Sigma 50-500 or Canon ef 100-400

macky799

macky799

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,092
Name
neil
Edit My Images
Yes
Help required please,im going to upgrade to a canon (ether a 40d or a 5d) and want to take better wildlife pics and motorsport pics. Would like to know from anybody who has these lenses to see what would suit my needs better, the sigma 50-500 or the canon 100-400 with a 1.4 convertor. cheers for reading:help::thankyou:
 
I have no experience with either, I'm a Nikon dslr user, but the 50-500 is for the Pentax (Samsung) mount as too.
If the 100-400 is an L lens, then it's likely to be better than the Sigma, but I've seen some nice pics made with the Bigma and Canon 300D, for example:
http://robertmekis.com/?kateg=photos&subkateg=sport&obsah=photo116b4

What's about the GX1L are you unhappy with?
 
The samsung just feels a bit cheep,(no offence to anybody how has one) that and trying to get add ons for it is a bit hard. I have only had it for about 6 months but didnt want to go and spend £2000 on gear if i got bored with taking pics but the bug is still there so i want to upgrade a bit :thinking:
 
the 40d and the 100-400 are probably the best option for frame filling images out of those choices.

There are some threads around somewhere that will tell you exactly why the 40d will outshine the full frame 5d when you want to maximise your lens reach. It all makes perfect sense but I had no need to commit all the pixel size data to memory. ;)
 
Has anybody had oth lenses or been through the same thought prosses that can help me out a bit:thinking:
 
Comparing the 100-400 L IS v Sigma 50-500 on purely lens performance I would take the 100-400 L IS (in fact, I did!).

Putting in on a 1.6x crop body will give you more reach but if you add the 1.4 converter you will lose autofocus (xxD bodies can only AF at f/5.6). I know 1D models can AF up to f/8 but i'm not sure what the 5D can do; I would suspect it would be the same as xxD models.

Another thing to keep in mind is if you choose a 5D your choice of lens becomes even more important as the full frame sensor will show up things like chromatic aberration more than a crop body would.
 
^^Gord^^ said:
Putting in on a 1.6x crop body will give you more reach
Click to expand...

No it won't, it will just give you less field of view. Important that..
 
Does anybody know if the 5d can af to f8 or is it the same as the 40d
 
The 100-400 L is a great, incredibly flexible piece of kit. I have one and its my workhorse, built like a tank, has the rather good push pull zoom feature. Highly recomended by me and in my opinion there is only one choice :)
 
macky799 said:
cheers antc
Click to expand...

No probs, also noticed in your first post you mentioned you were going to be shooting motorsports and wildlife, if so i would go for the 40d over the 5d due to the 40d's higher fps which can come in very handy for your chosen subjects :thumbs:
 
I have only owned the Sigma out of these two lenses as I'm a Nikon user,but I can vouch for the image quality of the Sigma, it really is outstanding,and at 400mm I found the Sigma was at its sweet spot, where as the Canon will be a full reach.
The Canon is the more advanced lens of the two, with Image Stabilisation which is obviously an advantage,and its also fractionally faster, but its also a lot more money.
If you do buy the Sigma you wont be disappointed with the image quality.
My advice to you would be this..
If the cost is irrelevant to you then buy the Canon, if the cost does matter, then you can buy the Sigma with confidence.
 
I've owned a Sigma 50-500mm (AKA the Bigma) and have tried the 100-400 L.

The bigma was a good lens - and fairly handholdable for a while...but because it didn't have IS and because it was so heavy I'd only say for a while...I found that it was too heavy to lug around and use in anger, also had to shop around and find a tripod that could cope with the weight :)

The 100-400L IS - had a much lighter feel to it, felt like I could hand-hold it for a while, and with the IS - the shots were nice and sharp too.

The build quality between the two was comparable - they both felt sturdy etc. - my only *slight* concern might be the push-pull zoom which I've read on a couple of forums and posts here can (and I use the word advisedly, as I don't own one myself :)) be a dust magnet :(

I'd try both out if you can, and see which suits you and your needs better - but either way I don't think you'd be disappointed! ;)

Matt
 
I used a Sigma 135-400 and found the optical quality OK but it was slow to use. I have the 100-400 and it's much faster to use and focus.

As far as the " Dust Magnet" comments. Well all I can say is that from nearly 2 years of use I've had to clean my 20 D sensor once and not at all on the 5D. OK I take care not to introduce dust, but that's the same if I'm changing to the 100-400, or the 17-40 or any of the other lenses.

Best bet, try the lenses if you can and see which you like it.

You won't be dissapointed with the Canon
 
Hum where are you taking motorsport shots? Sometimes I have to use my 70-200.

