Super Tele-photo question... NOT ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT THESE!!!!! ;)

::::isclaimer- I know there are 2345987234598723459872​345987 threads about super telephotos, and I have looked at all of them. And I still can't make up my mind. :::::

OK, here comes another dilemma... I am looking for a LOOOOONG lens. Will buy new or used, budget around $1100 or so. Will be used outdoors only, likely in good light for birds, to take hiking, camping and fishing. Mainly hand held, with a monopod every now and then (maybe 5% of the time). Also, will be carrying it for long distances occasionally. I am in good shape, but I don't want it to feel like there are rocks in my bag. I am not married to a zoom or primes. Open to either. Here is what I am looking at and the conclusions I have drawn...

Canon 300mm f/4L IS- Not too big, IS is huge, I like f/4 here. Prime lens. I am just worried it might not be long enough. Could be fixed with a TC though... This is in the top three so far. Probably number 2. Could buy it new.

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6- IS, a bit longer, L build. Might be heavy, but probably not too heavy. Just worried about the dust thing with it. This is my top choice so far, but the 300mm f/4 IS is VERY tempting. Would have to buy this one used.

Canon 400mm f/5.6- Light weight, good focal length. No IS, however may not be an issue since I usually shoot in good light. Probably my third choice. Could buy new.

Sigma 100-300mm f/4- Zoom with f/4. No IS. Don't know much about this or the other Sigmas.

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 OS- Has OS, Seems a bit slow, but 500mm... WOW!!!!!

Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS- OS, very comparable features to the 100-400mm IS... This is the only Sigma I probably couldn't buy new due to price. Be interested in seeing a side by side comparison to the 100-400 with this one too.

Basically, are the Sigma's worth looking at? I would rather pay more for the Canon if they are better. Anyone have any pics comparing side by side of any of these? I am concerned mostly about IQ (IS probably necessary since I hate tripods), and secondly about it not being enormous.

Any help is greatly appreciated. All look great in the archives, so those don't help too much. D'OH!!!!

Start off slowly and work your way up, in general. If you need to travel light and/or do some hand holding - EF 400/5.6. If you don't mind a monopod, tripod - Sigma 150-500.

pointerDixie214,
One of the many reasons I went for the Canon 100-400L is because it fits in my camera bags
IS and zoom range were also very valuable

As for dust, it has less dust in it after years of use then my 50mm prime does...... Go figure

Any reason 400mm f/5.6 is better for hand holding than 300mm f/4 IS or 100-400mm? This confuses me. I do mind using a tripod though, so sounds like the Sigma150-500 is out. Sounds good. Looks like I have eliminated the Sigma 80-400 (Because the Canon is better and very close in price), and the Sigma 150-500mm because I hate tripods.

So now we're down to 300mm f/4, 100-400, 400mm f/5.6 and the Sigma 100-300mm f/4...

While I do not have any experience with longer telephoto lenses(yet), I would suggest looking at the Sigma archives that are on this forum, and reading reviews on the internet. The general consensus is that Sigma makes very comparable lenses to canon in most cases. The biggest drawback in general is the lack of IS. It kind of depends on a lens to lens basis. Also look at the weight since Sigma lenses are almost always heavier than their canon equivalent. Another problem with Sigma is that their QC seems to have gotten pretty bad, so I would recommend buying from a reputable dealer with a legitimate return policy if you go that route. There is always the option of sending the lens in as well.

All of the lenses that you have mentioned, to my knowledge, are very good. In almost all cases, I know that the Canon lenses on your list are excellent. It sounds like you have done a lot of research in this camp, so if you are going to go Canon then go with what you think you need based on the many many recommendations throughout the forum. Consider how long you will shoot in general, whether or not you want IS, how much weight you are willing to put up with, etc. I am in the same dilemma as you and have looked at the 120-400 OS Sigma as well as the 150-500 OS Sigma. The 120-400 has had some serious QC issues, so I have pretty much disregarded that lens, and the 150-500mm seems like a great lens but it's widest aperture setting is f/6.3 from 300mm long, which is pretty slow. f/5.6 to me is a compromise....

I am in the same dilemma as you, and have been trolling threads for a long time to try and make the most informed decision I can. After all of my considerations, I think that I am going to go with the Canon 100-400 IS. The versatility and IS win out for me over the 400mm f/5.6. If I shot primarily birds then I would probably go with the 400, but I like to shoot a variety of animals. The 300 f/4 IS is an excellent choice if you think that you will shoot at 300mm most of the time. It also has a much closer minimum focusing distance than the 400 f/5.6, so you can do some far away macro type shots(great for butterflies and the like). It works with the tc, but that is going to slow you down quite a bit for autofocusing. If you ever wanted to go farther than 420mm with this lens, then you would have to stick with manual when paired with the 2X tc. If you are planning on shooting things that are far away, I think that you should go with atleast 400mm native. I hope this helped a little.

