Changing sigma 150-500 to 400 f5.6L or 300 f4L IS

I have got the Bigmos and want to sell it and upgrade to either the 400 5.6L or the 300 f4 IS. my bigmos does not take a teleconverter and have heard good things that the 300 and 400 do that well and are even better without. What do you think will be the best option. I Like shooting sports photos (outdoors) and also wildlife. I like the IS on the 300 but the length of the 400. Thery are both about the same speed so need help. Would ideally love the 400 2.8 but cant go anywhere near that price range and these two are quite close.

Thanks for all of your help.

Sport photos: 300 f/4 while wildlife will benefit from 400 f/5.6. Yes you can add TC to 300 but it will not the same as 400 f/5.6. So think of which one you will use more often. They're both excellent lenses.

What would a 300 f4 IS be with a 1.4 converter. 420?

Also the 400 f5.6 will be 560??

I shoot a lot of both as i love anything with action.

Thanks

that about right. longer is better. . Get 400 f/5.6

I used it to take soccer game and it is great. I just need to move back and forth a litte bit but no big deal.

Sample here:

http://www.aphanphoto.​com …y/thumbnails.ph​p?album=13

I do like the length of the 400 but the IS on the 300. I have the 70-200 f4 IS and love the IS on that lens. That is the only reason i am looking at that. Do i go for 100m extra or the IS system on the shorter lens and be slightly more reliant on the 1.4.

Thanks for your help so far,

aarbiser wrote in post #6789457
I do like the length of the 400 but the IS on the 300. I have the 70-200 f4 IS and love the IS on that lens. That is the only reason i am looking at that. Do i go for 100m extra or the IS system on the shorter lens and be slightly more reliant on the 1.4.

Thanks for your help so far,

is there a reason you aren't considering the 100-400L?

ed rader

if you don't do lots of wildlife/bird stuff then 300 is good. However, if you going to add TC to your 300, AF will slower a bit and ofcourse you still missing that 100mm. Another choice in between would be 100-400L

If you can get a good copy of the 100-400, go for it

Tried the 100-400 and really dont like the push pull on the zoom and that is why i initially went with the 150-500 OS. Would love the 100-400L if it had a zoom ring like normal lenses. Will have to compromise. The 400 is cheaper that the 300 but prices are very close. Why cant canon make the perfect lens that is affordable (another thread i know).

aarbiser wrote in post #6789681
Tried the 100-400 and really dont like the push pull on the zoom and that is why i initially went with the 150-500 OS. Would love the 100-400L if it had a zoom ring like normal lenses. Will have to compromise. The 400 is cheaper that the 300 but prices are very close. Why cant canon make the perfect lens that is affordable (another thread i know).

do this....extend the zoom all the way out and then tighten the tension ring...i mean really torque that mother down.... and **BLAM** you have a 400mm prime with IS .

btw, why are you dumping the siggie?

ed rader

good lens and i like some of the pics. dont like the feel of it. Heavy and only really useable with monopod even with OS. Moving more towards primes and from my experience every prime i am now owning is stella. Just got the 135 f2 and the 85 1.8. Both superb and in a different league to my zooms. Hear mixed things with 100-400 always even though i have seen some great shots.

you do know if you put a TC on the 400 5.6 you no longer will have AF. and a 1.4x tc is all you can use on the 300 f4 to keep AF..you will also slow down the AF as well with a TC

I'd go for the 400. I went back and forth myself on that very issue. I finally decided on the 400 and haven't looked back. I shoot mainly youth sports, during the middle of the day and it has worked out for me. Really, you can't go wrong with what ever you decide because ultimately you will work it out.

Good Luck,


Ron

On a 1.6X body the 400mm prime is super long for sports. This will be OK for wildlife (probably best for wildlife) but restrictive for sports.

The 300/4 is better for a mix, not so overly long and you can slap a 1.4X TC on it for when you do need that 400mm reach.

The 100-400L should also be considered. AF is not as sporty perhaps, but on a Rebel body there may be little difference between the primes and the zoom. The 100-400 is a lot more convenient for variation of course.

I own the 300 f/4L IS great on my old 30D, a little short on my 5D. Uses the 1.4x ok, in big light or non-BIF perfect. 400 great, but yes, no AF at f/8(1.4x converter f/)