Cannot Decide - Canon 100-400 vs Sigma 150-500

SOOC, hand-held @500mm, about 50ft away:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Uh oh, here we go, posting images again. These were all with the Sig 150-500mm OS. I know they really suck, but it's the best I can do with this crappy lens...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/4107522​728/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5367323​465/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5401722​812/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/4143597​407/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5076272​224/

^^ wow, yeah those pictures are pretty terrible...time to go for a Quantaray 70-300 instead!

hah kidding!!

Six weeks ago I was going through the same thing. I looked over all the threads, read all the reviews, and was scurinizing everything. I ended up buying the Sigma. After a few days with it, I was impressed by the IQ from 150 to about 450. The last part of the zoom was a little soft. I also didn't like that it was at f/6.3 at just over 400mm. The OS was great, but the main reason I was leaning towards the Sigma was the extra 100mm.

On top of that, I was always wondering if the 100-400 would be better. It drove me nuts.

After a few days, I wasn't convinced the Sigma was right for me. I ordered a 100-400 to try them side by side. I'm NOT a fan of the push/pull, and knowing a new version was in the near future bugged me. That being said, the IQ was way better then I expected after all the reports of them being soft.

It's sharp out to 400 and better in low light then the Sigma, although the IS doesn't seem as impressive.

I also think I got a decent copy, which seems to play a huge role in these debates.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

MikeI wrote in post #12266417
and knowing a new version was in the near future bugged me. That being said, the IQ was way better then I expected after all the reports of them being soft. It's sharp out to 400

There are more soft users than soft lenses. Regarding "all the reports of them being soft", first of all it is a very popular lens, so lots of people have it. That means that the very few bad copies percentage-wise turn out in larger numbers than less popular lenses with higher percentages of bad copies. People mistake the absolute numbers of Squeaky Wheels using the Internet Amplification Effect for a relative percentage. That's a mistake. It's a really great lens. I own one.

People have been talking about a "new version" expected "any day" from before I bought mine four years ago. They might still be saying the same thing four years from now.

Massimoda wrote in post #12265312
If im not mistaken the 150-500 is an APO DG no EX lens so its not the top of the range from Sigma...

EX designation is a function of several features, one of which is constant aperture (which the 150-500 does not have).

get the 100-400,
on a 7D

^^ What's to say similar pictures couldn't be taken with the 150-500 or 50-500? In fact I know they can, look at the lens sample archive... A bit of reasoning behind that statement or actual comparison would be helpful.

KaBlookie wrote in post #12266858
^^ What's to say similar pictures couldn't be taken with the 150-500 or 50-500? In fact I know they can, look at the lens sample archive... A bit of reasoning behind that statement or actual comparison would be helpful.

These pictures were posted simply to endorse my personal choice of the Canon 100-400, nothing else. I am sure a more adept and skillful photographer can take better pictures with either lenses, but I decided to get the 100-400 because, Canon seems to have better QC and I did not want to take a gamble with another brand.

One nice thing is that the 100-400mm is sharpest at 400 (at least seems to be on newer copies). Really as sharp except for the edges, as the 400mm prime. It also has a focus limiter. The Sigma is a good value, though. But if you want a Sigma I'd really consider the 50-500mm OS instead, I believe it's better on the long end than the 150-500mm is (I think the lenstip.com review of the 120-400, 150-500, and 50-500 OS accurately reflect what the lenses are like). You can get great shots with any of them though and the 150-500 and 120-400 are great values for sure. Here's the digital picture comparison between the 100-400 and the 150-500, both at 400mm 6.3 (the fastest aperture that the 150-500 has at that length)...my experience is that this reflects the IQ differences between them:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

They don't have crops from the 50-500 OS though which is too bad, but the one i'd tried was quite good at 500mm f/8 (not as good as the 100-400, but still very very usable)--I ended up not getting it because I felt it was more like 450mm than 500, and I didn't like that it was 6.3 at about 200mm...but I'd still recommend it, if you want more reach than the 100-400 I really feel it's the way to go--worth the extra cash imho. You will get different opinions though and some people here absolutely love their 150-500. So my advice is really to go somewher wher you can try them all and judge for yourself.

So funny, this comparison pops up weekly and the same people jump in, tell about their experience (again), post the same pictures. Don't get me wrong, I do like those pictures, especially Katodog's eagles. It's just funny to see the whole thing replay again and again, as if the Search function didn't exist
By the way, I used to own the Sigma 150-500mm, liked it, took about 20K shots with it, and currently own the Canon 100-400L. But I've already shared my thoughts a couple times in previous threads.

gabebalazs wrote in post #12267416
So funny, this comparison pops up weekly and the same people jump in, tell about their experience (again), post the same pictures. Don't get me wrong, I do like those pictures, especially Katodog's eagles. It's just funny to see the whole thing replay again and again, as if the Search function didn't exist
By the way, I used to own the Sigma 150-500mm, liked it, took about 20K shots with it, and currently own the Canon 100-400L. But I've already shared my thoughts a couple times in previous threads.

Yeah. This thread pops up every week or two. ^_^. There's still useful info in them, but there's no substitute for getting out and trying the darn things.

For example: here's an example of the great results you can get from the 100-400L!

^nice shot...also like the kicker at the end

i think it all comes down to budget...if you have $1600 get the L...if not go for the sigma, or if you want to spread your money around a bit more...i mean you could get 70-200f4Lnon IS(i see the IS version is on your wishlist) and a sigma 150-500mm for the price of the canon