100-400 or 150-500 twist

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15167221
Could be an allergy, or I could just be right, who knows?

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.

there is no shortage of opinions on who has the sharpest and biggest and baddest !
and plenty of reviews and comparisons of 150-500 - 100-400, etc.

http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/sigma150_500.h​tm

whatever works !

XSi (450D)
100-400
f5.6
400mm (cropped)

That review clearly shows the Sigma front-focusing, and thus doing 100% crops are completely invalidated until you fix the focusing. To do an IQ comparison, either go to live view on the two lenses or use MFA if your body has it, then do 100% pixel peeping comparisons.

The person doing that review should have immediately noticed this.

As posted in my review, the exif shows wide open, and you can zoom to the 100% if you wish, there is clearly a big disparity between that review and my images, eh?

Had both. Kept the 100-400. Sigma IQ was pretty good but HSM was hunting, sticking, and far less reliable (get ready for the flaming and abuse) with the copy I had....

Neilyb wrote in post #15167498
Had both. Kept the 100-400. Sigma IQ was pretty good but HSM was hunting, sticking, and far less reliable (get ready for the flaming and abuse) with the copy I had....

In less than stellar light, I have had cases where the Sigma will rack back and forth once in a while where I thought there should have been no issue. Generally speaking, my 50-500 AF is great, it is almost as quick as the Canon, but periodically it does do strange AF things that most Sigmas seem to exhibit, very strange behavior from time to time, definitely. That, and the size of the lens are the two thorns I have with it. IQ is not not an issue though.

So I would give the 100-400L the nod regarding general usability, transport, and general consistency, but the 50-500 OS Sigma the nod in more modern features and versatility due to much better OS, 50mm at one end and 100mm at the other end, better bokeh, and the macro mode at 230mm or so.

what are you trying to shoot that you think you can accurately MF at 800mm?

DreDaze wrote in post #15167775
what are you trying to shoot that you think you can accurately MF at 800mm?

Nothing really, just saying that if I needed the reach to get a pic I'd rather have the reach with not such great focus rather than not get a pic at all. If I were to give a example though maybe mountain goats up on a cliff or moon shots. I wouldn't ever intend going out just to shoot 800mm, but if I was shooting a bear at 500 and he took off and turned back and sat down, but I got his front instead of his back I'd be happy I had the 6-800 range. Or if I was on a mountain side and on the other side there was something I couldn't get to or maybe a river in the way.

Pros for the Canon
1. Clarity over the 70-200 with the 2X
2. Could use the 2X if needed
3. Ability to shoot things closer compared to the 200+2X
4. Can use the 2X where the Sig can't
5. Size is better manageable for travel
Cons for Canon
1. Already have 400 range
2. 500 wouldn't be as clear (jury still out on this)
3. loose AF
Pros for Sig
1. 500 would be cleaner?
2. Retain Af
3. If the 50-500 have wide range of focal lengths
Cons for Sig
1. Not useable with the 2X
2. Size
3. IQ?

These are my thoughts. Please gimme some more if I missed anything.

Dr.D wrote in post #15168149
Nothing really, just saying that if I needed the reach to get a pic I'd rather have the reach with not such great focus rather than not get a pic at all. If I were to give a example though maybe mountain goats up on a cliff or moon shots. I wouldn't ever intend going out just to shoot 800mm, but if I was shooting a bear at 500 and he took off and turned back and sat down, but I got his front instead of his back I'd be happy I had the 6-800 range. Or if I was on a mountain side and on the other side there was something I couldn't get to or maybe a river in the way.
.

For these types of situations, you would probably be better off shooting in Raw without a TC and cropping in post processing.

Dr.D wrote in post #15168149
Nothing really, just saying that if I needed the reach to get a pic I'd rather have the reach with not such great focus rather than not get a pic at all. If I were to give a example though maybe mountain goats up on a cliff or moon shots. I wouldn't ever intend going out just to shoot 800mm, but if I was shooting a bear at 500 and he took off and turned back and sat down, but I got his front instead of his back I'd be happy I had the 6-800 range. Or if I was on a mountain side and on the other side there was something I couldn't get to or maybe a river in the way.

for the odd moon shot it makes senses...in my opinion it doesn't make any sense to throw it on in any of the other situations you described...the loss of AF being the biggest issue, let alone what happens to the I.Q....just crop it down if you come across one of these spots...

the only reason i'd say to get the 150-500OS is if budget is an issue...

