300mm Canon prime vs. 150-500 Sigma??

I am hoping to get some feedback on a possible switch I've been contemplating.

I currently have a Canon 300mm L f4 IS prime lens (2007 date code). I also have a Canon 1.4x extender that I often use with it for "birding". The lens is very sharp, in absolutely perfect condition, original box, soft case..etc...So I'd assume I could sell it easily.

For about what I think I can sell the lens for....maybe even for a little less, I can buy a new Sigma 150-500...that lens would obviously be more versatile as far as focal length, and also fill in the 200-300 mm "gap" (not including use of the extender) I have between my current 300mm prime and my 70-200 f2.8 IS.

I realize that the Canon 300 is a faster lens by about a half stop at 150mm on the Sigma, and the Sigma is not a constant aperture lens (I think it's f5-f8 or so). But it also has a good deal more focal length... using the extender the 300 gives me an equivalent of 420mm and with a crop sensor about 680..the Sigma would give me an 800mm equivalent just with the crop sensor, and if the extender would work, it would put it at about 1100 mm.

I don't know if I can use the extender with the Sigma, or if I can if I'll lose auto-focus?

I'm not sure what it would be like to hand hold the lens....the 300mm prime is pretty light, and focuses quite quickly and is lighter than my 70-200 (although not by enough to make me aware of the difference when using either).

The Sigma does have their version of USM and IS..so it seems to be a lot of lens - other than the slower and non constant aperture. But I use a long lens like that almost exclusively in bright daylight..in fact I rarely take my polarizing filter off the 300...so that brings the f4 down by maybe a full stop..give or take.


The Sigma does seem to get good reviews and buying a new one, if I get a bad copy, I can always exchange it. Or get a refund if I just don't like it (it would be hard to find anther 300 Canon in the shape mine is in, but I guess with a bit of patience I could eventually find one.

I've never seen or held the Sigma in my hands, and don't know of anywhere in reasonable driving range to check it out. I assume the build quality is good..don't know how it would compare to the Canon (which isn't one of the best built "L" lenses, (not weather sealed), but is still build like a tank and has the built in lens shade which is great (but useless with the polarizing filter).

Input appreciated!

Thanks,
D.

I got a sigma 150-500 and a canon 100-400, returned the sigma the next day. soft open and/or anywhere near 500. My experience. i think you will see my point here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0

With an extender the sigma will not autofocus on any non 1d bodies (not sure itll even do it in 1d's). And i think your eyes will spontaneously implode when you see the results of that combo.

Coming from a 300 canon prime to a sigma zoom, your going to be so disappointed your going to have a heart attack and your head is going to explode. So, don't do it lol.

My recommendation, keep you prime or get a 100-400 from canon. My .2 cents.

Power_play - it seems like you got a bad copy of the sigma lens.

I had a similar problem, returned the first copy and now have a very sharp copy of the 150-500mm lens.

If you don't like the sigma glass, send it back and I'd look into the 400 5.6 L series.

Could very well be orni. But I do see a difference between pictures I've gotten with the 100-400 to similar ones in the 150-500 thread, so a bad copy isn't the whole story.

I suppose I should have said that if you work within the lenses capabilities, you will get images that if you don't pixel peep, will suit you well for web sized and prints.

The 400 5.6 is a good suggestion, and I would back that.

power_play21 wrote in post #9834921
I got a sigma 150-500 and a canon 100-400, returned the sigma the next day. soft open and/or anywhere near 500. My experience. i think you will see my point here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0

With an extender the sigma will not autofocus on any non 1d bodies (not sure itll even do it in 1d's). And i think your eyes will spontaneously implode when you see the results of that combo.

Coming from a 300 canon prime to a sigma zoom, your going to be so disappointed your going to have a heart attack and your head is going to explode. So, don't do it lol.

My recommendation, keep you prime or get a 100-400 from canon. My .2 cents.

Thanks...I'm not quite sure how to tell what I'm looking at with the link you posted...

The 100-400 IS has been something I've been considering as well...but cost is an issue, and they are about 50% more...Maybe just waiting and saving is the ticket.

I'm curious why it seems a lot of wildlife shooters seem to go with the 400 prime rather than the 100-400 since the prime 400 has no IS, which I find useful...not just for eliminating camera shake in the actual photos, but just so much easier on my eyes in the viewfinder.

I realize the prime is (or should be) somewhat sharper, but looking at the thread of pics using the 100-400 zoom, it seems plenty sharp at least for non-billboard size prints.

Thanks again.

Best,
D.

Shots from my 150-500mm (cross-post). I'm an amateur at best, taken with my 8 MP Rebel XT. I'm pretty happy with the sharpness.

power_play21 wrote in post #9834986
Could very well be orni. But I do see a difference between pictures I've gotten with the 100-400 to similar ones in the 150-500 thread, so a bad copy isn't the whole story.

I suppose I should have said that if you work within the lenses capabilities, you will get images that if you don't pixel peep, will suit you well for web sized and prints.

The 400 5.6 is a good suggestion, and I would back that.

One comment I'd like to add...for me personally, I'd never bother with an "L" lens for web photos or web sized prints. I can get adequate results with my 20x zoom on my little SX10...and now Fuji is coming out with a 30x optical zoom on a p&s "superzoom".

