Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM - or not - help please

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I know there's been a few threads like this of late but I'm on the brink of taking the plunge and buying the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

It's a fair old outlay for me and not surprisingly I guess I'm getting a few last min doubts about whether it's the right option.

In terms of what I want - I have a 40D just now and I'm after a lens that will do a bit of everything - in other words - landscapes at the (shorter end mainly) but also my kids & dogs playing (middle ground) yet be suitable for wildlife at the longer extremes. It will be used on a tripod as well as handheld.

These are the lenses that are niggling away at me as they are obviously less expensive.

Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM - by all accounts has 3 or 4 stops IS compared to Canon's 1

Sigma 150-500 f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM - same as above although I think I prefer the reports of the 120-400.

'Bigma' 50-500 f/4-6.3 EX DG - lack of IS concerns me for the handheld side of things although I know it performs well on a tripod.

Canon 70-200 f2.8 (not the IS one) - slight change in thinking but a teleconverter would be an option.

Anyway - If anybody could express an opinion on any of the obove or offer advice it would be much appreciated.
 
I bought a 2nd hand minter from a fellow TPer and I don`t regret it for a second, it`s a great lens. I shoot mainly below 100mm so I wanted a lens that could do many things well. :thumbs:
 
Depends on what your main criteria is, for the best value long the Sigma 150-500 can't be beat and it has an awesome OS system. The Canon 100-400 is also a capable lens though you do pay for the name. Not used the Sigma 120-400, but by all acounts is comparable to the 150-500. Whilst the 70-200 f2.8 may seem another option and is a good lens in it's own right, if you are slapping a TC on it you may find the lack of IS is something you wish you had.
 
artyman said:
Depends on what your main criteria is, for the best value long the Sigma 150-500 can't be beat and it has an awesome OS system. The Canon 100-400 is also a capable lens though you do pay for the name. Not used the Sigma 120-400, but by all acounts is comparable to the 150-500. Whilst the 70-200 f2.8 may seem another option and is a good lens in it's own right, if you are slapping a TC on it you may find the lack of IS is something you wish you had.
Click to expand...

I've pretty much come that conclusion regarding the none IS 70-200. If I was after a 70-200 it's probably the one I would go for but I really would like to go to 400mm and (as you say) the lack of IS would be evident with a TC added.

I think I'm down to wondering what I would be missing (if anything) if I went for a Sigma 120-400 or 150-500 rather than the Canon 100-400.
 
I recently let my 100-400 go,I might have had a dud,but the thing just was'nt all that sharp on my 50D or a friends 1DS. It is no light weight either,just like the Siggy its heavy and can become tiresome for a day in the field.For the money the 150-500 is in my opinion the better option.
 
I had a shot of a 100-400 for a few months after selling my 50-500 non is and all im trying to do now is save for a 100-400 far better auto focus and sharpness than my sigma and felt a fair bit lighter on a day out i wouldnt think twice about carrying it about all day. The only thing is when the light starts to go then f5.6 at the long end is a bit of a pain but great lens imho
 
Phil,
I'm in the same predicament as you! Cant decide between canon 100-400 or sigma 150-500. Think the Canon is gonna be better built and will also hold its money if you sell it on....question is if you buy the sigma maybe you'll always be wonderin if the Canon is better.....Maybe its worth hiring both to see

Keep us posted on your decision!!
 
I had a similar dilemma ....... and ended up getting a 24-70 L (I'll not go into the reasoning just now), what I did establish was that the build quality on sigmas can occasionally be a tad questionable but get a good one and it punches way above the price tag.
The decision's yours but at that investment it may be worth renting them for a couple of days, especially if you're leaning towards the canon.
 
Owning both the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400 I'd probably go for the 70-200 and a 1.4 TC
 
OSB said:
Owning both the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400 I'd probably go for the 70-200 and a 1.4 TC
Click to expand...

