Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400

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!

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.

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.

MikeZoo wrote in post #12048977
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?

katodog wrote in post #12049029
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.htm

http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/sigma150_500.h​tm

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.

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!

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

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!

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 Actually Either the Sigma or Canon 100-400 would give you similar results.

Crop

artyman wrote in post #12049840
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 Actually Either the Sigma or Canon 100-400 would give you similar results.

Crop

Brilliant

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


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

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5341187​490/

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

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5346325​299/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5362779​568/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5439757​779/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5440360​614/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5399789​688/

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

Amazing eagle shots there!

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.