Sigma 120-400/4,5-5,6 DG APO HSM OS vs. Canon 70-200/4,0 L USM

LostMySelf

LostMySelf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19
Name
Johan
Edit My Images
Yes
I am an amateur photographer that just recently got my first DSLR (60D), I do learn quick and I have full control over all my camera settings so you could call me an advanced beginner maybe.

I have a hard time deciding which to save up money for. I have not done any wildlife photography before but I know my focus will be on birds (still shots only), squirrels and other animals. I've read alot of reviews and there are so many mixed answers there is no way in hell I can come down to a decision.

Most likely I will be handholding but I do have a tripod if I decide to bring it with me. I've noticed I can get pretty close to most birds in my area, I would say anything from 3-4 meters and up.

What do you guys suggest?
 
And since I got a crop body the focal length will be longer on both lenses. The 70-200 will be 112-320 and if I decide to get a 1.4x TC later on that would increase the FL even further.
 
Those lenses appear to be different beasts altogether. Fixed aperture vs reach. I have the canon and it is as good as they say although I don't think it's ideal for wildlife. With a teleconverter then it's a lot more flexible but still lacking in reach by about 120mm.
 
craig.walton2 said:
Those lenses appear to be different beasts altogether. Fixed aperture vs reach. I have the canon and it is as good as they say although I don't think it's ideal for wildlife. With a teleconverter then it's a lot more flexible but still lacking in reach by about 120mm.
Click to expand...

So that means I will rule out the Canon. The only lens that the 120-400 can be compared to pricewise is the Sigma 150-500.
 
Depends what your budget is, but a 70-200mm is at the limit for a wildlife lens. The sigma 120-400mm not a bad lens, for a bit extra there's the 150-500mm OS and if your happy to buy used, it might fall into your price range and are very good lenses on a budget to get that reach, depends whether you want f5.6 v f6.3 or 400 v 500mm. Both lenses have the new sigma OS system.
 
pete.rush said:
Depends what your budget is, but a 70-200mm is at the limit for a wildlife lens. The sigma 120-400mm not a bad lens, for a bit extra there's the 150-500mm OS and if your happy to buy used, it might fall into your price range and are very good lenses on a budget to get that reach, depends whether you want f5.6 v f6.3 or 400 v 500mm. Both lenses have the new sigma OS system.
Click to expand...

My budget is around the price of the 120-400, but I could wait a bit longer and save up for the 150-500 if I decide to go for it. I am not sure if I prefer FL or aperture, I can only say that I will be outside mostly during the day (from when the sun rises till it begins to go down and I lose light) so I'm not sure how big of a difference the aperture will be here.
 
The aperture makes a considerable difference, especially when you start to lose the light. A faster lens will handle this better than a slower lens interns of autofocus locking onto the subject, so a f4 lens will be better than a f5.6 and f2.8 better than f4 etc at handling low light situation.
 
Would the 70-200 F4 L with 1.4x TC be BETTER in terms of IQ and sharpness vs. the Sigma 120-400? Still can't come down to a decision.
 
Basically I can't come down to a decision because I see so many images of birds and squirrels or whatever where they are way under the 400m FL (check http://500px.com/Emyan) and get amazing images. Irene Mei who I linked basically does 100% of what I will do with wildlife.
 
Good tog by the looks of it, wonder how she got her focal length to be exactly 252mm on most of the pics esp as shes using a 180mm L at FF.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Good tog by the looks of it, wonder how she got her focal length to be exactly 252mm on most of the pics esp as shes using a 180mm L at FF.
Click to expand...

Using a 1.4x extender? 1.4 x 180 = 252.
 
I have the 120-400 but don't really use it that much . It is a nice lens and has a good reach . I dont really use it as I bought as a spure of the moment purchase , and I tend to shoot portraits rather than wildlife . I'm not sure what lose of F stop you would get with a 70-200 with TC . This would be the deciding factor for me in your situation . Remember you can stick a TC on the 120-400 for even more reach , but the loss would certainly mean only shooting in the best light conditions i'd say .
 
