Sigma 150-500mm Vs Canon 100-400L

Sirrith wrote in post #12453587
No one's saying its a bad lens, we're just saying the 100-400 is better, and so is the 50-500, and thats just a fact. Out of all the x-4/500 zooms, the 150-500 is one of the weaker ones. However, its also one of the cheapest ones, and it is not bad.

Well, I didn't say anyone said it's a bad lens. The 150-500 might look like a weaker lens in a lab test, but shooting in the field, I think it can be comparable to the 100-400 as indicated by my sample photos.

I have been using so many tele zooms and primes as well for bird photography. However, its just the fact that zooms like 150-500 just cannot render those finest details. 150-500 images indeed looks good sometimes when proper PP is applied but there is no that finest sharpness that can be seen when very good quality optics is used.

However, as for its quite low price, 150-500 really is good lens and it pleases many photographers.

I owned the Canon 100-400 for over 5 years and it's a great lens. I have also had a play with the Sigma zooms - no contest. A couple of the Sigmas were sharper but af was simply too slow/inaccurate to be reliable.
The upshot is that I sold my trusty 100-400 after trying the Canon 300mm F4 L IS. At anything over 300mm this lens is a significant notch above the lenses you are considering, note this is without T/Cs. I find that on my 300 a 50% (area) crop will give good A3 prints, as good if not better than my 100-400 did with less (25%) cropping and it was at 400mm! So I lost 100mm but still got better frame fillers.
Basically the 300 is a sharper (much), higher resolution lens with better colour/contrast and it's smaller, a little lighter and a little cheaper. It's an old design and is not perfect but, in my experience, a significantly better wildlife lens than the ones you are looking at. Try one, compare the images, then become the proud owner of one. I did!

Owl_79 wrote in post #12453701
I have been using so many tele zooms and primes as well for bird photography. However, its just the fact that zooms like 150-500 just cannot render those finest details. 150-500 images indeed looks good sometimes when proper PP is applied but there is no that finest sharpness that can be seen when very good quality optics is used.

However, as for its quite low price, 150-500 really is good lens and it pleases many photographers.

You mean YOUR COPY of it, right?
I have put mine against my friends 100-400L head by head and mine rendered as much as detail as theirs at 400mm. It was weaker at 500mm, but definitely better than the 100-400L with a Kenko 1.4X Teleplus.

I have had a 100-400 for years and love it--it's my most-used lens. But, as you can see from some of the photos in this thread, the Sigma is perfectly capable of turning out beautiful photos. It comes down to a) budget and b) personal choice.

Julius

JuliusUpNorth wrote in post #12453868
I have had a 100-400 for years and love it--it's my most-used lens. But, as you can see from some of the photos in this thread, the Sigma is perfectly capable of turning out beautiful photos. It comes down to a) budget and b) personal choice.

Julius

thanks mate, you summed up the thread very well,

ShaneKPhotography wrote in post #12449670
I find myself taking nearly ALL of my pictures at 300mm and often wishing for more reach. I have, therefore, decided to upgrade to a 'longer' lens and I'm stuck between the sigma 150-500 and Canon 100-400L. Opinions?

My suggestions:

- check out the threads with pictures taken with both: Canon 100-400mm -- Sigma 150-500mm

- compare their weigh/size parameters, decide what would work best for you

- consider the price

I think I had been looking at the 150-500mm, too (can't even remember now) but after going through the 100-400mm photo thread, I was sold. I went through the whole thing and with each page the "push-pull zoom/dust pump" digs started to faint and the prize began to look more and more reasonable. And not only have I never regretted getting it, every time I use it I'm soooo glad I got it. I love this lens.

I've never used the Sigma so I can't say anything about it besides the fact that obviously I liked its picture thread a little less and I would not be crazy about the additional weight and size. It also has a longer minimal distance focus. You have to decide if extra 100mm at f/6.3 is worth all that for you.

I have a 100-400L being shipped right now! It will be first leap into the L World too!

Automotively wrote in post #12454029
I have a 100-400L being shipped right now! It will be first leap into the L World too!

Congrats you're going to love the lens

More images from a Sigma 150-500mm lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

These are really soft, DC Fan!
And I gotta say you pretty much suck at panning as well!
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding, bro! These are AWESOME!

I have been told and believe the Canon will hold its value more so than the other lenses on the market. Go for the Canon if it fits in your budget and you won't go wrong.

This 'debate' comes up frequently. As one who used both lenses and settled on one, I finally wrote down my general comparison here.

In short, you can't go 'wrong' on either....unless you just plain 'ole get a bad copy!

I would say the 150 - 500 is more than "not bad"

i might buy Sigma 50-500

both Sigma 150-500 and 100-400L are not wide enough, if I bought 150-500 then I would have to keep changing lenses all the time when I go out. and 100-400L if i wanted the same reach as 500 then I would have to use the 1.4 extender, and then if i wanted to shoot more wide then remove extenter. to much change over.

from the reviews I seen the 50-500 is sharper then 150-500.