100-400 or 150-500 twist

So I've been using my 70-200MKII with my 2XIII and been getting good results, but now I'm thinking I want something a little more crisp and thinking about the Canon 100-400 or the Sigma 150-500. I can get them both for about the same price, but I want a little more reach and want to know if I used the 2X with the 400 to about 500-550 range will it be cleaner than the Sigma? I'm thinking the 400 since I can zoom back to a true 100mm as opposed to having a 140 when just using the lens unlike the 70-200 with the 2X. Plus if in a pinch I need a bit more reach I'll get that with the 400+2X. I know if I go to the full 800 I'll have some IQ issues, but how about the 500 range? Better or worse than the Sigma? Oh and I guess my numbers are off a little too since I have a crop body. Also, if I remember right the Sigma will not work with the 2XIII, right?

You will not have AF with a 2x and 100-400. And the IQ would suffer greatly. Not a good idea I think. Don't know about the bare 100-400 vs. 150-500.

I know I'll lose that, but I'll have a sharper image than with the 70-200 plus I'll have a bit more reach with 2X...Well I'll have a bunch more reach and I know the IQ will go down, but I'm trying to figure out if the IQ will be sixes with the Sigma @ 500mm. I could go all the way up to 800 and will sacrafice the IQ, but if in a pinch I'd still have more reach even if it's not perfect.

I had a Sigma 150-500 OS and a Canon 100-400 L and at the time I only had one body to use them on. So, after much comparison and testing I kept the Sigma and sold the Canon. The IQ of both is so similar that it makes no difference, the OS/IS system of the Sigma is far better than that of the Canon (I managed to get a good waterfall shot at 1/10sec handheld with the Sigma) and the AF speed is very similar in both. The Sigma, despite being a max f6.3 at the long end handled better in failing light (there was less focus hunting) and is still sharp when not shooting in the best conditions.

Here's a shot with the Sigma on a 5D3, 1/1000 @ f6.3, ISO 640 and +1 exp comp, SOOC with no PP apart from a crop.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67765667@N08/7​516180162/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67765667@N08/7​095849405/

With the Canon you can get to your 500-550 (560 to be exact) range with a 1.4X TC. This will have less of an impact on IQ than a 2X TC.

In my opinion the the Canon has a little better IQ, but not enough. I decided on the Sigma for the extra 100mm at the long end and much better stabilization. For me the only benefit of the Canon was size (length - weight was of little concern to me) for transport.

I don't think the Canon with a 2X will have the IQ of the native Sigma. With the 1.4X I still think the Sigma will edge out the Canon (I'm sure others will disagree).

I compared 3 different 100-400Ls to my 50-500 OS lens. At 400mm, the Canon was sharper wide-open than my Sigma at 400mm. However at 500mm, the Sigma was equally or actually just edged out the Canon at 400mm regarding sharpness. 50mm is okay, great for the "here is the perspective of the field" type of shot, but I wouldn't use it for much else.

I had a 150-500 in the past, and found that the 50-500 was just a tad better overall.

I went through a similar thought process and bought the 400/5.6 prime. You already have 70-200 covered with a very nice Mk2 so why duplicate? Using my 7-2 and 2x, I found myself at 400 almost all the time anyway so the prime made a lot of sense.

I love my 100-400L, but would never think of adding a 2x TC to it. The compromise in IQ, maximum aperture of f/11, and lack of auto focus would make it almost unusable. If you need more reach than 400mm, I would at the Sigmas.

That being said, I get great results with the 100-400L "naked" on both a 7D and 5D3. When I need more "reach", I'll use the crop body 7D. With the 18MP crop body of the 7D (same as your 60D), if I need even more "reach" I will crop in post processing. If you shoot RAW, cropping in post processing can work well.

