Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 19 Mar 2011 (Saturday) 06:36
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400

 
MikeZoo
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Mar 19, 2011 06:36 |  #1

I'm in desperate need of a decent long zoom lens, but unfortunately I live a long way from any decent camera stores so I can't test any lens' out so I can see what performs best for me :( But what are your recommendations? I need it for wildlife photography mostly, to bring the action right to me, my current zoom lens just doesn't quite cut it, and what of teleconverters? 2x for my 55-250?

Your insights would be greatly appreciated!


Canon Powershot SX20 IS (SOLD), Canon EOS 550D (Rebel Kiss X4)
EFS 18-55mm IS, EFS 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
altitude604
Goldmember
altitude604's Avatar
1,665 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
Mar 19, 2011 06:54 |  #2

i wouldn't use a 2x or even a 1.4x on the 55-250. while it is a decent lens, the teleconverters would take a bite from the image quality.

you'd be better off with the 100-400L. :)


Erik - Three Miles Finalexternal link
- Gear List -

LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
katodog's Avatar
3,977 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2008
Carol Stream, Illinois
Mar 19, 2011 06:58 |  #3

Or you're better off with the 150-500mm OS, which has the same IQ as the 100-400mm, longer reach, better stabilization, and cheaper price.


The 100-400mm is a nice lens, but it can't get you 500mm, it doesn't have 4-stop stabilization, and it costs more. Don't be fooled by the fancy white paint job, the red rubber band, and "Canon" slapped on the side; the Sig is an equal in image quality, and superior in other aspects. But, either one would be a great lens to have.


The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickr (external link) - Facebook (external link) - Smoke Photography - - Sound-Activated Paint

LOG IN TO REPLY
duane0524
Goldmember
duane0524's Avatar
4,840 posts
Joined Aug 2008
South of Boston, MA
Mar 19, 2011 07:09 |  #4

MikeZoo wrote in post #12048977external link
I'm in desperate need of a decent long zoom lens, but unfortunately I live a long way from any decent camera stores so I can't test any lens' out so I can see what performs best for me :( But what are your recommendations? I need it for wildlife photography mostly, to bring the action right to me, my current zoom lens just doesn't quite cut it, and what of teleconverters? 2x for my 55-250?

Your insights would be greatly appreciated!

Why don't you rent them to try them out before you buy one?


Canon 50D | Canon 17-55 | Sigma 30 1.4 | Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II| Canon 85 1.8 | 430EXII| 580EX ll | ST-E2 | Canon TC 1.4x II | Benro Travel Angel C1682TB0

LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Mar 19, 2011 07:42 |  #5

katodog wrote in post #12049029external link
Or you're better off with the 150-500mm OS, which has the same IQ as the 100-400mm, longer reach, better stabilization, and cheaper price.

Maybe the Sigma is better
... or maybe not!

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om ...20-400_150-500_50-500.htmexternal link

http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/sigma150_500.h​tmexternal link




LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
katodog's Avatar
3,977 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2008
Carol Stream, Illinois
Mar 19, 2011 07:48 |  #6

I speak from experience with both lenses out in the real world, not from indoors with charts or shooting at static objects. Both lenses have identical IQ, and the Sig does have better stabilization, and it does have longer reach, and it is cheaper. Facts, my good man, facts.

If you saw similar shots from both lenses you couldn't tell which image was shot with which lens.


OF course I didn't toss up a fancy "lab test" website comparing the two, so I must be full of crap.


The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickr (external link) - Facebook (external link) - Smoke Photography - - Sound-Activated Paint

LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeZoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Mar 19, 2011 07:54 |  #7

Awesome advice all, I think I'm going to go with the Sigma, on paper it seems the right choice, I can't wait to start shooting! Thanks all!


Canon Powershot SX20 IS (SOLD), Canon EOS 550D (Rebel Kiss X4)
EFS 18-55mm IS, EFS 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
gasrocks's Avatar
13,431 posts
Joined Mar 2005
Portage, Wisconsin USA
Mar 19, 2011 08:32 |  #8

For wildlife I also would get the Sigma. Let us all know how it worked out after you get it.


