work out there either, 'cause when something shows up in front of you it is possible to zoom back and shoot. Birds just don't hang around, too often. Although, I keep telling myself, maybe a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x telecon might be the ideal, anyway; or the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with a 2x in my pocket. LOL

Anyway, like everyone else before they got their long zoom, this process is fatiguing. 5-weeks, and counting, and saving.

[luisv]

luisv -- I do waterfowl around here in SW.Florida and have looked at a million online images of them, but your shot, above, is the downright flatout best I have ever seen. Nice example with the 100-400.

Thanks grd003... I really appreciate the kind words...

I know I need the Bigma's reach -- you never have a long enough lens when you're out and about, hiking, trudging, tired, thirsty and the darn wildlife just keeps moving along ahead of you, just out of range. For me, a prime would not work out there either, 'cause when something shows up in front of you it is possible to zoom back and shoot. Birds just don't hang around, too often. Although, I keep telling myself, maybe a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x telecon might be the ideal, anyway; or the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with a 2x in my pocket. LOL

Anyway, like everyone else before they got their long zoom, this process is fatiguing. 5-weeks, and counting, and saving.

Exactly... I'm saving my pennies for a 1.4x and 2x TC as you never know when you need more reach. LOL

And just like you... I was there once... thinking and contemplating which lens to buy... so I know exactly how you feel. Good luck in your decision and let us know when you finally make up your mind...

[myth337]

oh.. sure.. show me another great shot (luisv - duck...) with the 100-400... the lens I almost bought.

I had been saving for this lens.. and just did an unplanned trip to Florida, dipped into the savings jar, but only found enough to get the 70-200/f2.8, not enough for the 100-400.

oh well.. I guess I'll have to start saving again.. maybe next year... ;)
(I love the 2.8 so far...)

Thanks for sharing the opinions and experiences with these lenses. I'm sure there are many people contemplating one or the other, and not everyone can borrow one for testing...

.. Lee

[Jon]

Really got busy on the second revival, didn't it? Glad you're all enjoying the lens (and my sympathies for thos e of you still drooling . . . I'm that way on the 70-200 IS which I need to fill in a serious gap!

[myth337]

I'm that way on the 70-200 IS which I need to fill in a serious gap!man.. I lost sleep trying to justify sacrificing enough for the 2.8 Non IS. I would have had a heart attack if I had enough for the IS version.. which was a buck or three different from the 100-400.

my reasoning here was that the 2.8 would (should) be enough for low light concert work.. and the 100-400 IS would be what I need for Airshows and stuff.

.. I had actually been reading this post (and others) before and during my decision process.

[luisv]

oh.. sure.. show me another great shot (luisv - duck...) with the 100-400... the lens I almost bought.

LOL... Sorry myth337 I didn't mean to add fuel to the fire... LOL ;)


I had been saving for this lens.. and just did an unplanned trip to Florida, dipped into the savings jar, but only found enough to get the 70-200/f2.8, not enough for the 100-400.

oh well.. I guess I'll have to start saving again.. maybe next year... ;)
(I love the 2.8 so far...)

Thanks for sharing the opinions and experiences with these lenses. I'm sure there are many people contemplating one or the other, and not everyone can borrow one for testing...

.. Lee

Oh sure... wipe some salt into my wounds... I'm lusting for the 70-200 2.8 (IS or non), but so far I'm extremely happy with the f4...

[myth337]

LOL... Sorry myth337 I didn't mean to add fuel to the fire... LOL ;)no problem... sniffle.. sniffle..Oh sure... wipe some salt into my wounds... I'm lusting for the 70-200 2.8 (IS or non)as for this.. I had decided the F4 would be fine... and it would fit my budget.. which would allow me to buy a few other goodies... but it was my Wife who talked me into spending the extra to get the 2.8. She said i would only complain every time I took / couldn't take a shot in low light... so I should get the 2.8! No... not the IS version.. just the plain 2.8!! (she wasn't that sympathetic..)

