Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Oct 2012 (Wednesday) 21:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100-400 or 150-500 twist

 
Dr.D
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Likes: 104
Joined Feb 2011
Location: SL,UT.
     
Oct 24, 2012 21:54 |  #1

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?


6D . Gripped 60D . Gripped XSI . Opteka 6.5 . Canon 10-22 . Canon 18-135 . Canon 50 1.8 MKII . Canon 24-105 f4 L . Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MKII L . Canon 70-300 IS USM . Sigma 150-600 . Canon 100mm Macro . Canon 2X III . 430 EXII . Manfroto 190XPROB . Manfrotto 055XPROB . Black Rapid Sport . Outback 200
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1195651

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Lnguyen1203
Senior Member
319 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Oct 24, 2012 22:02 |  #2

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.


lnguyen1203, Canon 1DX, 5D3, T3i, 500L f4 II, 70-300L f4.0-5.6, 16-35L f2.8, 1.4X II, 2X III

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dr.D
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Likes: 104
Joined Feb 2011
Location: SL,UT.
     
Oct 24, 2012 23:03 |  #3

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.


6D . Gripped 60D . Gripped XSI . Opteka 6.5 . Canon 10-22 . Canon 18-135 . Canon 50 1.8 MKII . Canon 24-105 f4 L . Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MKII L . Canon 70-300 IS USM . Sigma 150-600 . Canon 100mm Macro . Canon 2X III . 430 EXII . Manfroto 190XPROB . Manfrotto 055XPROB . Black Rapid Sport . Outback 200
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1195651

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Lincoln, Uk
     
Oct 25, 2012 06:01 |  #4

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: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7279/7516180162_33965317a8_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67765667@N08/7​516180162/  (external link)
F16AM flypast at Waddington (external link) by modchild (external link), on Flickr

And here's the shot of the waterfall handheld at 1/10sec, ISO 100, with no PP at all.

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5072/7095849405_7548f93868_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67765667@N08/7​095849405/  (external link)
Waterfall at Yorks Wildlife Park. (external link) by modchild (external link), on Flickr

EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 25, 2012 06:30 as a reply to  @ modchild's post |  #5

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).


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 25, 2012 06:33 |  #6

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.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keebert
Senior Member
Avatar
613 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Texas
     
Oct 25, 2012 06:53 |  #7

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.


5D3, 50/1.4, 40/2.8, 24-105L, 100L, 70-200L II, 400/5.6L, 600EX-RT, Zuiko 28/2.8, flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,268 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 363
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 25, 2012 06:56 |  #8

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.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Oct 25, 2012 07:16 |  #9

Dr.D wrote in post #15165931 (external link)
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 (external link)

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

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8103952848_1f7f61301d_c.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 25, 2012 07:29 |  #10

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 NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Oct 25, 2012 07:51 |  #11

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15167113 (external link)
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 !:D

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

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8108561273_532e6376b8_b.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,268 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 363
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 25, 2012 08:05 |  #12

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.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 25, 2012 08:09 |  #13

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! :lol:

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: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/CHSBand2011-2012/Homestead-Invitational/i-7CmFNnx/0/XL/BIG6921-XL.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …921478&k=7CmFNn​x&lb=1&s=O  (external link)

IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/CHSBand2011-2012/Homestead-Invitational/i-QhGqpFR/0/X2/BIG6931-X2.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …921556&k=QhGqpF​R&lb=1&s=O  (external link)

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nature ­ Nut
Goldmember
Avatar
1,366 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2012
Location: NY
     
Oct 25, 2012 08:16 |  #14

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


Adam - Upstate NY:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 25, 2012 08:20 |  #15

Nature Nut wrote in post #15167234 (external link)
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.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,369 views & 0 likes for this thread
100-400 or 150-500 twist
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kenf
683 guests, 281 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.