100-400L or 50-500 Sigma? Better? Same?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello, been doing a lot of research on various lenses lately, and right now I'm curious about this 50-500mm Sigma. Love it's range. Covers a lot of what I need making it highly cost affective to me. Especially with a price of $999.00. I love that 100-400L, but I'd really like the extra 100mm, and the 400 dollars savings.

So, does the sigma take a big hit on image quality compared to the canon? Anyone have examples? Also, the sigma appears considerably larger... think it's too heavy to carry around by hand? Because that's all I do. Hand held....

Just curious, thanks for any help!

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59931

180 votes for the 100-400,... 32 votes for the 50-500mm

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

hahahahahaha!!! well said cyber, well said! haha, nice. Guess that answers my question.:lol:

Unless of course someone has something to add!

[CyberDyneSystems]

:)

To be less of a statistition.. ;)

I've owned both...

the advantages that the 100-400mm have are as follows;
Much lighter!!!!!
Slightly faster AF (not much though.. it is quite slow for a Canon L and the Sigma is really fast!)
Faster Zooming via push pull.
Image Stabilization!
Slightly faster aperture @ 400mm
Sharper image quality over entire range.
Did I mention it is MUCH lighter??? ;)

The Sigma has 500mm..
And it goes wider.. (not really usefull often as it is probebly the worst 50mm you in the world! :lol: )
Sigma is definitely the best value in a 500mm lens. No question.


Here's my bottom line.

When I got my 500mm Prime.. the Sigma 50-500mm Zoom became useless to me.. I NEVER used it again.

Eventually I tried a 100-400mm... and I use that about as often as I use my 500mm prime :)

that pretty much says it all.. I cnsider the 100-400 imags to be good enough to be displayed with those I get from my Prime, while the 100-400 is super portable, light and flexible.

[robertwgross]

... while the 100-400 is super portable, light and flexible.

You must have arm muscles made of steel.

I shoot mine off a tripod about 99% of the time.

---Bob Gross---

[xuxu1]

A friend of mine has one (on a N*kon body). He shoots mainly aviation pics.

Having seen my EF100-400 L IS and comparing pics. Yes, i also shoot planes now and then. He is making up his mind if he should sell his N*kon gear and the Bigma and switch over too Canon.

For him it´s also a question of money. Otherwise he would have switched already!

ED

[malla1962]

Hello, been doing a lot of research on various lenses lately, and right now I'm curious about this 50-500mm Sigma. Love it's range. Covers a lot of what I need making it highly cost affective to me. Especially with a price of $999.00. I love that 100-400L, but I'd really like the extra 100mm, and the 400 dollars savings.

So, does the sigma take a big hit on image quality compared to the canon? Anyone have examples? Also, the sigma appears considerably larger... think it's too heavy to carry around by hand? Because that's all I do. Hand held....

Just curious, thanks for any help!i just got my canon 100-400 and verry pleased with it,here is a pic of a pelican at 400mm with no sharpening.and the thunderbirds shot at
100mm

[condyk]

hahahahahaha!!! well said cyber, well said! haha, nice. Guess that answers my question.:lol:!

Well ... if you think about it then it may not!

While the polls are EXTREMELY informative, they reflect either what people have used and been happy (or otherwise!) with, what people aspire to own, what they have read about, or possibly experienced in a shop or for just a short amount of time.

So, I have owned a BIgma and am happy to recommend it and may even have voted for it in the poll, BUT I have not owned a number of lenses in the poll that I may, with real in the field EXPERIENCE, prefer over the Bigma. So, is my vote worth more or less than the people who voted for the 100-400mm, or anything else? Am I right and they wrong? No, it's all subjective based usually on restricted, if any, experience of the alternatives.

The 100-400 IS is heavily lauded on this forum and so people then buy it BUT there may be a few other lenses that are actually as good or better as all round pieces of kit. We each need to be CLEAR about what we want from a lens and what we want to spend. It takes time and sometimes people just buy what everyone tells them to buy: the recommendations of the 70-200 F4 for 'wildlife' is a classic one and I wonder how many making such a recommendation have used it for anywhere other than their garden or a Zoo, that's even if they have owned one themselves!!

The way to judge is to test each one in the field, which is clearly very, very difficult to do, and use criteria that may be meaningful to the majority of people: things like price, weight and portability, sharpness, contrast, colour rendition, speed of zoom, build, SH resale value, does it have a hood and tripod mount, etc. Very tricky!

What I have started to do is check out as many sample shots from a lens I am interested in as I can, after doing the kind of research I mentioned on criteria, but this is also prone to problems as some people clearly take awful shots while others take great shots, irrespective of what they are using. I think you can develop an eye for a good shot and as long as I can find a few such shots, 100% crops unprocessed, from a lens I am interested in then I am reasonably happy in its abilities.

One of the advantages of SIG's is you can actually ask peoplem who own a specific lens to send through a 100% crop. I have done that several times and others have for me. VERY useful to guage potential.