The only lens that I own that you are considering is the 100-400 and I can tell you that it is an amazing lens. Lots of zoom, tack sharp, great bokeh. The push / pull zoom is no problem. As for dust, I haven't had any trouble with mine, even shooting from up close at a rodeo and dozens of softball games.

Yeah- very similar dilemma for sure. I would go with the 400mm prime hands down if I weren't worried about lack of IS and it being too long. At least the 300mm is a touch shorter for the prime and the 100-400 is obviously the versatile choice. DAMMIT this shouldn't be so hard. I guess having to choose between three awesome lenses is better than having to choose from three crappy ones...

Just for giggles, I omitted the other Sigma 100-300... Let's keep this as an L so I know the QC is there. There is nothing I hate more than dropping $1000+ on a toy, waiting for it to get here, and having to send it back in. Forget that.


So, now we're like this most likely...

1. 300mm f/4 IS
1. (tie) 100-400
3. 400mm f/5.6


AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH​HHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a weight comparison for you.

Canon 300mm f/4 IS = 2.6 lbs.
Canon 400mm f/5.6 = 2.8 lbs.
Canon 100-400mm IS =3.0 lbs.
Sigma 150-500mm = 4.2 lbs.
Sigma 80-400 OS = 3.6 lbs.

Another check against the Sigmas.

Anyone have any pics of the 300, 400, and 100-400 either next to one another or on camera? I am trying to figure out also if they fit in my bag! HAHAHA

Just realized 400mm prime is 11.5 ft minimum focus.

Down to the 300mm f/4 or the 100-400...

How long is the 100-400mm when extended?

Hi pointerDixie214-

I was in a similar decision process a few months back and was looking for something longer then my 70-200 2.8 + 1.4x combo.... I looked at the same lenses you mention, rented a 100-400, and read too many reviews on the Sigmas....

Here are some of my thoughs:

100-400 - an interesting lens, lots of reach, push-pull zoom is easy to use once you get used to it. What I found is unless I was using it for an outdoor sports event, I was usually set at the 400mm range which led me to start looking at a supertele prime instead of zoom... The IQ was good, but not fantastic.

400mm f5.6 - This lens is known for its ability in the field and its quick focus. I personaly thought that unless I planned on using a tripod or shooting wildlife on a bright day, I may wish I had IS on this one... Decided to wait to see if a new 400 f5.6 IS comes out in the future...

300mm f4 IS - Excellent Image Quality, very versatile lens. Can shoot close up, and when paired with my 1.4x, becomes a 420mm f5.6 IS (if I need it). I went with this one.....

Sigma 150-500 - I recently saw this at Lensrentals.com - http://www.lensrentals​.com …500mm-f5-6.3-os/for-canon This link explains some issues they have had with multiple copies of the lens and are actually selling ALL copies of this lens and not rent it out any longer. Something you may want to read if you are thinking of this one.

Very happy with my 300f4 IS.
- The 300 2.8 wasn't in my budget (and won't be in the near future)
- After some recent issues with a sigma lens purchase I found myself wanting to stick with Canon lenses
- When it came down to the 300 vs 100-400 I just thought it came down to pure IQ for me (300f4 won)
- 300 vs 400 - Since I had the 1.4x teleconverter already, the 300f4 + 1.4x pretty much gave me the 400 5.6 but with IS...

Good luck!

pointerDixie214 wrote in post #6432413
Anyone have any pics of the 300, 400, and 100-400 either next to one another or on camera? I am trying to figure out also if they fit in my bag! HAHAHA

The 100-400 is the shortest of the 3, and easiest to carry in a bag with little weight penalty too. Plenty of threads comparing this to the 400, or 300+tc. Everyone has their favorite, mine is the 100-400. But, I've never used the other two

the digital picture.com shows them compared to a 70-200 2.8 if that helps...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

click each lens to see its comparison shot

I think its only fair to mention how versatile the 100-400 is with that wide focal range. Since I had the 100mm macro, the 70-200, and the 1.4x, I had a good portion of that range covered already.

What type of shooting do you plan on doing with your new supertele?

Whether you get the 300,400, or 100-400 you will be happy.... There are all great Lenses...

I'll be honest, I have never been a fan of the 100-400 for wildlife. It is great for versatility at air shows and such, though. Think about how often you'll be at 400mm. Then the 400/5.6 is better perhaps.

I will use this for a general outdoor lens. Birds, fishing, furry critters, sports in good light, auto maybe. I dunno, the prime is really looking good. The 300mm that is...

Oh well, at least I have a couple weeks to decide...

It may come down to eenie meenie minie moe...