LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 19 Mar 2011 (Saturday) 06:36   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
MikeZoo
Hatchling
Joined Feb 2011
4 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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!

Post #1, Mar 19, 2011 06:36:44


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
Joined Nov 2009
1,661 posts
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
[MORE/SHARE]

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. :)

Post #2, Mar 19, 2011 06:54:56


Erik - Three Miles Finalexternal link
- Gear List -

LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
katodog's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
3,977 posts
Carol Stream, Illinois
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #3, Mar 19, 2011 06:58:49


The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickrexternal link-external linkFacebookexternal linkhttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external linkSmoke Photography-external linkSound-Activated Painthttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external linkhttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
duane0524
Goldmember
duane0524's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
4,839 posts
South of Boston, MA
[MORE/SHARE]

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?

Post #4, Mar 19, 2011 07:09:03


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
Joined Jun 2008
13,781 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #5, Mar 19, 2011 07:42:16




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
katodog
Goldmember
katodog's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
3,977 posts
Carol Stream, Illinois
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #6, Mar 19, 2011 07:48:37


The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickrexternal link-external linkFacebookexternal linkhttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external linkSmoke Photography-external linkSound-Activated Painthttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external linkhttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeZoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
Joined Feb 2011
4 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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!

Post #7, Mar 19, 2011 07:54:22


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
Joined Mar 2005
13,431 posts
Portage, Wisconsin USA
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #8, Mar 19, 2011 08:32:02


GEAR LIST
_______________

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shane ­ W
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2008
836 posts
Traverse City, Michigan
[MORE/SHARE]

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!

Post #9, Mar 19, 2011 09:03:00


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
Cream of the Crop
artyman's Avatar
Joined Feb 2009
14,292 posts
Hampshire UK
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #10, Mar 19, 2011 11:07:53


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
Senior Member
Allan.L's Avatar
Joined Jul 2010
981 posts
Ontario, Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

artyman wrote in post #12049840external 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 :)

Post #11, Mar 19, 2011 11:11:38


Allan

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
katodog
Goldmember
katodog's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
3,977 posts
Carol Stream, Illinois
[MORE/SHARE]

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 008external 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
Deerexternal 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 033external 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 030external 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 018external 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 020external 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 018external link by Ed Durbin (Katodog)external link, on Flickr

Post #12, Mar 19, 2011 11:29:58 as a reply to artyman's post 22 minutes earlier.


The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked - Photographers shoot to thrill, not to kill
My Gear- Flickrexternal link-external linkFacebookexternal linkhttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external linkSmoke Photography-external linkSound-Activated Painthttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external linkhttp://katophoto.smugm​ug.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
bit by the Supposed Title Fairy
DreDaze's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
15,030 posts
S.F. Bay Area
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #13, Mar 19, 2011 13:52:13


Andre or Dre
gear list
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
GabooN
Senior Member
GabooN's Avatar
Joined May 2010
148 posts
Windsor, Ontario
[MORE/SHARE]

Amazing eagle shots there!

Post #14, Mar 19, 2011 15:11:39


| 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
Joined Jan 2010
465 posts
Southwest Florida
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #15, Mar 19, 2011 16:58:55 as a reply to GabooN's post 1 hour earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
39,528 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 FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00091 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
1039 guests, 813 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Madden5D3

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.