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 19 Mar 2011 (Saturday) 06:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400

 
MikeZoo
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 19, 2011 06:36 |  #1

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!


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 a registered member)
altitude604
Goldmember
Avatar
1,665 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
     
Mar 19, 2011 06:54 |  #2

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. :)


Erik - Three Miles Final (external link)
- Gear List -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
Avatar
4,052 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 277
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Carol Stream, Illinois
     
Mar 19, 2011 06:58 |  #3

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.


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
duane0524
Goldmember
Avatar
4,840 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2008
Location: South of Boston, MA
     
Mar 19, 2011 07:09 |  #4

MikeZoo wrote in post #12048977 (external 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?


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
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Mar 19, 2011 07:42 |  #5

katodog wrote in post #12049029 (external 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.htm (external link)

http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/sigma150_500.h​tm (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
Avatar
4,052 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 277
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Carol Stream, Illinois
     
Mar 19, 2011 07:48 |  #6

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.


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
MikeZoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 19, 2011 07:54 |  #7

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!


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
Avatar
13,431 posts
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Mar 19, 2011 08:32 |  #8

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


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shane ­ W
Senior Member
839 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Traverse City, Michigan
     
Mar 19, 2011 09:03 |  #9

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!


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
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,398 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 63
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Mar 19, 2011 11:07 |  #10

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

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i139.photobucke​t.com …raphy/Birds/Img​_5951c.jpg (external link)

Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Allan.L
Goldmember
Avatar
1,066 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Mar 19, 2011 11:11 |  #11

artyman wrote in post #12049840 (external 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 :)


.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
katodog
Goldmember
Avatar
4,052 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 277
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Carol Stream, Illinois
     
Mar 19, 2011 11:29 as a reply to  @ artyman's post |  #12

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 LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5341187​490/  (external link)
Jan 09 008 (external 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 LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/4107522​728/  (external link)
Deer (external 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 LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5346325​299/  (external link)
Jan 09 033 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5362779568_424350e4a5_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5362779​568/  (external link)
Jan 16 030 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5439757779_a0b9aba7fe_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5439757​779/  (external link)
Feb 12 018 (external link) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4150/5440360614_b9e11ef53b_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5440360​614/  (external link)
Feb 12 020 (external 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 LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/katodog/5399789​688/  (external link)
Jan 29 018 (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
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,826 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1668
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Mar 19, 2011 13:52 |  #13

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


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GabooN
Member
Avatar
148 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Windsor, Ontario
     
Mar 19, 2011 15:11 |  #14

Amazing eagle shots there!


| 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 |
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Beachcomber ­ Joe
Senior Member
466 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
     
Mar 19, 2011 16:58 as a reply to  @ GabooN's post |  #15

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.




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

56,773 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400
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 Sureshot99
456 guests, 372 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.