However I have the 100-400 also, the Bigma was too heavy for me.
 
Some would say that neither are ideal for motorsport in the UK, as both require good light to work at their best. Many UK motorsport togs use the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 or the Sigma 100-300 f4, or prime lenses - eg 300mm f4 IS L
 
sorry to hijack this thread, but I have the same issue as Macky799, I am using a 40D, but to make it more complicated with the same dilemma, I am rather intrigued by the Canon 400mm L f5.6, I know its slower with 5.6, but I already own 300 zoom with IS and need bigger for air shows, nature and motorsport, having read other write ups, it appears the prime is sharpest and fastest focusing. So which of the 3 do I plump for?? And I always use Manfrotto 680B Mono or Tripod. Thank you for your thoughts
 
the undertaker said:
sorry to hijack this thread, but I have the same issue as Macky799, I am using a 40D, but to make it more complicated with the same dilemma, I am rather intrigued by the Canon 400mm L f5.6, I know its slower with 5.6, but I already own 300 zoom with IS and need bigger for air shows, nature and motorsport, having read other write ups, it appears the prime is sharpest and fastest focusing. So which of the 3 do I plump for?? And I always use Manfrotto 680B Mono or Tripod. Thank you for your thoughts
Click to expand...

It depends on a lot of factors, the main ones being...

1) How much do you have to spend?
2) What focal lengths you need (taking into account the crop factor).
3) Do you have a 2nd body?

You could reach 400mm in a few ways.....

i) Canon 100-400 L IS
ii) Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with x1.4 teleconverter
iii) Canon 70-200 L IS f/2.8 with x1.4 teleconverter
iv) Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 with x1.4 teleconverter
v) Canon 400 L f/5.6
vi) Sigma 300 f/2.8 with x1.4 teleconverter
vii) Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS with x1.4 teleconverter
viii) Canon 400 f/2.8 L IS
ix) Canon 300 f/4 L IS with x1.4 teleconverter
x) Sigma 50-500

And more!.

To help you decide you need to first work out your budget, other wise what is the point at looking at a £4.5k lens!

With the budget decide you then need to decide what focal length you need. From my aviation experience I use between 250 and 350mm (on a 1.6x crop) for most photos but I do take photos outside that range. If I were to purchase a 400mm I wouldn't be able to get most of those shots without adjusting the spot I use (in some cases that wouldn't be possible). Of course the crop factor has an effect.

Do you just need 400mm or do you need up to 400mm?

If you have a 2nd body then things change again as you could go 400 f/5.6 on one and 70-300 on the other giving the choice of what to shoot.
 
Thank you Gord, and of course budget is an issue, I find in many instances 300 is not enough, I like the idea of the Bigma, but focus speed on 400mmL 5.6 USM appears sharpest, and fast at focus. Cant afford f4 unless its the 300 and want larger. An d I dont like using converters, slow and slow??
 
andrewc said:
I use a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX and a x1.4 TC.

I have been considering upgrading to the 120-300 f2.8 but am still umming and arring about this.
Click to expand...

The 120-300 f/2.8 is a good lens and I've given it some serious thought as well but i'm very happy with my 100-400 L IS. If I were to buy the 120-300 f/2.8 it would replace my 100-400 L IS so i've started to think 300mm prime instead which opens up another can of worms! :bonk:
 
the undertaker said:
Thank you Gord, and of course budget is an issue, I find in many instances 300 is not enough, I like the idea of the Bigma, but focus speed on 400mmL 5.6 USM appears sharpest, and fast at focus. Cant afford f4 unless its the 300 and want larger. An d I dont like using converters, slow and slow??
Click to expand...

If you don't need below 400mm or have another body I would go with the 400 L f/5.6. I know one person who has it who shoots aviation and he is happy with it (he also has a 2nd body for closer shots).
 
I had the Bigma and totally loved it, had no problem carrying it around and hand holding it steady...it honestly doesnt need to be used with a tripod...come on I'm a female and if I can hand hold it surely you guys can. I then sold it to buy the Canon 100-400 thinking it was the Holy Grail of lenses only to be disappointed with it compared to the overall sharpness of the Bigma. I sold it on and re bought a Bigma.
It's horses for courses as usual...whatever suits best, you perhaps need to go try them both out and see what you feel comfortable with and what gives you the service you need it for..don't jump on the bandwagon like I did thinking because it's "L" glass it has to be the best. I use all Sigma EX glass and have no complaints.
 
Thank you, Baiter's was used in part ex, but good to know you guys care and help. I really feel the 400 5.6 usm is the one, maybe just looking for someone to say, no Bigma?? Don't know and thats why I'm glad of all your help. Second body is a defo,......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top