Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-500?

CaveDweller

CaveDweller

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,946
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a bit more reach than my 70-200 for wildlife and a 1.4 TC doesn't really add much more. I'm using a 550D body. I can get hold of a Canon 100-400L lens for £500 from a mate and I notice that Sigma have a 150-500 in the same price range but brand new. My mate lives a good 10 hours away from me so I can't exactly pop over to his to try it out. I've seen plenty shots from it on a 550D which he also uses and I'm quite impressed with the sharpness for one of the cheaper L lenses, but what is the Sigma like in comparison and is it possible for the Sigma to take a 2x TC? I don't mind the 100-400 being a push/pull action, I used one all the time on my old camera. It was an old Olympus OM lens I used on my EPL-2.

As I said it will be mainly for wildlife and moving subjects. If not I will be using a tripod like when I'm up near Inverness at Chanonry Point watching for the dolphins.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
The build quality and ergonomics of the Canon are hugely superior. I don't really know about optical quality though since I've never used the Sigma. I'm sure somebody else will be able to advise you there.

Both lenses will accept teleconverters but then of course they'd both be manual focus only.
 
I use the sigma and have not had any problems with it doing my motorsport or wildlife shots, sometimes lacking when it comes to lower light but overall a great lens and very sharp from my eyes
 
Cheers

dalegt4 said:
I use the sigma and have not had any problems with it doing my motorsport or wildlife shots, sometimes lacking when it comes to lower light but overall a great lens and very sharp from my eyes
Click to expand...
Lacking in lower light is something that I will have to put up with, I don't fancy taking out a mortgage for a f/2.8 lol. It was a spur of the moment thing after my mate offered me the 100-400 for cheaper than I've seen everywhere else. It's only when I looked it up on google that Sigma have the 150-500 for around the same price. The extra length would come in handy for me though.
 
this is a pretty hefty crop and unfortunately slightly more compressed through the dodgy photobucket but wide open and it captures well, the saliva between the teeth and rain on the nose and still retains good detail even with the crop.


 
I'd vote canon. I found the sigma focussed slower, and both my 100-400 lenses are pin sharp. (yup I've got two - so impressed I bought one for my son also). I've got robin photos you can make out the details in each feather.

On my old 50d I used it with. 2x convertor and got a great kingfisher image.
 
Thanks all. I think I will go ahead and get the Canon one and a 2x converter. for the price he offered me if I don't like it I could always sell it on and probably get some profit from it:rolleyes: I can't imagine myself not liking an L lens though. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS has been the best purchase I've made for my 550D.
 
Having used a Sigma 150-500 and compared my Brother in law's Canon 100-400 they are similar in performance, However on the basis of economics I would go with the Canon, as you could sell for what you are paying. I used a 2X on my Sigma
 
Get the Canon. A no brainer. A 2 x Tele though will mean manual focus only and a drop in IQ. I would just use the lens on it's own. Fantastic lens.
 
Go with the Canon esp. at that price. TBH I wouldn't bother with the 2x convertor. I don't think I've kept anything I've shot using the 1.4x and the 100-400mm.
 
I've just got a Canon 100-400mm and already I love it. Not had a chance at any wildlife shots just yet but I did shoot one of the neighbours cats and got some good shots of the moon last night.
 
I've had both the Canon and the Sigma and after a hell of a lot of testing I kept the Sigma. They are both very similar optically, there's really no difference in IQ between the two. The ergonomics make no difference, the push pull is easy enough to get used to and the Sigma is just a twist like all the other zooms. The Canon is slightly faster at f5.6 as opposed to f6.3 but it doesn't make a lot of difference in real world situations. I found the Sigma was much better in the OS/IS stakes, it blows the Canon away really, I got shots handheld at 1/10sec at 150mm whereas the best I could really get with the Canon was around 1/30sec. The AF speed is also so similar it makes no difference, they both track the subject well but I found the Sigma focussed for longer in failing light despite being 1/3rd of a stop slower. I've had the Sigma for over 2 years now and it's my most used lens for wildlife and aviation and is rarely off my 5D3 in the summer.

Having said all that, if the Canon lens for £500 is in really good condition I'd advise you to get that as they usually go for between £800-900 second hand so you could see if you like the Canon and if not you could sell it for at least what you paid for it and get something else. The Tamron 150-600 might be a good alternative and if you sell the Canon for its normal price you wouldn't be far off having the price of a new Tamron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top