Which Tele Lens ? Canon or Sigma ?

AndrewA123

AndrewA123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,263
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking mid term (by end of the year) at replacing my rather soft Canon 70-300mm IS lens for something a little longer and sharper.

Currently (before you lot start adding more sugestions no doubt :D) my thoughts are towards.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM - £820 (kerso)
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM - £500 (devon CC)
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM - £630 (devon CC)

My main use for this will be UK Wildlife, with a small chance of some motorsport. I will probably also be looking at getting a 1.4 or 2x TC as appropriate.

Obviously the Sigma's will save me some cash (towards filters, hood, TC etc) but will I be losing out on any sharpness or anything else ?

Other lenses considered

My current body is a 400D should that matter :)

Thanks
 
I got the 100-400L from Ian (Kerso) and I have a 1.4x canon converter, and I think the lens is great. Seems very sharp to me, I have heard some bad things about this lens, but in my experience it seems good.

I use it on a 5D and 30D body, which with the 1.4x converter gives 560mm (similar angle of view as 896mm on 30D). With the converter on you have to manual focus, but all else works.
 
AndrewA123 said:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM - £820 (kerso)
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM - £500 (devon CC)
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM - £630 (devon CC)

I will probably also be looking at getting a 1.4 or 2x TC as appropriate.

My current body is a 400D should that matter :)
Click to expand...
None of those lenses will autofocus with a TC. You will also lose a fair bit of image quality. The Canon can take a TC surprisingly well given that it's a 4x zoom - the picture below was taken using a Canon 2x Extender, hence 800mm - but I wouldn't really recommend using a TC except in emergencies.

I love the Canon 100-400L. Many moons ago I tested it in a shop against the Sigma 50-500 and Sigma 170-500 and it completely blew them both away in every dimension you could think of. The ergonomics in particular, with the push-pull zoom mechanism, are vastly superior. I haven't handled either of the two new Sigmas, but given their price points I would expect that the Canon is still by far the best of the bunch.

Nearly-full moon, 18 Feb 2008, 4.37pm. Canon 350D, f=800mm (Canon 100-400L with 2x Extender).
256500110_nT4AU-L.jpg
 
Thanks Guy's, I thought the canon may have received the most recommendations.

Anyone else got an opinion or other lens alternatives ?

thanks
 
Have you considered the Sigma 80-400 OS?

Its got image stabilization and can be bought for a bit less than the canon. It has the traditional twist zoom as opposed to the push-pull in the canon which some people say can be annoying (I've never used it so I can't say).

Its a good lens I used it on safari a couple of years ago (bit heavy though).

Course saying that I'm looking at getting a canon 100-400L for my 1DmkIII as it will keep the af with the 1.4 TC (centre only though I believe?)
 
Well, the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is an option I suppose, ~£500 from HK...and I suppose the 120-300mm f/2.8 would be a wee bit out of budget at £1300-ish? I have not for 1 second regretted the 100-300mm f/4:)

Of your 2 Sigma choices, I'd take the 150-500mm over the 80-400mm. It's had some good reviews.
 
I agree with reddeathdrinker i think the 150-500 sigma has had some great reviews, and i`ve seen some great shots taken with it. I`ve taken the plunge and ordered 1 with an online shop £579 inc postage. Thats the cheapest i`ve seen it, and believe me i`ve looked!!! It should be with me end of next week, cant wait. Only thing i was worried about was the lack of EX denotation but rang sigma and was told that sigma lenses coming out of Japan were only going to put EX on lenses that have constant f stop rating through their focal length, so the 150-500 has EX quality but not marked up as an EX. (Hope that makes sense)

Len
 
I've a 100-400, got it calibrated by Canon, and it is excellent. Had shots of birds blown up to A1, no problems.
 
Lenswork said:
Only thing i was worried about was the lack of EX denotation but rang sigma and was told that sigma lenses coming out of Japan were only going to put EX on lenses that have constant f stop rating through their focal length, so the 150-500 has EX quality but not marked up as an EX. (Hope that makes sense)
Click to expand...
So how do they account for the 10-22mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM?

Sure you haven't been told what they thought you wanted to hear? :suspect:
 
im a stickler i buy canon all the way. never got a non canon lens.
 
My apologies for not making myself clear, dont shoot the messenger just trying to pass on info! I was told the EX denotation is for new model lenses coming out of Sigma Japan. And as far as hearing what i wanted to hear is concerned maybe it was, but i had already made my mind up with the lens concerned before the info had been given due to images already seen, just wanted to hear the `reason` for no EX on the lens.

Regards
Len
 
Hi All, Thanks for the many responses here, I'm still in a bit of a muddle.

I've just read a review of the tamron 200-500 which would be another possible.

I'll probably be in touch with StuartR some time soon to hire a 100-400 before I take the plunge.

George, when you say you had it calibrated by canon, why was this? was there an initial problem ? what did it cost? and finaly is it something that should be done with all lenses ?


LensWork, Thanks for the info on the Sigma 120-500, my main concern with the lens (assuming IQ is good enough) is the higher F Stop
 
AndrewA123 said:
Anyone else got an opinion or other lens alternatives ?
Click to expand...

Have you thought about the 100-400mm? :lol:

It's a lovely lens. I know this is 100px more than allowed, I do apologise. No extenders on this shot, just a 40D and the 100-400.

 
Great Picture, Funny You Should Mention to 100-400mm :D
 
Ive not tried any of the lenses you have listed but i have the sigma 50-500 and struggled to get good images to start with but im getting some good ones now (or what i think are good). It isn't the best in low light and also doesn't have is to help you out but i like it alot heres some pics ive taken with it





P.S on the down side its bloody heavy :D
 
Thanks Macky799 Those pics are good. Another for consideration. This is going to need a trip to a well stocked cmera store for some serious testing I think.
 
AndrewA123 said:
Hi All, Thanks for the many responses here, I'm still in a bit of a muddle.

I've just read a review of the tamron 200-500 which would be another possible.

I'll probably be in touch with StuartR some time soon to hire a 100-400 before I take the plunge.

George, when you say you had it calibrated by canon, why was this? was there an initial problem ? what did it cost? and finaly is it something that should be done with all lenses ?


LensWork, Thanks for the info on the Sigma 120-500, my main concern with the lens (assuming IQ is good enough) is the higher F Stop
Click to expand...

Sorry, just picked up your post.
No there was nothing wrong, but as a CPS member, and I think it would work for anyone, if you send a lens back and say it's a bit soft at full extension, they will check and calibrate it to their parameters, all free if it's in the warranty period. Personally, I feel if I'm spending anything up to 4 grand on a lens, I want it as near perfect as it can be, and on a production line it won't be done to the same standards as in their lab.

You won't get a report, but it should be as good as it can be.
George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top