I would also check out the review section of the fredmiranda forum as the user reviews there are from people who OWN the lens they review rather than people who TALK ABOUT or vote for lenses they don't own and have never used.

Personally, I think CDS's second post is very useful. He's pin-pointed the kind of direction I am heading in. I have the 100-300 F4 Sigma and Ext for my shorter and mid range wildlife zooming, offering quality AND flexibility, BUT my next buy will probably be a longer prime to take over the 300-400mm and beyond range without losing quality.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Wow, thanks CDS, and Condyk! Also Malla, thanks for posting those pics! Very nice, very sharp, impressive! Thanks for making them so big too, that really helps.

Condyk, one of your threads is actually what made me consider the 50-500 bigma. I saw the pic you took of the lion, and the 100% crop. To me it looked more than sharp enough for my needs. Made me curious, that's for sure.

CDS says the AF is faster on the canon? Is there a truely noticable difference there? Because which ever lens I get I intend on using it for distant sports photography. So, fast AF would be nice.

Thanks everyone! And keep up the posts! This is some really helpful stuff so far! :-)

[kraterz]

The 100-400L has IS. The 50-500 doesn't. The 100-400L does f/5.6 at the long end. The 50-500 goes down to a dull f/6.3. The 50-500 is sharp, the 100-400L is sharper. That said, I would never buy a lens like this without some form of image stabilization, unless it's a 120$ lens (my second hand 100-300USM cost me just that much :) :) )

[GeForceFX]

a picture with the 100-400L and a 100% crop:


http://users.pandora.be/ggoole1/cdp/IMG_3718.jpg
http://users.pandora.be/ggoole1/cdp/IMG_3718crop.jpg


sharp enough for me ;)

[Croasdail]

The only way you will really be able to tell is go to your local photo shop and try them both out. Take your body with a memory card, shoot some pics of both, then take it home and do what you normally do with both. Only then will you be able to tell if in your hands the extra money brings out that much more latent talent you may have. Trust me gear can hold you back, but you can also over buy too. A Ford f250 with a diesel may be a "superior" pickup truck then the f150, but if most of what you do is go to home depot on the weekends, the F150 will do the job just as well. Point being the advice here should give you your short list but should not be the final answer. Only by test driving will you be able to see if the extra investment is worth it. I have yet to see and "example" shot that there isn't some visible flaw in the image... it is just which flaws you see and make a difference to you. And don't get carried away with sharpness, there is also color saturation and contrast - which can be fixed in PS, but that again is a personal workflow choice. Good luck and go give them a try.

[Muzz]

I am the proud owner of condyk's Bigma having bought it off these very forums last week.

I have to agree with what he has said previously I used to think along the lines of "If it aint Canon I aint buying it" but then I looked at the price range of the Canon 400mm onwards lenses and there is no way I can justify that kind of money. I am a newbie to this Digital SLR malarky having upgraded from a Sony F-505V and IMHO its the user not the equipment that makes good pics.

Sure we all have luck and if we press the right amount of buttons chances are you will get a great pic but give a pro a "average" set of gear heck even a 35mm camera and odds on they can produce better images time after time than me with the best equipment money can buy.

Like Dave said polls are polls and for me personal apprasial or bad vibes (word of mouth) gave me better standing than the poll did. I dont have that much $/£ kicking around for this hobby so it was quite simply a matter of bang for buck and which was higher.

Also I wanted as much reach as possible so for a start 400mm was less attractive than 500mm and when it comes to aviation photography and wildlife shots the extra 100mm comes in very handy.

Since owning the Bigma I have never found myself in a moment where I have thought "I wish I had more reach so I could get a better shot" something I doubt I could say about the Canon 400mm.

Now that I have had hands on experience with the Bigma and taken a large amount of shots I can safely say IMHO its the best thing I could have bought for my 350D and it hasnt come off the camera yet!

I will get some L glass at a later stage but only because I will come accross it second hand from a friend for my work so I still love my Canon :)

Sure the Canon lens has IS however I have used the Bigma on a tripod and handheld but once again bang for buck ratio for me meant that I couldnt justify the extra £/$ for IS.

So having recieved Daves mint Bigma I went out into the real word ("eek") and snapped away and sure the lens is heavy but as Dave said to me "Eat your porridge Muzz" and he is right. It is not that heavy and lets face it a 500mm lens isnt meant to be light now is it? :)

I feel "funny" walking up to a local photography spot with the Bigma then zooming all the way in and folk just point as if to say "What the hell....." :D

So my advice is simple if you can get your hands on the goods then thats a good way of knowing which one to get as everyone is different when it comes to personal tastes and prefernces.

As for polls I use them as a guide just like in real life polls often dont reflect the true feelings as we often see in elections etc :)

Happy snapping whatever you get!!

Muzz :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Woah, thanks muzz!

[CyberDyneSystems]

You must have arm muscles made of steel.

I shoot mine off a tripod about 99% of the time.

---Bob Gross---

But.. it doesn't need a trailer ;)