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 11 Jul 2008 (Friday) 19:17
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Mini-Review of the Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400L

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

History:
I had a Bigma that was very sharp in the past, then I picked up a 100-400L pretty cheap, so I did a mini-review back then of the Dust Pump against the Bigma. I found both to be very good IQ wise, and the slight nod went to the Canon due to weight, IS, and the ease of adding TCs and manually focusing over the Bigma. I decided to pick up this latest Sigma lens, since it has OS, and I was very optimistic that I would find it to be comparable to the Canon and my old Bigma.

Shooting Conditions:
Nice sunny day so that I would not have any issues with AF, and all hand-held at ISO 800. I sat on my porch chair and did these shots pretty quickly to get them all in the same exposure conditions. I shot large JPG for all shots, on a 1DMKIII. I ran a quick micro adjustment on the Sigma, I have had a much longer time period over the past months to tweak the 100-400 to the MKIII, so that may be a factor as well to some extent here on some of the discrepancies between the lenses. I took the filter off the Canon, so that it would not be a factor in this. Also, I didn't quite hit the correct zoom factor on the Sigma, as all I could do is get close to the markings on the barrel.

Post Processing:
I have an action that I ran for each and every shot, so the post processing was the same for each. I do an auto-level, USM contrast step, overlay layer with high pass at around the 1.0 mark, then merge. No saturation steps or USM sharpening steps.

Personal Conclusions:
The Sigma is longer than the Canon by quite a bit, and won't fit in my bag if I keep it. The OS seems to be much better than the IS on the Canon, BUT only when it is not doing a strange little twitch from time to time, it was really bugging me. I could see it jerk from time to time, other times it was so locked in, it was uncanny. I think they have a little work yet on this version of OS. The color rendition is different than the Canon. It cannot utilize the 77mm filters either, like the Canon and so many of the other lenses, both Canon and Sigma.

The Canon seems to resolve more detail though at different points, at least with my copies. It could be that I have a very sharp 100-400 and a softer Sigma, it is hard to tell with such a new lens. It could be something to do with the contrast difference between the two lenses as well. The Canon is still lighter and smaller overall, but I really did like the zoom ring on the Sigma versus the push/pull/friction locking ring on the Canon. The Canon is easier to manually focus as well, but with age, I am sure like all other Sigma lenses, the focus ring will become much looser/smoother.

Overall, it seems to be a really good lens at its price point and its range, but I think Sigma needs to address the OS behavior, and it is still a very long lens, it reminds me a bit of the older 170-500mm lens. If I didn't have the Canon, I would seriously consider this lens as my defacto telephoto lens. I will play a bit more with both lenses, and one of the two will then go up for sale.

Jul 11, 2008 19:17

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Here is the Canon at 100mm and the Sigma at 150mm, very similar in IQ at the low ends of each lens in my opinion.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:20

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Here is the Canon at 200mm and the Sigma at 200mm, I can see a color difference at this point.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:22

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Here is the Canon at 300mm (wide open f/5.6) and the Sigma (wide open f6.3) at 300mm, I can see the color difference still, and the Canon is somehow starting to resolve some of the brick/stone pores better than the Sigma.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:25

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Here is the Canon at 400mm (stopped to f6.3) and the Sigma at 400mm (wide open at f6.3), the Canon is still showing more details strangely enough.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:26

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Here is the Sigma at 500mm... I think this is the strong end of the lens, better than throughout the rest of the zoom range.

Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:27

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Now I decided to add a Kenko Super DG 2x to both lenses. The 100-400 has been a proven performer with this TC, so I thought I would try it out on both. I tape the pins on the TC, and both lenses worked with the MKIII AF.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:30

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Now I tried to stack the Kenko 2x and 1.4x on both lenses. For both, on the MKIII, there is now not enough light for the AF engine, so I have to manually focus. As you see, I am able to manually focus the Canon pretty well, but is harder on the Sigma. Most likely it is the fact that the lens is so new that the manual zoom ring is very stiff and I had a hard time holding the lens (much like the Bigma when I did the same tests) and manually focusing.

I have a pretty good 100-400 moon shot with manual focusing with the TC stacked, I will try to repeat this test with both lenses at a later date.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:33

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
26,238 posts
GALLERY: 16 photos

Joined May 2002

Northern Indiana
MORE INFO

Here is the Sigma at the 500mm end with the 2x, then with the 2.8x stacked combo. Again, it is hard to manually focus with the stack.

Sigma 2x 500mm Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma 2.8x 500mm Full Size JPG (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Jul 11, 2008 19:37

Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
_aravena
isn't this answer a stickie yet?
_aravena's Avatar
12,448 posts

Joined Feb 2007

Back in the 757
MORE INFO

No pics on the last post but...oh, you just posted it.

Anywho, great taste. It makes me lean more towards the Canon a bit despite the extra 100 zoom, which as typically stated on the long end can seem like little. All depends on what you're shooting though.

Still, money wise it makes ya think but the 100-400 used ain't too shabby. Keep them coming!

Jul 11, 2008 19:42

Last Shot Photography
My Siteexternal link ~ Gear List ~ Bag Reviews

LOG IN TO REPLY
brecklundin
Goldmember
brecklundin's Avatar
2,179 posts

Joined Jun 2008
MORE INFO

TS:

Thanks for the great side by side of these lenses. It makes me glad I am getting the 150-500.

Correct me if I am wrong but, to my eye, there is slightly less detail on the Sigma. Is this though the result of a tad less contrast? To me it looks as if with just a small amount of contrast and maybe black levels the images might end up being very close. But being so new to this I have no real clue so I though I would ask.

Overall I like what I am seeing from your pics...thanks again!

Jul 11, 2008 20:58

Real men shoot Pentax because we're born with our own Canon's!!
{Ok...ok, some of use just have a PnS but it it always makes me happy! :D}
Pentax K5, K20D, Three Amigos (Pentax FA 31/1.8 Limited Silver, Pentax FA 43/1.9 Limited Silver, Pentax FA 77/1.8 Limited Silver), Pentax DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited, Sigma 24-60/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Tee Why's Avatar
10,595 posts

Joined Feb 2006

Pasadena, CA
MORE INFO

Thanks for the comparison. Look like the pumper has more resolution and better colors to me.

Jul 11, 2008 21:02

Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
mrfourcows
Goldmember
mrfourcows's Avatar
2,108 posts

Joined May 2006

london
MORE INFO

good stuff. thanks a lot!

Jul 11, 2008 21:03 as a reply to Tee Why's post 1 minute earlier.

gear | flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Tony-S's Avatar
9,809 posts

Joined Jan 2006

Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
MORE INFO

Team,

It looks like there's a slight difference in the exposures of the images, with the Canon a bit darker than the Sigma. Do you think that might account for the differences in detail?

Jul 11, 2008 21:17

Gear list
"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.
Zeiss 35/2 for sale.

LOG IN TO REPLY
hudge
Member
199 posts
GALLERY: 1 photo

Joined Apr 2007
MORE INFO

Tony-S wrote in post #5895194external link
Team,

It looks like there's a slight difference in the exposures of the images, with the Canon a bit darker than the Sigma. Do you think that might account for the differences in detail?

Yeah, with many of the head-to-head shots the exposure is not the same for each lens.

Jul 11, 2008 21:36



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

60,622 views & 0 likes for this thread
Mini-Review of the Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400L
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, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




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

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 browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.33version 1.33
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00089 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is jea46
623 guests, 451 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5175, that happened on Jun 16, 2015