Canon 100-400 or sigma 50-500

[loebas]

I think of buying the Canon lens, but read good reviews about the Sigma.
I want to use the lense only for wildlife.
Which lens do you recommend me

[Sicily1918]

I've got the Canon, and it's super-fast at focusing. I personally have not tried the Sigma, but as long as there's little/no softening at either point (50 or 500mm) it sounds really good... except that it doesn't have IS (OS for sigma). Try shooting in low to moderate light at 300mm without it (let alone 400mm or 500mm) :)

In my opinion, the IS and L glass is worth the extra $400 and 100mm drop. If anything because the lens is so slow at 500mm (f/6.3) w/no OS.

[condyk]

The bigma is great. Used mine for first time today:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70117 :)

I would have gone for the IS 100-400 Canon but too expensive for me. The Sigma 80-400MM with IS (or OS as Sigma call it!) is an option.

IS/OS is valuable if you think you'll not be able to use the lens in a stable way (tripod, beanbag, monopod, whatever). For wildlife you possibly wouldn't handhold a huge amount ... depends what you do.

[ScottE]

I tried both before I bought, and chose the Sigma 50-500.

I shoot mostly from a tripod and found the Sigma gave better performance, especially at the longer focal lengths where I wanted to use it. The 500 vs 400 telephoto effect is very noticeable.

If I did much hand-held photography I would have chosen the Canon 100-400, mainly because of the image stabilization.

Image quality is so close that it really isn't a factor in your decision. The question is, "Do you need a longer focal length or image stabilization more?"

Scott

[loebas]

I tried both before I bought, and chose the Sigma 50-500.

I shoot mostly from a tripod and found the Sigma gave better performance, especially at the longer focal lengths where I wanted to use it. The 500 vs 400 telephoto effect is very noticeable.

If I did much hand-held photography I would have chosen the Canon 100-400, mainly because of the image stabilization.

Image quality is so close that it really isn't a factor in your decision. The question is, "Do you need a longer focal length or image stabilization more?"

Scott


I do wildlife photography while i'm on a bike or hiking. So i don't plan to sit and wait with a tri- or monopod. the area I live has a lot of rather dark wood.
So i guess I will have more use for a lens with IS, and it means a long time saving to get it.

[condyk]

If you're going to do without meantime then you could buy a mint second hand 50-500mm, have some fun with it and then sell it at very little loss ... or even a small profit ... when you have enough for the Canon IS! :)

[Andy_T]

Also take a look here :wink: (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59931)

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

No lens has dominated the opinion polls of this forum as much as the 100-400mm...