Need help deciding on a looong telephoto zoom...?

Hi all. Ive narrowed down my choice for telephoto zoom lens to the following three:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
2. Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3
3. Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3

Can anyone who has compared/used these comment? (Prices aside; I am focused on image quality.)

The lens will be used on 7D and 650D bodies for the primary purpose of long-distance portraits/candids that need to be pin-sharp, when possible. (Actually, to be specific, I've been hired a couple times already to do Corporate Intelligence on people working at various companies. It's modest work, but exhilarating in some ways; but that is all off-topic as I realyl want to focus on image quality and other issues in this thread) I will NOT be able to set this up with a tripod most of the time; at best, I'll be able to use a monopod about 25% of the time.

My first choice (Canon 100-400) has IS and the image quality I've seen is superb. On my bodies, it'll serve as a 160-640, and I will be shooting at the long end most of the time as I am usually positioned across the street from the subjects. This lens has IS and is f/5.6 at the long-end, which is nice.

Second choice is Sigma though it weighs more (4.2 lbs vs 3.0 lbs for Canon) but has longer reach (equiv to 250-800) which is VERY handy. I am seriously considering this over the Canon, but what are the downsides? How does the image quality compare to Canon? I am nto too worried about the bokeh difference at the long end, and although Canon's 5.6 at long end is a stop faster than Sigma's 6.3, it is NOT a deal-breaker in and of itself.

Last choice, Tamron which serves as 320-800, isnt really an option since I do not think it has IS? If that is true, no point in getting it. It is the lighjtest lens though (2.7 lbs), but not by much over the Canon.

Thoughts? Thanks.

You said you would be shooting at the telephoto end most of the time. I suggest considering a telephoto prime instead of a zoom. The Canon 400/5.6L is priced the same as the 100-400L, as is the 300/4L.

Edit -- Oops, the 400/5.6L is not IS, and you stated that IS was a requirement.

ezra wrote in post #14773324
(Prices aside; I am focused on image quality.)

Can't go wrong with the new Canon 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4(x); IQ will be exceed anything you listed.

The Canon is only 1/3 of a stop slower at 400(not a full stop), than the Sigma. That said, the Sigma can be quite soft at 500, and it's best when stopped down to at least f/8.

edit: Although the Sigma is bigger and heavier, the Canon's white paint will likely draw more attention to you.

I've got the Bigmos. All my research prior to getting it was that it's an excellent lens.
The Canon is better, but it's not good vs bad lens but good vs gooder.

You've got to consider what the difference in price means to you. In my case, the extra cash meant an extra vacation - and a Sigma+Vacation got me much better image quality than a Canon without a vacation. It's hard to get pictures of birds when they're hundreds of kilometers away

Edit:
Sorry, missed the bit where you said cost is not relevant.
I'll add that some people have said that the Canon can be cropped more, negating the 400/500 advantage. I don't know about this, but it's something to consider.

ezra wrote in post #14773324
Hi all. Ive narrowed down my choice for telephoto zoom lens to the following three:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
2. Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3
3. Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3

Can anyone who has compared/used these comment? (Prices aside; I am focused on image quality.)

The lens will be used on 7D and 650D bodies for the primary purpose of long-distance portraits/candids that need to be pin-sharp, when possible. (Actually, to be specific, I've been hired a couple times already to do Corporate Intelligence on people working at various companies. It's modest work, but exhilarating in some ways; but that is all off-topic as I realyl want to focus on image quality and other issues in this thread) I will NOT be able to set this up with a tripod most of the time; at best, I'll be able to use a monopod about 25% of the time.

My first choice (Canon 100-400) has IS and the image quality I've seen is superb. On my bodies, it'll serve as a 160-640, and I will be shooting at the long end most of the time as I am usually positioned across the street from the subjects. This lens has IS and is f/5.6 at the long-end, which is nice.

Second choice is Sigma though it weighs more (4.2 lbs vs 3.0 lbs for Canon) but has longer reach (equiv to 250-800) which is VERY handy. I am seriously considering this over the Canon, but what are the downsides? How does the image quality compare to Canon? I am nto too worried about the bokeh difference at the long end, and although Canon's 5.6 at long end is a stop faster than Sigma's 6.3, it is NOT a deal-breaker in and of itself.

Last choice, Tamron which serves as 320-800, isnt really an option since I do not think it has IS? If that is true, no point in getting it. It is the lighjtest lens though (2.7 lbs), but not by much over the Canon.

Thoughts? Thanks.

hmmm.... corporate intelligence ....

Canon easily wins the sharpness contest

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=1

but if cost is no object then maybe the new 200-400 if you can wait

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14773437
Can't go wrong with the new Canon 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4(x); IQ will be exceed anything you listed.

While the OP did say "Prices aside; I am focused on image quality.", I don't think he is focused enough to want to pay the $10,000-$12,000 that this lens is rumored to cost.

msowsun wrote in post #14773824
While the OP did say "Prices aside; I am focused on image quality.", I don't think he is focused enough to want to pay the $10,000-$12,000 that this lens is rumored to cost.

True; however, the rumered price always ends up being over the top.

500 f/4 $16k rumer actual around $11k
600 f/4 $20k rumer actual around $13k

Well beyond my means - but hey; a person can dream

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14773437
Can't go wrong with the new Canon 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4(x); IQ will be exceed anything you listed.

I assume he wants to buy sometime in the next few months, not the next few years. The 200-400 hasn't even been officially announced yet.

I've used both the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 150-500. Both lenses are sharp and both produce great images. Above 400mm, the Sigma can get a little soft, but I've been some pretty sharp pictures shot at 500mm. If you think you'll need the extra 100mm, go with the Sigma.

I only just picked up the 150-500 and only used it twice on my 7D. While this isn't a great photo i think the crop shows potental for this lens. I will test it on my 40D this weekend as i won't have to do noise reduction with it ( the 7D is bad with noise in my opinion and having to do noise reduction softens the image quite a bit)
Shot taken @ 500mm wide open

Sigma 150-500 shot at 500mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/53004189@N05/7​525066426/

The Sigma has a far better IS system, IQ is comparable to the Canon, so for the situation you mention the Sigma would get my vote.

I think the Canon and Sigma (as long as you get a good copy) are relatively close in IQ, maybe the Canon a tad sharper. Digital Picture may have had a soft copy of the Sigma for their test. Build quality and speed goes to Canon. Length and IS/OS (much better stabilization) goes to the Sigma. The Canon is easier to take with you, not because of weight, but because of length.

There is also the Sigma 50-500mm OS which people say is good. There is also a Sigma 70-300mm f/2.8 that people say is excellent, and supposedly takes a TC well.

L.J.G. wrote in post #14774053
I have tested a 100-400 Canon and to be honest if I buy another long zoom it will defintely be the Canon. The Canon is not as fickle and is very sharp across the zoom range, plus it seemed to achieve focus faster and more accurately.

right, no question the Canon 100-400 is sharper with better image quality and it focuses faster. But the 400mm prime (along with a tripod) would also work for "corporate intelligence"