Might just be me but when i used my 70-200 f2.8 with the 1.4 tc i didnt like the images at all :thinking:
 
OSB said:
Owning both the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400 I'd probably go for the 70-200 and a 1.4 TC
Click to expand...

I think you are better using the TCs with primes as you`ll still get a reasonably sharp result. Zooms aren`t as sharp to start with as primes. I could be wrong though. :)
 
mine was ok with the 1.4x but rubbish with the 2x. Would still go for the 100-400 though.
 
mex said:
I recently let my 100-400 go,I might have had a dud,but the thing just was'nt all that sharp on my 50D or a friends 1DS. It is no light weight either,just like the Siggy its heavy and can become tiresome for a day in the field.For the money the 150-500 is in my opinion the better option.
Click to expand...

I have heard that some aren`t as sharp as they could be, that`s the main reason I bought a mint 2nd hand one, as any issues should have been sorted. :)
 
I do love my 100 - 400 and would recommend to any body, even to the extent that I bought a second one for the wife soon after the first purchase. I have not tried a convertor with my sigma 70 - 200. I also have a sigma 170 - 500 which the canon beats hands down.
 
I am in the same predicament too.

Looked at them both last friday and even though the canon is nearly twice the price I am still drawn to it.

we donot pay VAT over here so I can get the canon for £1090 brand new so i will not even contemplate a second hand one that i can get for say £800 to £900+
oh decisions decisions ha ha.

Spike
 
The thing is if you get the Canon 100-400 you will then wonder if the Sigma 150-500 would have been as good. All I know is I paid £640 as against £1099 for the Canon, now even assuming the Canon is better which I don't think it is, it certainly isn't £450 better that's for sure. If I was buying again and money was no object I'd still get another Sigma.
 
More often than not when you ask for advise on stuff, it makes your choice even more difficult. :lol::lol:

I think it would be better if you could try them both out and see which gives you the best reults. :thumbs:
 
Oh dear oh dear - it's never easy is it & opinion is always divided.

Dawn who I know on here and from another forum kindly posted shots from the Sigma 120-400 and Canon 100-400 which were both taken (extra handy) using a 40D and I couldn't tell them apart.
 
Go for it - the 100-400 is an excellent lens. Buy it, spend some time getting to grips with using it and it will deliver stunning results. I know the Sigma's are cheaper so are better value but from what I've seen the quality isn't there. I know a few people who have bought then and all have ended up changing to Canon lenses (either big primes or the 100-400). I got a used 100-400 a few years ago, sold it (needed the cash), regretted it, and recently bought another one!
 
chilliz said:
I think you are better using the TCs with primes as you`ll still get a reasonably sharp result. Zooms aren`t as sharp to start with as primes. I could be wrong though. :)
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic, sorry, but having looked at comparisons between the 85 1.8 and the 70/200 f4 IS I'd say you're wrong :)
Aperture for aperture the 70/200 looked sharper.

Matt
 
Phil, at the end of the day it has to be your choice and for your reasons, but i know since owning a 50-500 and borrowing a 100-400 i will def be going for the 100-400 as soon as i can save the pennies. I found with the 50-500 if you were near the 500 end then to get nice shots i had to be using around f8 so was hard when it was lowish ligt where i managed to get good shots at 400mm using f5.6 with the canon in lowish light :thumbs:
 
My first piece of L glass was the 100-400 L IS

I was very happy with it. It peformed incredibly well, the AF was remarkably quick despite it not being a very fast lens.

I've had a few sigma EX lenses and just about every one I've had (120-300 excepted) I am less than satisfied with the auto focus. It never feels as 'snappy' as the Canon!
 
Canon 100-400 woul;d get the vote from me. It's not heavy if you have a decent backpack to carry it in, I also carry a 70-200 2.8 IS with it

Sharpness is great, this was at the 400mm range, handheld 1/100th sec, wide open at f5.6

121932498.jpg


Even works when you slap a 1.4 tc on it and manually focus
110242884.jpg
 
Hi Phil,

I have both the 70-200 2.8 IS and the Bigma. With the 70-200 you will have no chance of feeling unhappy. It's a brilliant lens. I used it for both landscape and portrait and always with very nice results.

