Sig 150-500 vs 100-400 vs 70-300 IS

My new 100-400 came so I thought it about time to do this test. All shots are at 250ISO, to keep the speed up and avoid softness through motion. Tripod. Mirror lockup. Cable release. Used a beer bottle again cos why not!

Some softening from Compression may have occured but they are all saved at the same level. All converted JPG's from DPP with no sharpening, style set to Standard, WB all same.

Firs the Siggy. Little suprised at the results but seems sharper wide open than stopped down...Did the shots again same result...at the long end. The short end was better stopped down and downright unusable wide open. I will send this back as defective for this reason.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Last word on size. the Sigma is longer closed than the 100-400 and 5D together. For me that is also important, when travelling.

Thanks Neil. Its pretty much expected that the 100-400 would be sharper. For the range and price the Sigy still may appeal to some.

Bit confusing that the Sigy was sharper 500mm at f6.3 than f8

Do you have time to do a comparison with a subject outside (further).

No, fraid not. It is dark now anyway... and the Siggy goes back tomorrow...I am convinced that the canon is better IQ wise and the sharper images are more appealing than the slight extra range of the Sigma. Clincher is really the short end, fine stopped down, horrible not. But I stand by what I have said before, for the price and range this is a great lens...considering the next leap is a 500mm prime.

It was worth a try and cost nothing, but in the end it is back to old faithful.

Thanks for the comparisons. I have a 100-400 on the way this week but I've wondered a lot about the Sig 150-500. In your tests it actually doesn't look too bad. I can't explain the softness when stopping down from wide open though, I've never seen a lens behave like that. But mostly the Sig seems on par with the Canon at 400mm, would you agree?

Looks like any differences can be put down to local lighting change between tests. Each set of shots shows quite different lighting coming from the right of the shooter. In this kinda test the minimum expectation would be even lighting across all shots. The game is all about light after all.

So I'd feel a little embarrassed myself saying the 100-400 'knocks spots off' the 150-500mm. I really don't see such a significant difference. In fact, the Sigma wide open at 400mm looks better than the Canon IMO, but again the lighting is quite different and more than the aperture difference. The 400mm Canon shot looks a bit softer actually overall, but that is classic 100-400mm in that it will firm up nicely by f8.0, as we see in the test where it is very decent. Canon definitely better at 200mm but then you say your Sigma unit is defective so we can hold fire on that one.

So if you use the Canon f8.00 and don't mind losing the stop advantages in the IS/OS contest then seems an interesting choice if you prefer it. I'd actually choose the other way based on this test ... and certainly based on my own results I can trust the Sigma it to do a good job wide open and stopped down. My issues with it are more about weight and the fact it won't fit in my Peli case

I think perhaps at f8 the slower speed is making a difference, the sigma is a long lens and vibrations can happen...but I repeated the test and same happened.

Lighting is sunlight from my right, but since the shots were taken within 3 minutes of each other I can't see why lighting would differ...only on the 70-300 shots when I decided to have go with it and moved the bottle already.

Of course...sh1t...the forum software has resized the first two images...bugger...shou​ld be 800x1200..

Same here, the Sigma and 5D barely fit in the Vertex 100, the 1-4 is simply more compact and travelable...If you want a soft lens at wider angles fine...not me. So that is why it knock spots off, sharper at thelong end, sharper at the short...sharper. For the extra 250€ I see no reason in second best.

Neil, Thanks for sharing the test results.

Please post the following details -

a. lighting conditions (back-lit, front-lit, side-lit) since the light seems to falling from different angles in some of these pics.
b. the distance of the "Paulaner" subject from the lens.
c. Were these shots handheld or on a tripod (OS off) ?

Thanks.

Tripod. Cable release. Mirror lockup. NO IS (People think I am STUPID?) Lighting is CONSTANT, front lit (slightle from right) later evening sunlight....1 light source...the sun...no different light for any shots. The bottle was positioned roughly 3m away.

I am not a scientist. I tested the lenses outside to get as much light as possible. The balcony is not that big that I can get further away with good lighting. The tests were meant for me to compare the lenses & check the 1-4 functioned as it should. I am happy now. Make of the test what you will and if they are not conclusive enough make your own test...

The simple fact that the Sigma cannot cope at the short end wide open (yes I have used this range and needed it wide open (When shooting tigers in India sat in the shade late evening, for example, or deer here in the forest)) so it was important for me. The sigma failed and the price difference is not high enough to be a put off, certainly here in europe.

Thanks a lot for your detailed response with all the details. Appreciated !

I have seen your pics from Rajasthan and Ranthambore Park - quite liked them.

Thanks.

No worries. As said this a personal thing but shared it incase it helps.

Looks like a good comparison.

I am getting ready to go on a nature excursion for a couple weeks with my new 5d Mk II.

I am thinking that the body may make up for the IQ of the 150-500 just so I can have a little more range.

We will see...

Thanks Neily, you confirmed my findings in a more controlled way

And I noticed (I dont know if you shot the 150-500 handheld or not) that despite the 150-500's supposed 4-stop OS, the IS in the 100-400 still seemed to work -better- and more effectively.....

And I get more -consistent- results from the 100-400

KenjiS wrote in post #7743425
And I noticed (I dont know if you shot the 150-500 handheld or not) that despite the 150-500's supposed 4-stop OS, the IS in the 100-400 still seemed to work -better- and more effectively.....

That wasn't my experience. I own the 100-400 and have a friend with the Sigma 150-500. I prefer the 100-400 for various reasons, but OS/IS isn't one of them. In my experience with both lenses, the OS in the Sigma was VASTLY superior to the IS in the Canon shooting handheld. The OS did take about a second to settle though which was slower than the Canon.