Zoom for wildlife

Last edited:
I have the 100-400 and the 150-500 (pre OS, but my Pentax has in body OS). In very good light the 150-500 will give the 100-400 a good run for it's money, but it only really comes to life at F9 or F10. The Canon will work in less light.

Another minor point, although the Sigma is heavier than the Canon, it is easier to manage as the tripod mount doubles as a substantial carrying handle.

OTHER LENS MANUFACTURERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE.
 
Oggy said:
I have the 100-400 and the 150-500 (pre OS, but my Pentax has in body OS). In very good light the 150-500 will give the 100-400 a good run for it's money, but it only really comes to life at F9 or F10. The Canon will work in less light.

Another minor point, although the Sigma is heavier than the Canon, it is easier to manage as the tripod mount doubles as a substantial carrying handle.

OTHER LENS MANUFACTURERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE.
Click to expand...
would be nice to see some pics taken at 400mm of same subject roger if you have the time.
 
scottthehat said:
would be nice to see some pics taken at 400mm of same subject roger if you have the time.
Click to expand...

Hi Scott.

It would be slightly disingenuous to do a comparison as the 150-500 goes on me Pentax and the 100-400 does not.

Blisteringly good pics by the way. :thumbs:
 
Interesting.
With more and more megaPixel bodies, I would prefer better IQ and less reach. The xtra MP would allow me to crop a better image.
I have yet to take a sharp enough image with a Sigma
 
DeonV said:
Interesting.
With more and more megaPixel bodies, I would prefer better IQ and less reach. The xtra MP would allow me to crop a better image.
I have yet to take a sharp enough image with a Sigma
Click to expand...
i would rather have reach than mp, so your sayin you would rather have a 7d and 100-400mm than a d3s and a 600 f4, or a 1dmk4 and a 500f4:thinking:
 
DeonV said:
Interesting.
With more and more megaPixel bodies, I would prefer better IQ and less reach. The xtra MP would allow me to crop a better image.
Click to expand...

scottthehat said:
i would rather have reach than mp, so your sayin you would rather have a 7d and 100-400mm than a d3s and a 600 f4, or a 1dmk4 and a 500f4:thinking:
Click to expand...

And you're saying that you believe the 100-400 has better IQ than either the 500 or 600 f4s. Because that's certainly what you ascertation implies.
 
hollis_f said:
And you're saying that you believe the 100-400 has better IQ than either the 500 or 600 f4s. Because that's certainly what you ascertation implies.
Click to expand...
frank deon said he would rather have more mega pixels for cropping than reach so ie a 7d with a 100-400mm on rather than a low mp camera d3s with a 600mm f4 on, i know which set up i would rather have and its not the one with more mps.
 
scottthehat said:
frank deon said he would rather have more mega pixels for cropping than reach
Click to expand...

Oh, come on! I even highlighted the bit you're ignoring. He said "I would prefer better IQ and less reach"

See - better IQ and less reach. Do I need to repeat it again?

scottthehat said:
ie a 7d with a 100-400mm on rather than a low mp camera d3s with a 600mm f4 on
Click to expand...

ie NOT a 7d with a 100-400mm compared to a d3s with a 600 f4. Because the 100-400 is not better IQ and less reach.


To give a proper comparison, which would you prefer; a 7D with a 100-400mm or a 3ds with a 500mm mirror lens?
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
Oh, come on! I even highlighted the bit you're ignoring. He said "I would prefer better IQ and less reach"

See - better IQ and less reach. Do I need to repeat it again?



ie NOT a 7d with a 100-400mm compared to a d3s with a 600 f4. Because the 100-400 is not better IQ and less reach.
Click to expand...
read it as you want frank, i have read it they way i want to, im not gonna argue with you over it, i will carry on using my naff 50-500mm os and you use what ever you use.
as far as im concerned the 100-400mm is a good lens but its no better than the sigmas and certainly not worth the extra over the 150-500mm same with the 50-500mm but thats just life.

so what is a 100-400mm if it has not got better image quality and less reach.:thinking:
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
And I thought osmium was dense. It has got less reach than a 600 f4; it has not got better IQ than a 600f4 - despite your beliefs.
Click to expand...
your real bright frank and i think your very rude,
600mm f4 on a d3s(full frame is 600mm 35mm terms)
a 100-400mm and a 7d(1.6x crop) is what frank try 640mm in 35mm
 
hollis_f said:
And you're saying that you believe the 100-400 has better IQ than either the 500 or 600 f4s. Because that's certainly what you ascertation implies.
Click to expand...


How on Gods earth do you arrive at that?
 
hollis_f said:
Because that's certainly what you ascertation implies.
Click to expand...

Oh dear! :nono:

"because" is a conjunction which is a word used to join two words or phrases. I cannot be used to start a sentence in the context in which you have used it (although "Because the train left early, they missed it" would be acceptable).

That which is asserted is an assertion.

If it is asserted, it is not implied.

Dives for cover. :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top