Canon 500mm f4 vs Sigma 500mm f4

I've searched but found nothing comparing these two lenses.

There has been some reviews on the sigma f4.5 vs the canon. But then again, I've only found 3.. But nothing on the f4.

Its a cheaper alternative to the canon. So I'm wondering its worth considering.

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

dont know if you saw this review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …G-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

I haven't seen a head to head with the Canon, but Brad Hill did a very thorough comparison against the Nikon.

http://www.naturalart.​ca/voice/blog.html

The Canon 500/4 II and the 600/4 II are the finest long lenses made today. You really cannot do any better.

The Sigma is a step below that quality. It is cheaper. You have to decide whether the compromises are acceptable.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18302535
The Canon 500/4 II and the 600/4 II are the finest long lenses made today. You really cannot do any better.

The Sigma is a step below that quality. It is cheaper. You have to decide whether the compromises are acceptable.

Based on the available evidence I'm not so sure that's the case. Do you have hands on experience with the Sigma? I've owned the 500mm f4 IS and currently own the 600mm f4 IS II, but if I was considering a new 500mm I think the Sigma would be in very strong contention. I don't think it is "better" than the Canon, but aside from being a bit heavier it may very well be it's equal (and at a pretty significant cost savings).

No, I don't have hands on experience, but the couple of reviews I have read indicated that build quality was equivalent but IQ and focusing were close and maybe a notch below, perhaps similar to 100-400 II vs. 150-600, but close enough to make it worth considering for most people who don't want to spend the 2 grand of whatever extra for the Canon.

Do you happen to have links to the comparisons vs the Canon? All I've seen so far is the comparison to the Nikon that I linked above, and the Sigma has looked really good based on that. I'd really like to read a direct comparison to the Canon though. I'm not in the market for a 500mm but I'd be happy to see the Sigma do really well and perhaps keep some pressure on Canon to keep their lenses priced competitively.

I'll try to find links later today and post them. It's been a while since I read them.

Thanks. Like I said, it's not like I'm in the market but I have been trying to follow along with the Sigma out of general interest/curiosity.

They're definitely doing a great job! My comments should in no way be interpreted as a knock on Sigma. I think they are keeping the big boys honest and throwing in a bunch of innovative ideas too. More power to them!

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18302568
Thanks. Like I said, it's not like I'm in the market but I have been trying to follow along with the Sigma out of general interest/curiosity.

Not a comparison, but it's a good review.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …G-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18302556
Do you happen to have links to the comparisons vs the Canon? All I've seen so far is the comparison to the Nikon that I linked above, and the Sigma has looked really good based on that. I'd really like to read a direct comparison to the Canon though. I'm not in the market for a 500mm but I'd be happy to see the Sigma do really well and perhaps keep some pressure on Canon to keep their lenses priced competitively.

I was mistaken. I did not read a direct comparison review of Canon 500/4 II vs. Sigma 500/4. Upon going through all the old posts and web articles, I think I arrived at my conclusion based on the following data points:

1. New Sigma appears to be comparable to the Nikon 500/4 VR, which in turn is comparable to Canon equivalent. So, if Canon has an IQ advantage, it is probably small.
2. Sigma has an issue with best focus point varying with aperture based on the digital picture review This is a problem. Maybe if you are shooting wide open all the time, it's ok but if this shifts when stopped down, it's highly undesirablle.
3. It is heavier than the 500/4 II.

So, I concluded that the Canon is overall a better lens than the Sigma. Is it 3K better? Only the buyer can say, but my 500/4 has performed brilliantly for me, everything that I would expect a top-of-the-line white prime to do.

I assume the op is talking about version 1 500 f4 not version 2 because the price gap would be a deal breaker. You can find a clean 400 f2.8 IS USM V1 or 500 f4 IS USM V1 for around $4,000-$5,000 and I was in the same situation. I chose the 400 f2.8 IS V1 base on sharpness and the ability to have f2.8 when needed. Also with a 1.4x TC, it's still sharper than the 500mm f4 V1. If you can deal with the extra weight of the 400 f2.8 than go for that instead. I handhold it all day, people think im crazy

Edit: 500 f4 II is sharper but were talking $2300 difference in price. I don't see that difference base on sharpness or build quality. Maybe AF as Sigmas are known to be a bit iffy.

See for yourself:

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

I am confident this is one of, if not the best lens SIGMA has ever fielded, but it's niche is questionable now. The Canon Version II IS lenses = very low used prices for the version 1.

With the used price of the version 1 Canon, I would be amazed at anyone looking to save some $$ Vs. the newer Canon opting to spend $2000.00 more on the new SIGMA vs. a used MkI. ( and this comes from someone that was hoping SIGMA would launch an upgrade from the old f/4.5 going all the way back to 2005.)

Some high points, Brad prefers it to the Nikon, this is very impressive.
Despite the Canon having a closer MFD rating, if you manually focus, the SIGMA allows closer focus! That can truly be a big deal for some.

EDIT: This is incorrect, I was reading the Nikon 500mm specs when I typed this. My mistake. A big minus for the SIGMA IMHO - It weighs as much (MORE!) than the older Canon Version 1!!
The only reason I upgraded to the Version II was weight. Seriously.

I was referring to the newer mk.ii models, I suppose.
Didnt even consider the mk.i version.
Dont know anything about it, even price.