I've got a Sigma 150-500 OS and the wife has a 120-400 OS. I've tried both of the lenses on a 60D and TBH the IQ is no different on either. I used to have a 60D before I swapped it for a 7D and for the price of the lenses I doubt there's a better lens for the money.

Here's a shot with the 60D and 150-500, handheld at 439mm, 1/1250, ISO250 and f7.1. It's a Jpeg SOOC with no PP apart from a crop.
7548690504_29205cafef_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This one is the 60D and 120-400, 251mm, 1/1000, ISO400, f8 and +1 exp comp as it was a very dull time. I haven't got a feathered flying machine with the 120-400 so it's got to be a metal one.
8596150834_b29dc4fc3d_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
Stuart - as this is the only post I have found with someone who has use of both the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500, how do you get on with carrying the weight? I've used a Canon 100-400 for a while but the Sigmas are a fair bit heavier. I am considering the 120-400 for less weight but would prefer the pull of the 150-500. Just a bit concerned about a full day's airshow shoot or a long trek at a nature reserve. Any advice?

Thanks
Ian
 
I have a gripped 5D3 and a gripped 7D and I can go a whole day using either lens handheld with no problems. I carry them with Q-Strap sling straps and they are comfortable all day long. I've got a dual harness for the times I carry both and TBH, by the end of the day I know I've been carrying them but that's not very often.

There's not a great deal of difference in weight between the two lenses and both are excellent for IQ. I had a Canon 100-400 L and after much testing I decided to keep the Sigma and sell the Canon. The IQ difference is negligable, the Sigma has a far better stabilizing system and the AF speed is about the same for both. I also found the Sigma does less 'hunting' for focus when the light is failing. About the only thing the Canon was better at was the weight, but you do get used to the Sigma's weight very quickly. The 150-500 usually stays on my 5D3 for the extra bit of reach but the 120-400 is a damn good backup. The only time I have any problems with the size is when it's very windy and then it tends to blow the lens a bit, but the OS does a very good job of keeping you on target.

There quite a few shots on my Flickr that has been taken with the 150-500 (my most used lens for wildlife and aviation) if you want to have a browse. Most of the shots on there are Jpegs SOOC with either no PP (or very little) apart from cropping. If you're anywhere near Lincoln you are welcome to drop in and have a test with both lenses if that would help you make your mind up.
 
Last edited:
Great advice - many thanks - probably heading for the 150-500. Apologies if anyone thinks I've hijacked the thread - totally unintentional but all thought relevant to original post.
 
This is such a hard decision. I'm afraid the Sigma won't have the IQ I am looking for, maybe I'm just too picky and should just go with it? Then again, with the 70-200/f4 L USM with a 1.4x TC the focal length would be 156-448mm on my crop body.

GRRRRRRR
 
I'd stop worrying about the crop factor. If you are shooting wildlife, then unless you are shooting with expensive f/2.8 lenses then you need reach, and as much of it as possible. The 120-400 is excellent (my pal has one) and the 150-500 is just as good but heavier and more expensive. It really depends what you are shooting and how. If you are hidden in a hide, and know what you are doing, you could probably even go smaller in some situations.

If it were me, I'd go for whatever I could cope with lugging around the most. BTW, I shoot wildlife with a 1st gen 300/4L and 1.4x TC, which is also a good solution, as is the 400/5.6.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I'd stop worrying about the crop factor. If you are shooting wildlife, then unless you are shooting with expensive f/2.8 lenses then you need reach, and as much of it as possible. The 120-400 is excellent (my pal has one) and the 150-500 is just as good but heavier and more expensive. It really depends what you are shooting and how. If you are hidden in a hide, and know what you are doing, you could probably even go smaller in some situations.

If it were me, I'd go for whatever I could cope with lugging around the most. BTW, I shoot wildlife with a 1st gen 300/4L and 1.4x TC, which is also a good solution, as is the 400/5.6.
Click to expand...

Thanks alot. The thing that kinda makes me worried buying the 120-400 is all the mixed reviews on the internet, but I've realised alot of them are from 2008'ish and I can only imagine the "newer" 120-400's to be better. Am I right?
 