GEAR LIST
_______________

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shane ­ W
Senior Member
839 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Traverse City, Michigan
Mar 19, 2011 09:03 |  #9

I picked up the Sigma 150-500 after reading a bazillion posts and threads on here. Used 100-400L was still more than my budget and after looking at Katodog's stuff he has posted, I was convinced. I have been more than happy so far and only spending $750.00 on an almost new lens makes me even happier! I've said it before... "Thanks katodog for your help!" He knows both these lenses very well!


Shane W

70D | Sig 10-20 | EF-S 15-85 | EF 70-200 2.8L | Sig 150-500 | Viv 28 2.5 | Sig 30 | Tak 50 1.4 [COLOR=blue]| EF 100 2.8 Macro | 1.4x TC | Nodal Ninja 3 | Tripods | Some Flashes | My flickr external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
artyman's Avatar
14,388 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Joined Feb 2009
Hampshire UK
Mar 19, 2011 11:07 |  #10

Yeah well the Sigma 150-500 can only produce shots like this, so you wouldn't wan to get saddled with a crappy lens like that would you :D Actually Either the Sigma or Canon 100-400 would give you similar results.

Crop

IMAGE: http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q290/artymanphotos/Photography/Birds/Img_5951c.jpg

Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​ukexternal link
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
Allan.L
Goldmember
Allan.L's Avatar
1,056 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Ontario, Canada
Mar 19, 2011 11:11 |  #11

artyman wrote in post #12049840 (external link)
Yeah well the Sigma 150-500 can only produce shots like this, so you wouldn't wan to get saddled with a crappy lens like that would you :D Actually Either the Sigma or Canon 100-400 would give you similar results.

Crop
QUOTED IMAGE

Brilliant :)


Allan

LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
katodog's Avatar
3,977 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2008
Carol Stream, Illinois
Mar 19, 2011 11:29 as a reply to artyman's post |  #12

Oh, so you want images, huh?? Okay...


First, the "fast enough to track an eagle in a dive" shot...

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5341187490_03f2ab322c_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5341187​490/] (external link)
Jan 09 008 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

Then the typical "yup, that's a beautiful shot of a deer" shot...

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2767/4107522728_1a46a6ab78_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/4107522​728/] (external link)
Deer (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr


And we'll finish with a few "Holy Crap!! That is a fantastic lens" shots...

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5346325299_9624af9833_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5346325​299/] (external link)
Jan 09 033 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5362779568_424350e4a5_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5362779​568/] (external link)
Jan 16 030 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5439757779_a0b9aba7fe_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5439757​779/] (external link)
Feb 12 018 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4150/5440360614_b9e11ef53b_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5440360​614/] (external link)
Feb 12 020 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

Okay, one more, the "this was shot with the 'inferior' lens" shot...

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5399789688_a597695c64_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5399789​688/] (external link)
Jan 29 018 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickr (external link) - Facebook (external link) - Smoke Photography - - Sound-Activated Paint

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
16,625 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Mar 19, 2011 13:52 |  #13

first off...no TC will fit the 55-250IS...

to answer your question though i think it mainly comes down to budget...the canon is nearly double the price of the 150-500mm...is it twice as good?...i don't think so, but if you've got the budget for it, maybe it's worth it to you...but think about it, you could practically have a 400L, and the sigma for the same price as the 100-400L


Andre or Dre
gear list
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
GabooN
Member
GabooN's Avatar
148 posts
Joined May 2010
Windsor, Ontario
Mar 19, 2011 15:11 |  #14

Amazing eagle shots there!


| Canon 40D | EF-S 18-55mm IS | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF-S 55-250mm IS | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | YN-468 Speedlite | RF-602 Remote Trigger | WhiBal |
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Beachcomber ­ Joe
Senior Member
466 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Southwest Florida
Mar 19, 2011 16:58 as a reply to GabooN's post |  #15

I went through the same decision a little over a year ago. In my personal real world comparison I found that the Canon 100-400L had slightly better image quality when pixel peeping. It also gave the impression of better build quality. The Sigma 150-500 had faster auto focusing and light years better stabilization. Plus the Sigma gives you an extra 100mm of reach (160mm on a crop body). With BIF and wildlife, the Sigma's reach, ability to fast autofocus, and better stabilization far outweigh the minor difference in IQ. I purchased the Sigma 150-500.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

47,204 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00099 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is kentuckyapple
888 guests, 610 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016