Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 21 Apr 2011 (Thursday) 04:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
atlrus
Senior Member
Avatar
531 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Michigan
     
Apr 21, 2011 10:25 |  #16

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

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Gear: Sold :cry:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
katodog
Goldmember
Avatar
4,197 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1032
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Carol Stream, Illinois
     
Apr 21, 2011 10:37 |  #17

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

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5367323465_635013ca36_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5367323​465/  (external link)
Jan 16 056 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5401722812_7161b285ee_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5401722​812/  (external link)
Jan 29 038 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2423/4143597407_3dbdd189c7_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/4143597​407/  (external link)
Red-tailed Hawk (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1163/5076272224_6512e734cb_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5076272​224/  (external link)
IMG_3284 a (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
KaBlookie
Senior Member
326 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Phoenixville-ish area, PA
     
Apr 21, 2011 11:23 |  #18

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

hah kidding!!


7D - XTi - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - Canon 50mm f/1.8II - SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L - Lensbaby 2.0 - Canon 430EX-II - CBS flash trigger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeI
Goldmember
Avatar
2,074 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2006
Location: NorCal
     
Apr 21, 2011 11:33 |  #19

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.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Doubleshot Photography (external link) ~~~~~ [URL="[URL]http://phot​ography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=3138451&postcou​nt=595"]My Gear ~~~~~ [URL="[URL]http://irel​and-photo.smugmug.com/"]Pe​rsonal Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Monito
Senior Member
Avatar
460 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Halifax, NS, ex-California
     
Apr 21, 2011 12:05 |  #20

MikeI wrote in post #12266417 (external link)
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.


Canon System: fullframe DSLRs, lenses. Tripods, Alien Bees.
Always learning and striving to make better photographs.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,908 posts
Likes: 206
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Apr 21, 2011 12:40 |  #21

Massimoda wrote in post #12265312 (external link)
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).


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonyniev
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,538 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1017
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Las Vegas
     
Apr 21, 2011 12:45 |  #22

get the 100-400,
on a 7D

IMAGE: http://tonyniev.smugmug.com/Photography/San-Diego-Zoo-041911/IMG5597/1258649719_Q3XJDH5-L-1.jpg

on a 5D2
IMAGE: http://tonyniev.smugmug.com/Astronomy/Astrophotos/jun21moon2/909655617_TYSYe-L-1.jpg

Cheers,
Tony
Leica M10 & M3
Sony A7R4 & A7R
Canon 5D2 & 7D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KaBlookie
Senior Member
326 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Phoenixville-ish area, PA
     
Apr 21, 2011 12:51 |  #23

^^ 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.


7D - XTi - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - Canon 50mm f/1.8II - SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L - Lensbaby 2.0 - Canon 430EX-II - CBS flash trigger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonyniev
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,538 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1017
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Las Vegas
     
Apr 21, 2011 13:05 |  #24

KaBlookie wrote in post #12266858 (external link)
^^ 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.


Cheers,
Tony
Leica M10 & M3
Sony A7R4 & A7R
Canon 5D2 & 7D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
Apr 21, 2011 13:08 |  #25

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 (external link)

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.


amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gabebalazs
Bird Whisperer
Avatar
7,640 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1069
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
     
Apr 21, 2011 14:21 |  #26

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.


SONY A7RIII | SONY A7III | SONY RX10 IV | SONY RX100 | 24-70 2.8 GM | 70-200 2.8 GM | 16-35 F/4 | PZ 18-105 F/4 | FE 85 1.8 | FE 28-70 | SIGMA 35 1.4 ART | SIGMA 150-600 C | ROKINON 14 2.8
Gabe Balazs Photo (external link)
Nature Shots Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
Apr 21, 2011 14:28 |  #27

gabebalazs wrote in post #12267416 (external link)
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!

IMAGE: http://amanathia.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v14/p74739281-5.jpg

Actually, I'm just kidding, that was taken with the $250 EF-S 55-250mm lens. (you can produce great results with most any of the modern telephoto zooms).

amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,385 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3372
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Apr 21, 2011 18:15 |  #28

^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


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

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

10,851 views & 0 likes for this thread
Cannot Decide - Canon 100-400 vs Sigma 150-500
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Chris Parrish
775 guests, 143 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.