While I mostly use the lens for goofing around shooting birds on the lake behind my house, I also have a need for images worthy of being published (not birds)...I do long lens portraits and group photos and performance photos for commercial use on occassion. Barely enough to justify the expense of the lenses (so far), but hopefully I'll get more of that kind of work (new at it since I recently retired from film and TV production)... So the IQ is important to me...and I need to be able to crop at times and not lose visible resolution.

The reason I have the 2.8 version of the 70-200 is for onstage night concerts where that extra stop can make a big difference (no extender when using that lens for that purpose). For daylight shots, I could use the zoom with the extender and have a very close focal length to the prime...but (at least in my samples) the prime seems quite a bit faster to focus.Which is important to me. I guess I should see if I can rent a 100-400...or a 400 prime (or both)..

Thanks guys,
D.

Ornithologist wrote in post #9835081
Shots from my 150-500mm (cross-post). I'm an amateur at best, taken with my 8 MP Rebel XT. I'm pretty happy with the sharpness.
.

The shots you posted indeed seem sharp...the colors seem a bit muted though. No way for me to know if it's your lens, the exposures, or (doubtfully) your Rebel.

However I'd think with some post processing they could have more "pop".

But overall..quite nice. I didn't realize there was a thread devoted to images from that lens...I'll find it and check it out.

Thanks,
D.

Maybe your monitor and/or it's not calibrated. I think what you are seeing is nothing blown out (scrunched DR, possibly) and, maybe, not the highest micro contrast.

I see no lack of saturation in those shots. The odd one, maybe, oversharpned, though, for my tastes.

Then again, I like them. I don't like Technicolor processing.

A Curves adjustment would change the entire character of those shots.

bohdank wrote in post #9835251
Maybe your
monitor and/or it's not calibrated. I think what you are seeing is nothing blown out (scrunched DR, possibly) and, maybe, not the highest micro contrast.

I see no lack of saturation in those shots. The odd one, maybe, oversharpned, though, for my tastes.

Then again, I like them. I don't like Technicolor processing.

A Curves adjustment would change the entire character of those shots.

On second look, I think it may have been the angle I looked at them at first (laptop lcd).

Saturation is actually fine although I think it's possible that I'm just so used to a different kind of lighting, and it's effect on very similar shots. Think I mentioned that I live on a lake..same birds, water looks like lake water, etc.

Maybe it's the lighting..no way to know where those pictures were taken, but I'm in S. Florida and the lighting here is far different than it is in most of the country...and too intense to shoot around water and get nice lighting except when the sun is low - which seems to give our fine feathered friends a different hue.

This heron looked exactly like the photo at the time it was taken..(very early am)...in later day light it would look a lot more gray.

Get the 50-500mm Bigma II and post some sample shots for the rest of us! :P

Taken with the 150-500. A faster focusing prime would have been better. Sometimes you have to compromise and it's your call.

Ornithologist wrote in post #9835081
I guess it all comes down to what you are looking to do with your lens. I tried out a friends 100-400 before I purchased the 150-500mm. Both are very similar IMHO. I think looking at the 150-500mm thread, you have to take into account the skill of the photographers. Most profession photographers have L series glass. You get into 3rd party lenses you have more people like myself. We get some good pictures but there is always going to be a gap between us and the true pro's.

Don't sell yourself short, those are great, especially the one of them in flight!

Delija wrote in post #9835130
However I'd think with some post processing they could have more "pop".

But overall..quite nice. I didn't realize there was a thread devoted to images from that lens...I'll find it and check it out.

Thanks,
D.

Hmmm, take a look at your monitor (not intending this to be a flame please don't take it that way, I'm honestly suggesting it). You may have a TN panel (they aren't always the best for color accuracy and some have really bad default settings!) Dig around in the menus a bit see if things are set optimally, I bet you'll be able to tweak them a lot! His pictures have *tons* of pop and are very crisp and vibrant. Just a hunch but I bet you'll be enjoying your own photos a lot more as well, they'll probably look way better than you remembered!

Delija wrote in post #9835806
On second look, I think it may have been the angle I looked at them at first (laptop lcd).

Saturation is actually fine although I think it's possible that I'm just so used to a different kind of lighting, and it's effect on very similar shots. Think I mentioned that I live on a lake..same birds, water looks like lake water, etc.

Maybe it's the lighting..no way to know where those pictures were taken, but I'm in S. Florida and the lighting here is far different than it is in most of the country...and too intense to shoot around water and get nice lighting except when the sun is low - which seems to give our fine feathered friends a different hue.

This heron looked exactly like the photo at the time it was taken..(very early am)...in later day light it would look a lot more gray.

I lived in Tampa for about 1.5 years and spend quite a bit of time in the Caribbean. Actually the lighting is not that different than the summer further north.

It is a crappy time to take pictures because of the huge DR needed to capture everything, well beyond what is capable today.

Just an observation. Too hard to tell exactly, from the small image posted, but parts of the beak look completely blown out, the back looks like it may have some blown out sections also, and some may find the image somewhat "bright". It does look overexposed.

This is most likely a result of the panel in your laptop which would certainly have affected how you would have post processed. That doesn't explain the blown out parts, though

I would err on slightly underexposing, rather than overexpose, in situations like that.