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 29 May 2009 (Friday) 22:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 100-300 f/4 IF EX HS or Sigma 150-500 OS

 
Ariel
Member
182 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
     
May 29, 2009 22:27 |  #1

I have a dilemma, I am looking to buy a zoom/telephoto lens and have been looking up these 2 lenses, right now I dont think I need a 500mm reach, so it will be a bonus and I think I can manage without the OS, but it will be a bonus as well, the lens will be mostly used for local airplane spotting and airshows. I have been looking at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM + 1.4x TCon or a Sigma 150-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS. I have not used any of them, but I do own a 100-400L, so this lens will be for a 2nd body for my wife to use. Anyone has any experience with either one? How comparable will any of them be to the 100-400L? What will be a better option?

Thanks,
Ariel


Feedbackhttps://photography-on-the.net …rch.php?searchi​d=10868450

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
May 29, 2009 22:46 |  #2

I have both. I can't tell you how they compare to the 100-400L, but:

100-300 f/4 is optically superior to the 150-500 and takes a 1.4x TC very well. I use mine more for sports than anything.

150-500 gives you longer reach and OS and takes a 1.4x TC pretty well. I use this one principally for wildlife.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ariel
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
182 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
     
May 29, 2009 22:54 |  #3

Any significant loss of IQ for both using the 1.4x TC? I know there is always loss, unavoidable, but in which one is more noticeable?


Feedbackhttps://photography-on-the.net …rch.php?searchi​d=10868450

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
May 29, 2009 22:57 |  #4

I have no hesitation using the 1.4x on the 100-300. The 150-500 isn't bad, though. If you search the 150-500 archive for my posts, you'll see the 1.4x, 2x and 3.4x TC on this lens. That should give you an idea how it does.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
condyk
Africa's #1 Tour Guide
Avatar
20,886 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
     
May 30, 2009 02:10 |  #5

I've owned both, plus two 100-400mm. I've just picked up another 150-500mm for casual zoo style shooting in the UK. In order I'd go 100-300mm 4.0, 150-500mm, 100-400mm, but that is just based on the quality of images I got from each, before adding in any further criteria.

The 150-500mm OS is fairly large and heavy and very noticeable, but so is the 100-300mm. The latter needs a monopod to get the A1 image quality it is capable of unless you are very steady. It takes a 1.4x very well too, as Tony says.

I used mine around 80% like that, which is why I finally sold it for the 100-400mm. That was a disappointment, both copies where, but then the 100-300mm is one of the best zoom you can buy while the 100-400mm is just a long zoom that does most thing pretty well.

The 150-500mm OS is a better all rounder If you take weight and size out of the decision, but if you don't need 500mm, and 420mm with a tcon on the 100-300mm is still long, then go for the 100-300mm. If you need flexibility in a fairly lightweight package and decent IQ then stick the Canon you already have.

Not sure the 150-500mm or 100-300mm are that suited to a woman shooter, but depends on build and strength. They are both heavy to be swinging around chasing planes. I know the 100-400mm is pretty popular for that stuff. A decent tripod and ballhead or gimbal will sort things.


https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1203740

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

1,097 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 100-300 f/4 IF EX HS or Sigma 150-500 OS
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 Ezra Praveen
777 guests, 202 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.