100-400 and alternatives for animals

jimewall wrote in post #14874408
One copy of each. I do not believe they got a good copy of the Sigma. Some of the older copies of 150-500 are not good, my guess was that is from one of them.

Even so, the Canon is a little sharper. IMO that example 150-500 example at digital-picture is not a good one.

sure, you can choose to believe that lens comparison site got a bad copy but plenty of people over the years have compared these lens, do a little googling and you will see the Canon almost always shows up sharper with better "IQ" or resolution. If you think that's bad check out a thread today comparing Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400 on FM. on second thought, don't look, if you're a sigma telephoto fan, it ain't too pretty

watt100 wrote in post #14874660
sure, you can choose to believe that lens comparison site got a bad copy but plenty of people over the years have compared these lens, do a little googling and you will see the Canon almost always shows up sharper with better "IQ" or resolution. If you think that's bad check out a thread today comparing Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400 on FM. on second thought, don't look, if you're a sigma telephoto fan, it ain't too pretty

Thanks for the suggestion and I did do the web searching (and such) before I purchased. If you noticed (since you quoted me) I said it was, just not that much (based on the d-p site). There have also been plenty of posts where photographers have shown their Sigma to be a better copy than that of the current example at d-p.

By the way, I'm a fan of the best lens for the job (that you have or can afford). Based on the way you are wording your post to me, that might be hard for you to understand.

The Canon was more than I could have afforded (when I purchased). The Canon was 100mm shorter at the long end. The Canon overlapped 100mm on the short end with my Tamron 70-210mm f/2.8 (I've upgraded since then to the Canon, but still have the Tamron). The Canon has worse stabilization. The Canon seemed like it had better IQ (I still agree), but it did not seem that much better image quality (depending on the copy of the Sigma lens = which I also still agree with). The has a much physical better build. The Canon was physically smaller (easier to fit to bags).

I went with the Sigma for the extra length but mostly because of it was what I could afford. Now if I would switch to Canon, it would only be because of the last one (physical size). Because it is physically smaller I would probably carry it with me more, not because I would consider it an upgrade. It would be both an upgrade and a downgrade dependent on how you look at it.

I am happy with the Sigma, you can be happy with your Canon.

(Heck if I had the money) I'd much (much) rather be shooting with a Canon 500mm or 600mm f/4L IS anytime, compared to either of those the lenses we've been discussing.


I also tried to find the thread from today, but not real familiar with FM. It might help to post the section where it is located.

watt100 wrote in post #14874660
sure, you can choose to believe that lens comparison site got a bad copy but plenty of people over the years have compared these lens, do a little googling and you will see the Canon almost always shows up sharper with better "IQ" or resolution. If you think that's bad check out a thread today comparing Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400 on FM. on second thought, don't look, if you're a sigma telephoto fan, it ain't too pretty

I have the Siggy now and I'm seriously considering trading it for a 100-400 or selling the Bigmos outright to finance the purchase of the Canon. I looked over on FM quickly but didn't see the thread you allude to, can you point me in the right direction? Is it on the Canon SLR forum?

I cannot comment on the Sigmas as I've never tried them, but I am delighted with the results from the 100-400L. It's sharp wide open and at 400mm, and the AF performance is quite good. The lens is lighter and smaller than the Sigmas, too.

The IS performance is not great, though, as it's an older version. You will need to keep your shutter speed up when shooting handheld. I try to maintain 1/1000sec when shooting with a crop body. I can go slower, but this my starting point and I only shoot slower when I run out of aperture and ISO.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14875101
I have the Siggy now and I'm seriously considering trading it for a 100-400 or selling the Bigmos outright to finance the purchase of the Canon. I looked over on FM quickly but didn't see the thread you allude to, can you point me in the right direction? Is it on the Canon SLR forum?

OK, I found it, never mind. Looks like the Sigma took some lumps big time early on in that thread but I'm guessing that most of the posters had never used it. Later, a few guys posted some nice images with the 150-500 and especially with the 50-500. Although I'm mostly happy with my 150-500, I still think I'm going to look at trading for the 100-400 or selling the Sigma outright to buy the Canon. I'm mostly a wildlife photographer and find myself shooting early and late in the day most of the time. The fact that the Canon is sharper wide open is a big deal to me, even if I will lose 100mm on the long end.

here's some other comparisons between the 150-500OS, 100-400L, and 50-500OS and 100-400L
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=54
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=50
it's not as drastic as the digital picture makes it seem, i'm usually stopped down to f8 though with mine...there's a loss of contrast at 500mm

how serious are you about animals though? being on a FF camera you're probably going to be a little short at 400mm even...

The 50-500OS, wide open, works very nicely on FF, quite good on APS-H, and starts to show its optical flaws on the7D/60D, etc. and you have to stop it down a bit with those cameras.

I would consider the excellent 400mm 5.6. Also, I think you will find this article very interesting... http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml

nightcat wrote in post #14877313
I would consider the excellent 400mm 5.6. Also, I think you will find this article very interesting... http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml

sure the 400mm prime is slightly sharper and when I had one I got some nice images but being restricted to 400mm is, ...... restricting! I found the zoom far more versatile. That's probably why Canon sells a lot more 100-400 zooms than 400 primes

pyro1 wrote in post #14874673
Shot with the 100-400, @ 560mm, Kenko 1.4 pro300, 100 ISO, 1/40th, f/8, hand held. I want a 70-200 II, waiting for the right time, but I would imagine the IQ would be sweet with a good converter!

actually this looks like a good reason for not getting a kenko extender,
it seems teleconverters /extenders degrade the image quality too much
I can crop a pic (considerably) and it turns out pretty good


it's a different lion and different lighting conditions, etc. but ...
XSi (450D)
100-400
f5.6
400mm
(cropped 50%)

I have the 2X III and use it with my 70-200 II. I am very happy with the results. I also owned the 100-400 and the difference (to me) was negligible.

Just get the 100-400, you will not regret it.