Dr.D wrote in post #15165931
So I've been using my 70-200MKII with my 2XIII and been getting good results, but now I'm thinking I want something a little more crisp and thinking about the Canon 100-400 or the Sigma 150-500. I can get them both for about the same price, but I want a little more reach and want to know if I used the 2X with the 400 to about 500-550 range will it be cleaner than the Sigma? I'm thinking the 400 since I can zoom back to a true 100mm as opposed to having a 140 when just using the lens unlike the 70-200 with the 2X. Plus if in a pinch I need a bit more reach I'll get that with the 400+2X. I know if I go to the full 800 I'll have some IQ issues, but how about the 500 range? Better or worse than the Sigma? Oh and I guess my numbers are off a little too since I have a crop body. Also, if I remember right the Sigma will not work with the 2XIII, right?

I agree with the others, the 100-400 is significantly sharper with better image quality than the zoom alternatives but it cost more


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

XSi (450D)
100-400
300mm
f6.3

Actually I disagree on the generality of your statement. The 100-400 line has some of the worst copy variation I have seen across the lenses I have purchased and tested. Out of 4, my first one was very sharp, and the other 3 not so much. The 150-500 is pretty good, but I feel the 50-500 OS is better. Also, like I posted above, the last 100-400L I ran against the Sigma was sharper at 400mm than the Sigma at 400mm, but the Sigma at 500mm was maybe equal, but in many cases was sharper. Also the OS kills the 100-400L IS system, there is no comparison here. That is very important when you are shooting at 500mm in less than ideal light, something the 100-400L can't touch.

So in some cases, either due to copy variation or whatever focal length you shoot at, the 100-400L might be better, but certainly not significantly.

I don't care about online reviews, if I want a review, I buy the lenses and bodies and do them myself.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15167113
Actually I disagree on the generality of your statement. The 100-400 line has some of the worst copy variation I have seen across the lenses I have purchased and tested. Out of 4, my first one was very sharp,

Maybe you've developed some kind of allergy to the 100-400 !

XSi (450D)
100-400
300mm
ISO 800
f6.3

The biggest downside to the Sigmas for me was the added size and weight. The 100-400L is about as big a lens to fit into a backpack that will fit under the seat of an airplane. The airline we take to our South Carolina condo charges extra for using the overhead carry-on storage, so I try to keep my carry on small enough to fit under the seat.

I must have gotten lucky with my purchase, because my copy performs very well with regards to image quality and auto focus. I do wish the IS system was better, though, as I need to maintain a fast shutter speed in order to ensure sharp photos. The IS system does stabilize the image in the viewfinder fine, but otherwise it is not that useful compared with the IS on my other lenses. When shooting handheld, I try to keep the shutter speed minimally at 1/1000 on the 7D and 1/800 on the 5D3, and will only reduce the shutter speed after exhausting the limits of aperture and ISO.

Could be an allergy, or I could just be right, who knows?

Here is one of my mini-reviews, that I actually posted regarding the 150-500.
https://photography-on-the.net …008&highlight=m​ini-review

We can trade wallet sized images all day!

All I can tell you is that at 100% at 500mm, the 50-500 OS does quite, quite well and matches, if not exceeds the 100-400L at 400mm.

IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …921478&k=7CmFNn​x&lb=1&s=O

IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …921556&k=QhGqpF​R&lb=1&s=O

After using both, I settled on the 100-400 based Mostly on weight and size, and slightly better IQ on my body. Af on the Dust pump was a little faster for me, Sigma OS rocks. Ultimately I am now at the 400mm prime. If you need the best in reach AF speed and IQ, get a prime. For flex either will work, my vote is for the 100-400

Nature Nut wrote in post #15167234
After using both, I settled on the 100-400 based Mostly on weight and size, and slightly better IQ on my body. Af on the Dust pump was a little faster for me, Sigma OS rocks. Ultimately I am now at the 400mm prime. If you need the best in reach AF speed and IQ, get a prime. For flex either will work, my vote is for the 100-400

I keep thinking about the weight and size, if the Sigma was the same weight and size as the Canon, I wouldn't keep thinking of going back. If I could buy my original 100-400L back, I would. It was uncannily sharp, even with TCs on it. Back then, I wrongly assumed all 100-400Ls were of the same caliber.