DreDaze wrote in post #15168391
for the odd moon shot it makes senses...in my opinion it doesn't make any sense to throw it on in any of the other situations you described...the loss of AF being the biggest issue, let alone what happens to the I.Q....just crop it down if you come across one of these spots...

the only reason i'd say to get the 150-500OS is if budget is an issue...

Ha, coincidentally that is what I did last night. 1400mm on the 1D4 with the Sigma, wide open at f6.3, no tripod, manually focused, that 4 stop OS really helps! I used a Kenko 2x and 1.4x. I need to really get this rig set up on a good tripod and raise up the aperture to about f8.

Dr.D wrote in post #15168149
Nothing really, just saying that if I needed the reach to get a pic I'd rather have the reach with not such great focus rather than not get a pic at all. If I were to give a example though maybe mountain goats up on a cliff or moon shots. I wouldn't ever intend going out just to shoot 800mm, but if I was shooting a bear at 500 and he took off and turned back and sat down, but I got his front instead of his back I'd be happy I had the 6-800 range. Or if I was on a mountain side and on the other side there was something I couldn't get to or maybe a river in the way.

These are my thoughts. Please gimme some more if I missed anything.

The only issue you will run into very fast is atmospheric interference. In fact I think a good amount of TC gripe comes from trying to get clear pictures at long range. Yes some will degrade IQ a lot, but some hardly at all. Below are two pics I took while recently trying out my 400mm prime with the 2x Kenko. I have used the same one the 100-400 when I had it, and results were similar though a shade less detail which may have been a MFA issue or Lens copy. I consider it unacceptable when hair/feather details are not crisp, others may have differing expectations. In this situation under ideal conditions cropping actually degraded IQ more than using a TC.

Here is 400 bare @ 40 ft
https://photography-on-the.net …entid=620489&d=​1350945575

Here is 400 + 2x @ 40 ft
https://photography-on-the.net …entid=620490&d=​1350945575

I wanted to add this shot too in order to show how well the OS works. This was with me standing in my yard shooting at a neighbor's fall display at 500mm

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15173302
I wanted to add this shot too in order to show how well the OS works. This was with me standing in my yard shooting at a neighbor's fall display at 500mm

The 100-400L is much more challenging with its old-school IS.

I guess the good thing is the "challenging old school" 100-400 is sharper with better image quality than the newer Sigmas - 150-500, 120-400, even that much beloved 50-500 !!

look ma, old school !
XSi (450D)

1/100
235mm (cropped)

I have no idea what you are trying to show with that shot or what your point is, but okay, great job, 235mm at 1/100th vs 500mm at 1/40th

Back to what I was showing, I know rumors have abounded that Canon is going to come out with a MKII version, and I can only imaging what its newer generation IS will bring to the table, also what its optics will bring too. However, the big question would be how much more $$ will you need to bring? Given the trend, a new 100-400L will undoubtedly cost $2500 or more.

Here is another example of the OS. I couldn't replicate a airplane shot, but here is a shot at 200mm (not the lens' sweet spot by any means, the 100-400L should be sharper at this focal length), but it is at 1/40th being handheld shooting my daughter whom I told to "stay very, very still". Not shabby at these settings at ISO 3200, I am happy with it.

I would never use this lens very often for portraits though. How important is a good OS system for what you shoot, Dr.D?

I borrowed my friends 100-400 and I am pretty happy with the results.

chenga732 wrote in post #15173629
I borrowed my friends 100-400 and I am pretty happy with the results.

if you're satisfied with the photos that's all that really matters.
The arguments about which lens has the better "IQ" "AF" "IS" or is sharper is kinda silly .... almost..


XSi / 450D
100-400
f6.3
100mm