100-400 with IS or 400 5.6 without IS??

wpmegee wrote in post #13911575
Also 500mm on the sigma is more like ~470mm

Not on all of them, and the 100-400mm probably won't give you 400mm. It's a characteristic of most zoom lenses. But, if you want to quibble little details...the 100-400mm can't give you 470mm.

I have never used the 400 prime but I can tell you turning the IS off on the 100-400 makes it much harder to hand hold. If you are going to use the lens strictly outdoors shooting wildlife the 400 may be a better option but you said you might shoot some sports and the 400 might be a little long depending on you proximity to the action.

As far as pumping any dust even if it does it can't reach the sensor. Any dust entering the lens will stay inside the lens. The glass at the back of the lens is a barrier to any dust reaching the sensor.

I had my first 100-400 stolen and had the option or replacing it with the 400 prime but for me the 100-400 is more versatile and I stayed with it.

I've been tempted to rent, or buy, a 50-500 OS to compare to my 100-400L. I'm curious to see how well they compare. I do like the fact that Sigma's OS is said to be better than Canon's IS in the 100-400L.

Go through the lens archive thread for that lens, ask the guys there what they think of it. I'm sure you'll get the scoop on the pros and cons.

I just saw the Sigma 120-400. I'm guessing it's probably not even on par with the canon's is it?

blakeG! wrote in post #13911733
I just saw the Sigma 120-400. I'm guessing it's probably not even on par with the canon's is it?

No it's not - it's an older design than either the 50-500 or 150-500 and seems to perform worse than either.

The 50-500 OS would be much more attractive if it was $1200 IMO. It's also the heaviest lens mentioned on this thread.

I've used both extensively..rented a 400mm and bought the 100-400

I've had both and prefer the 400. While it does not have IS, it is lighter, which helps offset some of the lack of IS because it is easier to handhold. I have had 2 copies of the 100-400, neither were exceptionally sharp and I never could warm up to the push/pull. The 400 was sharp, especially after a little MA'ing.

Keep in mind that the difference in IS, IMO, is one stop - so bump ISO 1 stop and you're even. Additionally, the 400 is sharp at 5.6, while the 100-400 seems to be sharpest stopped down 1/3 of a stop.

Also, FWIW, the 100-400 does not suck dust on to your sensor - it can however suck some into the lens, but not a big deal.

lucasmcd wrote in post #13911580
I think I have read just about every post in the last 12 months comparing these two lenses plus other lenses with a tc to get to 400

I think if you where mainly shooting birds in flight the prime would be the best way to go , but if like me you want to shoot birds in flight and up trees plus other animals , zoos etc then the zoom is the way to go ( I am saving up for the zoom now ) .

But if I had a huge wad of spare cash just laying around doing nothing then I would be hanging out for the new 200-400 , maybe if I sold some body parts that i don't use much I might be able to afford one .

What this guy said!

'cept the only body part I would REALLY be willing to give up is my pinky toe - and there's prolly not much demand for those!

wpmegee wrote in post #13911575
The 50-500 is more expensive and has worse IQ, and has potential misfocusing issues.

i've never seen anyone complain about focusing issues with that lens...

MATT0404 wrote in post #13911647
I've been tempted to rent, or buy, a 50-500 OS to compare to my 100-400L. I'm curious to see how well they compare. I do like the fact that Sigma's OS is said to be better than Canon's IS in the 100-400L.

here's a comparison:
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=54

i know there's at least a couple members that switched from the canon to the sigma when it first came out...


as to the o.p.'s question...i prefer the versatility of a zoom...but that's just me

The 400 is exceptionally sharp, fast AF, no compromises. It's VERY good at what it's designed for, especially once you factor in how easy it is to shoot handheld for extended periods of time and how nicely it sits in the hand. The 100-400 is better at everything else.

Basically if you need zoom or IS then there really isn't an option.

I own the 400. I'd like the 100-400 for airshows where I sometimes need wider than 400, but I wouldn't give up the 400 for it.

I'd still take the 300 F4 L IS plus Canon 1.4x II over the other choices unless I was doing strictly BIF. In that case I'd have the 400 5.6 prime. I know people who use the 400 5.6 for dark background shooting on a monopod, and they're pretty much masochists, IMHO.

100-400mm just make sure you get a good copy, a good copy is as sharp in the center at least, as the zoom...or the 50-500mm OS, not as sharp (IMHO!) but nice range and MUCH MUCH BETTER STABILIZATION.

blakeG! wrote in post #13911188
Also, how is the sharpness on either end?

The zoom is a lot sharper at 100mm !


You mentioned you'll be shooting sport as well as wildlife. If that's the case I'd definitely go for the zoom, where you'll often want something shorter than 400mm.

I will wait for the rumored 100-400 IS II or 400 5.6 IS. IF my patience run out before these two new lens, I will probably go with 400 5.6 non IS.