100-400L, Sigma 50-500 or similar lense, help me choose

[Wrench]

Time for another lense. Sports and wildlife photography, mostly outdoors but I suppose there will eventually be a time when for some reason I'll want to use it indoors. What other lenses could I look for besides the 100-400L and the 50-500 Sigma?

[Wrench]

I've also come across the 170-500 Sigma and the Tamron 200-500. Any info or experience with these?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Take a look at the -=Top ten=- lens recomendations sticky thread.. there is a poll of the -=Top Ten=- Wildlife zooms.. among others.

[ScottE]

It depends on how you will use the lens.

If you need a 500 mm lens and shoot from a tripod, the 50-500 is better because it has 500 mm and the 100-400 does not.

If you shoot hand held, the 100-400 is better because it has image stablilzation.

I tested the two and shooting from a tripod using mirror lock up and a cable release the image quality is so close that it doesn't make a difference which you choose for that purpose.

I ended up with the 50-500 for wildlife because I use a tripod and often need as long a lens as I can get.

Scott

[Mitcon]

I went down the Bigma (50-500) path a few days ago, for me it was alot cheaper than the 100-400L and the extra 100mm reach is nice for wildlife. I have no problem shooting it handheld @ 500mm as long as I keep the shutter speeds high. I do prefer to use a tripod if I can. Not sure if it's fast enough for sports and indoor photography. I find it needs alot of light, but for the price and the photos I love it

[condyk]

Good advice that backs up my own experience. The 170-500mm is Ok from samples I've looked at. I wouldn't go that route myself. I dunno the Tamron.

I might add the 80-400mm OS (Sigma version of IS) to the list as it seems very well liked by owners, less expensive than the Canon, and handles well with excellent build and results. Bigma is a superb lens with great reach. I've had both the Sigma's and liked them but actually prefer my current 100-300mm f4 Sigma with 1.4x TCon in pure results quality terms: might be worth looking at too as you get 420mm.

For wildlife, I would opt for the Canon 100-400mm L IS if I didn't have to pay UK prices and could afford it, because IS gives a useful edge even though the Bigma image quality is at least as good. Because I do have to pay UK prices, and if I knew handheld shooting was going to be common place, I would go for the Sigma OS ... and probably will at the end of 2005 when I next go overseas.

Not sure how good any of these would be indoors honestly. Maybe the 100-300mm f4 might do it well mounted. Not a lens to swing about trying to take fast action shots, even though the AF speed is awesome! Not confident about the Bigma handling that side because it loves light and decent mounting. The IS/OS might be Ok, but no doubt current owners will chip in. I've never shot indoors with big lenses. Dunno about sports side either. Check out user comments at www.fredmiranda.com ... very useful insights!

[GyRob]

i just bought a sigma 170/500 kept it a day and sent it back, the colour's were really good but it was only sharp at f11/ f16 so for action shots it was a no no .
Rob

[Medic1]

I have the 100-400 and love it....I just shot an airshow yesterday (handheld) and the pictures turned out great. I don't think I could have done this with the Bigma without a monopod or tripod. You may be able to, but after awhile with this combo I just can't hold it perfectly steady anymore.

Heres a couple pictures:

[gasrocks]

What lenses do you already have? Makes a difference in what I'd get next.

[Wrench]

thanks for all the replies. Right now I've got the following

Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II
Canon 50 1.8
Tamron 28-80
and (unfortunately) Quantaray 28-210

The new lense will be primarily for motorsports, local minor league baseball and some wildlife. Most of the time I'll be close enough to the subject to not need the reach of the Bigma's 500 and I believe the IS on the 100-400 would be a better benefit than the extra 100mm.

Do any of you have exp. with the Tamron 170-500? A guy at my LCS was telling me about them. They've got the SP glass that's supposed to comparable to the "L" glass.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... eh.. go for the 100-400mm.. for starters, the Tamron won't focus fast enough for sports or wildlife...

[ghocking]

Cannot comment on the Bima but the 100-400 is a fantastic lens, best in my collection, I just love it.

Always said I would stick to Canon lens but after buying Sigma 180 Macro I was very impressed, and would have no problems in buying Sigma high end lenses.

[RikWriter]

I have the Bigma and it's done fine by me, but a tripod is a MUST for it.

[Hellashot]

Originally Posted by RikWriter

I have the Bigma and it's done fine by me, but a tripod is a MUST for it.

I've used it just fine with a monopod. As long as the lens isn't twitching your shots should come out fine. I took some that were around 1/160 and came out good.

[ukjesters]

I was fortunate enough to have my good wife buy me the canon 100-400 is lens last week. I was in the same predicament as you were, choosing between the bigma the 80-400 os sigma lens and the canon, i too wanted a lens for motorsports and wildlife-primarily birding. I can say that i absolutely love the canon lense. Its extremely fast on focusing-and quiet and even with my limited knowledge of photography i have still managed to get some really good photos.

I can definately recommend the canon lens but i am unable to compare it with the other lenses as i have not used them.

Hope that may help in some way
Rick