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 11 Jul 2008 (Friday) 19:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Mini-Review of the Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400L

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:17 |  #1

History:
I had a Bigma that was very sharp in the past, then I picked up a 100-400L pretty cheap, so I did a mini-review back then of the Dust Pump against the Bigma. I found both to be very good IQ wise, and the slight nod went to the Canon due to weight, IS, and the ease of adding TCs and manually focusing over the Bigma. I decided to pick up this latest Sigma lens, since it has OS, and I was very optimistic that I would find it to be comparable to the Canon and my old Bigma.

Shooting Conditions:
Nice sunny day so that I would not have any issues with AF, and all hand-held at ISO 800. I sat on my porch chair and did these shots pretty quickly to get them all in the same exposure conditions. I shot large JPG for all shots, on a 1DMKIII. I ran a quick micro adjustment on the Sigma, I have had a much longer time period over the past months to tweak the 100-400 to the MKIII, so that may be a factor as well to some extent here on some of the discrepancies between the lenses. I took the filter off the Canon, so that it would not be a factor in this. Also, I didn't quite hit the correct zoom factor on the Sigma, as all I could do is get close to the markings on the barrel.

Post Processing:
I have an action that I ran for each and every shot, so the post processing was the same for each. I do an auto-level, USM contrast step, overlay layer with high pass at around the 1.0 mark, then merge. No saturation steps or USM sharpening steps.

Personal Conclusions:
The Sigma is longer than the Canon by quite a bit, and won't fit in my bag if I keep it. The OS seems to be much better than the IS on the Canon, BUT only when it is not doing a strange little twitch from time to time, it was really bugging me. I could see it jerk from time to time, other times it was so locked in, it was uncanny. I think they have a little work yet on this version of OS. The color rendition is different than the Canon. It cannot utilize the 77mm filters either, like the Canon and so many of the other lenses, both Canon and Sigma.

The Canon seems to resolve more detail though at different points, at least with my copies. It could be that I have a very sharp 100-400 and a softer Sigma, it is hard to tell with such a new lens. It could be something to do with the contrast difference between the two lenses as well. The Canon is still lighter and smaller overall, but I really did like the zoom ring on the Sigma versus the push/pull/friction locking ring on the Canon. The Canon is easier to manually focus as well, but with age, I am sure like all other Sigma lenses, the focus ring will become much looser/smoother.

Overall, it seems to be a really good lens at its price point and its range, but I think Sigma needs to address the OS behavior, and it is still a very long lens, it reminds me a bit of the older 170-500mm lens. If I didn't have the Canon, I would seriously consider this lens as my defacto telephoto lens. I will play a bit more with both lenses, and one of the two will then go up for sale.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:20 |  #2

Here is the Canon at 100mm and the Sigma at 150mm, very similar in IQ at the low ends of each lens in my opinion.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:22 |  #3

Here is the Canon at 200mm and the Sigma at 200mm, I can see a color difference at this point.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:25 |  #4

Here is the Canon at 300mm (wide open f/5.6) and the Sigma (wide open f6.3) at 300mm, I can see the color difference still, and the Canon is somehow starting to resolve some of the brick/stone pores better than the Sigma.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:26 |  #5

Here is the Canon at 400mm (stopped to f6.3) and the Sigma at 400mm (wide open at f6.3), the Canon is still showing more details strangely enough.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:27 |  #6

Here is the Sigma at 500mm... I think this is the strong end of the lens, better than throughout the rest of the zoom range.

Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:30 |  #7

Now I decided to add a Kenko Super DG 2x to both lenses. The 100-400 has been a proven performer with this TC, so I thought I would try it out on both. I tape the pins on the TC, and both lenses worked with the MKIII AF.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:33 |  #8

Now I tried to stack the Kenko 2x and 1.4x on both lenses. For both, on the MKIII, there is now not enough light for the AF engine, so I have to manually focus. As you see, I am able to manually focus the Canon pretty well, but is harder on the Sigma. Most likely it is the fact that the lens is so new that the manual zoom ring is very stiff and I had a hard time holding the lens (much like the Bigma when I did the same tests) and manually focusing.

I have a pretty good 100-400 moon shot with manual focusing with the TC stacked, I will try to repeat this test with both lenses at a later date.

Canon Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
THREAD ­ STARTER
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,391 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3626
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:37 |  #9

Here is the Sigma at the 500mm end with the 2x, then with the 2.8x stacked combo. Again, it is hard to manually focus with the stack.

Sigma 2x 500mm Full Size JPG (external link) Versus Sigma 2.8x 500mm Full Size JPG (external link)


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
_aravena
isn't this answer a stickie yet?
Avatar
12,450 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Back in the 757
     
Jul 11, 2008 19:42 |  #10

No pics on the last post but...oh, you just posted it.

Anywho, great taste. It makes me lean more towards the Canon a bit despite the extra 100 zoom, which as typically stated on the long end can seem like little. All depends on what you're shooting though.

Still, money wise it makes ya think but the 100-400 used ain't too shabby. Keep them coming!


Last Shot Photography
My Site (external link) ~ Gear List ~ Bag Reviews

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brecklundin
Goldmember
Avatar
2,179 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jul 11, 2008 20:58 |  #11

TS:

Thanks for the great side by side of these lenses. It makes me glad I am getting the 150-500.

Correct me if I am wrong but, to my eye, there is slightly less detail on the Sigma. Is this though the result of a tad less contrast? To me it looks as if with just a small amount of contrast and maybe black levels the images might end up being very close. But being so new to this I have no real clue so I though I would ask.

Overall I like what I am seeing from your pics...thanks again!


Real men shoot Pentax because we're born with our own Canon's!!
{Ok...ok, some of use just have a PnS but it it always makes me happy! :D}
Pentax K5, K20D, Three Amigos (Pentax FA 31/1.8 Limited Silver, Pentax FA 43/1.9 Limited Silver, Pentax FA 77/1.8 Limited Silver), Pentax DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited, Sigma 24-60/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Avatar
10,596 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
     
Jul 11, 2008 21:02 |  #12

Thanks for the comparison. Look like the pumper has more resolution and better colors to me.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrfourcows
Goldmember
Avatar
2,108 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: london
     
Jul 11, 2008 21:03 as a reply to  @ Tee Why's post |  #13

good stuff. thanks a lot!


gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,902 posts
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jul 11, 2008 21:17 |  #14

Team,

It looks like there's a slight difference in the exposures of the images, with the Canon a bit darker than the Sigma. Do you think that might account for the differences in detail?


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richfell
Member
Avatar
244 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 41
Joined Apr 2007
     
Jul 11, 2008 21:36 |  #15

Tony-S wrote in post #5895194 (external link)
Team,

It looks like there's a slight difference in the exposures of the images, with the Canon a bit darker than the Sigma. Do you think that might account for the differences in detail?

Yeah, with many of the head-to-head shots the exposure is not the same for each lens.


Rich

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

71,905 views & 0 likes for this thread
Mini-Review of the Sigma 150-500 vs Canon 100-400L
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 macui
472 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.