The bigma is a different story. It's also a good piece of glass, don't get me wrong, but its weigth will turn you off to carry it around. Mine is 99% of the time at home (in fact I may even consider to sell it if someone is interested). I use it mainly for moon pictures and I have to say the results are quite nice (a good tripod will help too).

If I were you: 70-200 with no doubt

Cheers,

JS
 
I was in the same quandary last week when a used 150-500mm came up on fleabay 3 months old supplied as new including receipt £520.00 inc P&P so i thought its got to be worth a go - if its no good back onto ebay without to much of a hit and get the Canon. I've only used it a couple of times and i'm presently supprised - I need to move my feeder as its only just over 2 meters away from the shed and some parts of it are closer than minimum focus of the lens. I wanted a long lens to try getting the surfers - Heres a sample

1 - Full frame image 1/400, ISO 1250, f8, 500mm which gives approx only 8mm DOF

sample500.jpg


2 - Crop from above

sample500_crop.jpg
 
out of curiosity why the three long lenses and then the 70-200 whats the thinking behind the 70-200?
 
Thanks for all the feedback and examples folks.

Paul - what body were you using for that bullfinch shot ?
 
Euan said:
out of curiosity why the three long lenses and then the 70-200 whats the thinking behind the 70-200?
Click to expand...

I commented in post 7 that I had ruled out the 70-200.

Initially I had wondered about the 70-200 with the option of a teleconverter.
 
dinners said:
Thanks for all the feedback and examples folks.

Paul - what body were you using for that bullfinch shot ?
Click to expand...

5DMKII which means another 100mm makes a lot of difference as i don't have the crop factor .
 
aah right sorry must have missed the post about you ruling out the 70-200.
 
my 100-400 goes everywhere with me, its the most used lens i have. The one thing that does my head in a bit about is the fact its white. I wish canon would do them in black.

I cant fault it really, sometimes the push/pull zoom can be a bit annoying if you leave the friction ring too tight.
 
Phil I see you have the 40D this was shot with the Sigma at 500mm on a 350D so you should be able to get the detail on your 40D without going FF :D

http://SPAM/c3whur/Slimbridge/Img_9134.jpg
 
That's good to see Ken - thanks.
 
Your choice really when it comes down to it is budget. Autofocus wise, the canon 100-400mm would be faster focusing than the 3rd party offerings, but you loose out on image stabilization, as the canon's only 1st generation, thats if you require it.

As for the range of sigma lenses, from what I've heard, read etc with tests, all the 500mm zooms aren't actually 500mm, they max out around 450mm, also f6.3 at 500mm is relatively slow, unless you have the light conditions to work with. OK the canon and sigma 120-400mm are f5.6, but this will create a difference over the f6.3 lenses which actually cheat the camera into thinking that they're f5.6

With all these lenses, most, if not all will suffer softness at the 400/500mm end wide open, and 1 or 2 would need a significant step down in f to achieve sharper images, but this would cause problems if you didn't have the light conditions to balance out the shutter speeds when increasing the aperture.

If you want handholdability, the weight of the canon is about 500g lighter than the sigma offerings.

Another lens to consider is the sigma 100-300mm f4, ok it's not 400mm, but its significantly faster than the lenses you have chosen and is a constant f4 through the zoom range, this lens is fast focusing and sharp. For that extra range, it works will with a 1.4x sigma TC and price is in the same ball park as the other lenses.

Best advice is to either hire out the 2 or 3 lenses you have narrowed it down to or at least take your camera + card into the camera shop and see if they are happy for you to attach your camera to the lenses available. A good camera shop should have most if not all the lenses your interested in. Take some images and compare to see which one you like.
 
Thanks Pete.

Funny you mention it as I am going to look at the 100-300mm f4.
 
Thanks everybody. I ended up going for the Canon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top