Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Canon 100 - 400 v. Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM v. Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM


Munro e2
6 39 United Kingdom
26 Jun 2011 12:36PM
Aside from the price difference from the 100-400 and focal distance of the 150-500, has anyone any experience of these lenses in terms of IQ against the Canon 100-400?

Looking to use as a walkabout wildlife lens which would be attached to a 7D. I'm happy to pay the extra for the 100-400 if the IQ is considered better.

thanks

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

26 Jun 2011 2:30PM
have you thought about the Canon 300f4+1x4/400f5.6,both good walkabout lenses,the sigma's are supposed to be a little soft at the long end which is not good for wildlife, because that is the end which is probably going to be used the most,the 300mm set up has I.S,plus with the 1x4 in theory you are getting 2 lenses.
bagman e2
3 65 United States
26 Jun 2011 4:11PM
the sigma is cheaper cost and heaver weight. the canon has better glass
that is why i have not changed from 170 x 500sigma lens to the new one.
i have used my brother in laws 100 x400 canon lens and it seem better to me .
that can be subjective ,but i like the a lot better on deer,ect.
frank.
cameracat e2
11 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
26 Jun 2011 7:06PM

Quote:170 x 500sigma lens to the new one


The 170-500mm Sigma is an older model, Its no where near as good as the 150-500 OS version.

Side by side comparisons with a Sigma 150-500mm OS ( latest model ) and the Canon 100-400 IS L showed very little difference overall, Certainly not enough difference to justify the price differential, That said the lens where tested on two different cameras, The Sigma 150-500 OS was on a Nikon D700, The Canon was mounted on a 5D MkII .....!!!

Whatever, Your best bet when thinking of spending this sort of cash is to " Try Before You Buy " then choose the one you like best.

I use the Sigma 150-500mm /OS on a Nikon D700 and I have no problems with it what-so-ever......Wink

Some of my recent uploads where shot with the Sigma 150-500,.....
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
26 Jun 2011 11:15PM
From my experience, I found the 150-500 to have faster focusing than the 170-500 (I used to have a 170-500) but on my canon camera I found that it still lost sharpness and contrast wide open, more so than the canon. (Both drop wide open compared to f8, and f8 to f11 the difference was not too big) but wide open I think the Canon is better. The 150-500 has more stops of IS than the Canon but I found it took longer to settle plus it is heavier and larger than the canon. I tend to use the IS for hand help action/wildlife so the fact that the canon was running @ f5.6 while I had the sigma @ f7 meant the IS advantage was lost as it is shutter speed that I also need. (I stopped it down for results I realise f6.3 is possible.)

At the time I bought Canon had a cash back and in the dealer the price difference was only 100 so I bought the Canon. Lenses do vary so perhaps I tested a not so good one. Now a days I might just well live with the sigma as the price difference is a lot more than 100.

As others say the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 are good choices. I have to say the primes work well, but the 400 lacks IS and the 300 is a tad short. Stick the 300 on a 1.4x TC and it looked very similar to 100-400 in my eyes.

But I honestly recommend you go play with some copies as I found the 100-400 varied and no doubt the 150-500 does too.
5 Jul 2011 2:34PM
It might be down to quality control, but I tried the Canon and the Sigma 120-400 and saw little difference. The Canon focused a fraction of a heartbeat faster, but cost twice as much so I went with the Sigma - I'm not a pro so potentially missing a the odd shot was not enough to spend the extra 590 on the Canon. As for IQ, I couldn't see any difference.
acousticmist 4 10 1 United Kingdom
18 Sep 2011 3:11PM
Hi, I have owned a 50-500mm Sigma (Bigma) very heavy and well built. I was very happy with the image quality of birds I'd taken with it. I then bought the Canon Ef 100-400mm L series, and the image quality blew me away, a superb lens in my opinion, sold the Sigma straight away with no regrets. Please note, I am not knocking the Sigma, still a good lens but not as sharper image as the Canon...................Martin
Draig37 e2
7 248 Wales
18 Sep 2011 4:03PM
We had the same problem - and we did loads of research on net etc and ended up going for the Sigma 120-400. the wife loved it, and the IQ was very good on her 50D. I tried it on my 7D and was very impressed - so much so I bought myself one.
Shop around and there are some good prices. works well with kenko 1.4 convertor (and auto-focus works fine on my 7D)
For what we want with a longer lens - the Siggy is enough and using a Black Rapid strap - you hardly notice the weight and it can be hand-held (take a look at my jet ski shot and also some more on flickr - this was the 1st time out with it and tried it hand held) fairly easily.
Would happily recommend one.
16 Oct 2011 5:05PM
have you considered the canon 400mm f5.6 L series prime lens, pin sharp , fast focusing and being a prime lens sharper than a zoom,
not to heavy to carry around and i also use it on a monopod to aid me with the lack of image stabilizing .
check out my pf as most of the shots on there are with this lens,
regards steve

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.