I bought a Sigma 120-400 OS for the wife in 2012 and it's as good as my 150-500 OS and I/we have never had any problems with it. I occasionally get to use it, when she isn't, and I've got some great shots with it.
This is one taken with my 5D3 and her lens at 400mm, 1/800sec, f6.3 and ISO160. It's SOOC with no PP other than a crop.
7141412493_98cbd0a02c_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
I had a 120-400 on a 60D and sold it because I didn't like the sharpness compared to some other lenses I had. Its not that bad but I ended getting to picky about it.

Its heavy as well and in the end I found that I wouldnt take it anywhere because it was too heavy to carry around, but if you werent walking miles then its a good option.

Personally, if I wanted the same reach again (400mm) I'd save up for the Canon 100-400 second hand or I wouldnt bother at all.
 
Just a note about the Canon 100-400 (and any other used lens actually), it's best to test first if you can. I had a 100-400L and it was annoyingly soft up until f/7.1. This is particularly important given that your 60D doesn't have lens micro adjustment if the focus is off.
 
After receiving a recommendation from Modchild, i chose the 150-500 and have loved it. My recommendation would be if you're worried about getting a good copy, then go to a shop and try a few lens, go home and review them, then go back and buy. That's how I chose mine. I'm on my phone so can't link any pics, but if you look at the birds on my website or flickr, these were taken with the 150-500 on a 60D

Enjoyq
 
modchild said:
I bought a Sigma 120-400 OS for the wife in 2012 and it's as good as my 150-500 OS and I/we have never had any problems with it. I occasionally get to use it, when she isn't, and I've got some great shots with it.
This is one taken with my 5D3 and her lens at 400mm, 1/800sec, f6.3 and ISO160. It's SOOC with no PP other than a crop.
7141412493_98cbd0a02c_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
Click to expand...

Looks really good.
 
Phall82 said:
I had a 120-400 on a 60D and sold it because I didn't like the sharpness compared to some other lenses I had. Its not that bad but I ended getting to picky about it.

Its heavy as well and in the end I found that I wouldnt take it anywhere because it was too heavy to carry around, but if you werent walking miles then its a good option.

Personally, if I wanted the same reach again (400mm) I'd save up for the Canon 100-400 second hand or I wouldnt bother at all.
Click to expand...

The weight is not an issue for me.
 
Yes there are a lot of reviews on the web against the Sigmas but many are comparing directly to the Canon 100-400. As has been noted by a number of people, this is not necessarily of use since the Canon is at least half as much again in price. The reviews of the Sigmas on their own merits are probably the better ones to read and will also allay many concerns that they are not up to scratch. I would love to get another 100-400 (really regret selling mine but had no choice). However I have the chance to get a £750 lens and I have been convinced that a good copy Sigma will serve me well. Purists and dedicated "Canonists" will disagree - I am open to gifts:lol:
 
Nighthawke said:
Yes there are a lot of reviews on the web against the Sigmas but many are comparing directly to the Canon 100-400. As has been noted by a number of people, this is not necessarily of use since the Canon is at least half as much again in price. The reviews of the Sigmas on their own merits are probably the better ones to read and will also allay many concerns that they are not up to scratch. I would love to get another 100-400 (really regret selling mine but had no choice). However I have the chance to get a £750 lens and I have been convinced that a good copy Sigma will serve me well. Purists and dedicated "Canonists" will disagree - I am open to gifts:lol:
Click to expand...

So true, the review above actually puts the Sigma in same league as Canon 100-400. I am amazed how good it stacks up.

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/...sigma-120-400-4-5-5-6-apo-hsm-telephoto-zoom/
 
I have decided to get the Sigma 120-400. Considering the fact that I will be outside in broad daylight using f/8 to get maximum sharpness out of the lens will not be an issue for me. I was on the Canon 300/f4 L IS USM + 1.4x TC trail for a while but I am afraid of getting a prime, I would like to be versatile and it's not always I need that full focal length you know. Here are some pictures that sealed the deal for me:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=289923&l=en
http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=98154&l=en
http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=148521&l=en
http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=319286&l=en
http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=324909&l=en
http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=101286&l=en
http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=347231&l=en
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top