[luisv]

as for this.. I had decided the F4 would be fine... and it would fit my budget.. which would allow me to buy a few other goodies... but it was my Wife who talked me into spending the extra to get the 2.8. She said i would only complain every time I took / couldn't take a shot in low light... so I should get the 2.8! No... not the IS version.. just the plain 2.8!! (she wasn't that sympathetic..)

Very nice... do you think your wife can speak to mine? My wife isn't as sympathetic as yours... she wouldn't care if I complained. LOL :lol:

[myth337]

hehehe... she's listened to the complaints about my 300D:
- only taking 4 frames...
- no AI servo mode...
- the limited range of the kit lens...

.. and decided to avoid future complaints.

I was really surprised that she let me do this. Do you know "Home Improvements" with Tim Allen?? there are one or two shows where his wife allows him to work on their house, or buy a new / old car. I felt just like he did.. "You aren't playing with my feelings, are you?" :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

All I can say is..

"What? There are people that still don't have the 100-400mm"?? :lol:

[myth337]

(quietly breaking open daughters piggy bank... separating coins from buttons, sea shells, barbie dishes.. carefully crazy-glueing pieces back together.. depositing pilferred coins in completely empty savings jar with the words "Canon 100-400" written in black marker on white tape)

[luisv]

LOL... you two guys are funny...

[malla1962]

I'm wondering if this is a fair comparison? Maybe the 80-400 OS sigma would be better to compare with at the price point ... and given they both have OS/IS and both go to 400mm.

Of course, it's just sour grapes because I have a Bigma and can't afford the 100-400!But you had the 100-400?:D

[condyk]

But you had the 100-400?:D

Correct ... after my Bigma, 80-400 OS, 100-300 IS I bought the 300mm IS L and 100-400 IS L. This thread is very old.

[malla1962]

Correct ... after my Bigma, 80-400 OS, 100-300 IS I bought the 300mm IS L and 100-400 IS L. This thread is very old.:o:o:o:o:o

[NullMind]

Humm, I just saw this thread

I was planning in buying the 50-500 Sigma F/4-6.3 EX DG HSM

Is that not a good buy ?

[condyk]

I was planning in buying the 50-500 Sigma F/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Is that not a good buy ?

It is a very good buy. Anyone who tells you different is either blind or never owned one. I've owned the 100-400 IS L, 100-300 f4, 80-400 OS and 300mm IS L and the Bigma certainly more than holds its own. 500mm is really superb for wildlife and birding.

Get a light monopod and you're away ;) Feisol make a really good carbon fibre one at a decent price.

[Zeke]

I'm borrowing a 100-400mm L this weekend to have a test shoot. Hopefully it does what I need it to!

[nitsch]

I'm borrowing a 100-400mm L this weekend to have a test shoot. Hopefully it does what I need it to!

Have fun! You'll love it. :D

Take time to find out how to get the best from the lens, if you haven't used anything of this length before you'll find you have a bit to learn.

[NullMind]

It is a very good buy. Anyone who tells you different is either blind or never owned one. I've owned the 100-400 IS L, 100-300 f4, 80-400 OS and 300mm IS L and the Bigma certainly more than holds its own. 500mm is really superb for wildlife and birding.

Get a light monopod and you're away ;) Feisol make a really good carbon fibre one at a decent price.

Thanks :)

I just placed my order for the Sigma 150mm Macro, and thhat (the 50-500) is to be my next purchase (yep, this hobby is getting expensive)

Is this the mon opod you refering to ?

http://www.feisol.com/1401new.htm

any suggestion for a head ?

Null

[condyk]

Is this the mon opod you refering to ?

http://www.feisol.com/1401new.htm

any suggestion for a head ?



That's the one ... there are few Feisol owners on here now and never seen a bad word. If you want light weight it's ideal. Personally, the weight means I carry it rather than leave it in the car boot!! I use the Manfrotto 488 RC2 ballhead and highly recommend it. Check the max weight it will support. From memory I think it will be Ok with the Bigma. I used to carry my ex 100-400 IS L fixed to it and the mono and then slung over my shoulder. No problems. I'm not sure it'll ever be worth my while getting anything more expensive. You don't really need the paqnning action on a mono but you can clamp it in a second and if you want to use it on a tripod anytimne then you can then unclamp the panning. Really works very nicely.