hi all just wondering on peoples opinions on the sigma 120-400, 150-500 and the canon 100-400,(or any others) is there any great difference between them? i know for iq the 400 prime is probably better but at that range i feel a fixed focal wouldn't be versatile enough
zoom lenses sigma 120-400,150-500,canon 100-400
- Thread starter mr bill
- Start date
artyman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,659
- Name
- Ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Zooms certainly offer more flexibility, I used a Sigma 10-500 for several years and found it to be a cracking lens. Similar performance to the Canon 100-400 and capable of the same IQ, it's big advantage though is a miles better OS system.
A small crop
A small crop
Greenninja
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I used the 120-400 extensively (two years of weekly Motorsport uses, a couple of trips to Africa and general all round long reach tom-foolery) before I upgraded to a second hand 100-400L (which I have been using in a similar capacity for a similar length of time).
The Sigma is a great lens (I'm not going to add a "for the money" either). I found to to be sharp and quick most of the time. The OS is excellent easily delivering a couple of stops, but also very noisy. Wide open it does go noticeably soft at the long end and in certain strong lighting conditions images do seem a bit harsh. However I've taken some of my best images with it and still have it (my son uses it a lot). While the build quality is solid, the finish is prone to scuffing and the white lettering has worn off in a couple of areas. Autofocus is pretty good - but can hunt a little in low light (and sometimes go a bit bonkers for no good reason)
The 100-400 is a little dated in comparison - it's a push pull zoom and the IS is not as advanced; however the lens is more consistently sharp through the zoom range - even wide open at the long end it is pretty good (some softness is inevitable, but it's not as pronounced). Autofocus is always bang on with it (providing you are set to the 3m minimum setting). Overall I found that the results are more predictable from it.
Aside from that the 100-400 is about 1/2 kg lighter - which when travelling is much appreciated. It also offers an extra 20mm of wide - which adds a surprising amount of flexibility (with big zooms I always think the wide end is often overlooked).
So waffle aside - my opinion is that that the 100-400 is the better lens in terms of flexibility and IQ, while the 120-400 is technically more advanced, but not quite as sharp (overall) as the Canon. Does that warrant double the money? Probably not, but there are many used examples of the canon around which can save a fair old chunk of cash.
The Sigma is a great lens (I'm not going to add a "for the money" either). I found to to be sharp and quick most of the time. The OS is excellent easily delivering a couple of stops, but also very noisy. Wide open it does go noticeably soft at the long end and in certain strong lighting conditions images do seem a bit harsh. However I've taken some of my best images with it and still have it (my son uses it a lot). While the build quality is solid, the finish is prone to scuffing and the white lettering has worn off in a couple of areas. Autofocus is pretty good - but can hunt a little in low light (and sometimes go a bit bonkers for no good reason)
The 100-400 is a little dated in comparison - it's a push pull zoom and the IS is not as advanced; however the lens is more consistently sharp through the zoom range - even wide open at the long end it is pretty good (some softness is inevitable, but it's not as pronounced). Autofocus is always bang on with it (providing you are set to the 3m minimum setting). Overall I found that the results are more predictable from it.
Aside from that the 100-400 is about 1/2 kg lighter - which when travelling is much appreciated. It also offers an extra 20mm of wide - which adds a surprising amount of flexibility (with big zooms I always think the wide end is often overlooked).
So waffle aside - my opinion is that that the 100-400 is the better lens in terms of flexibility and IQ, while the 120-400 is technically more advanced, but not quite as sharp (overall) as the Canon. Does that warrant double the money? Probably not, but there are many used examples of the canon around which can save a fair old chunk of cash.
ChrisHeathcote
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,717
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the 150-500OS. At the time I went with Stuarts (mod child) recommendation and I haven't looked back. Check out my Flickr for examples
150-500 OS here too. It's a good lens.
If you're after more examples:
Mule Deer / Elk feeding by ACW#, on Flickr
Eastern Bluebird by ACW#, on Flickr
Summer Tanager by ACW#, on Flickr
IMG_3162 by ACW#, on Flickr
IMG_8566 by ACW#, on Flickr
Not the greatest images but hopefully show it can be quite sharp.
If you're after more examples:
Mule Deer / Elk feeding by ACW#, on Flickr
Eastern Bluebird by ACW#, on Flickr
Summer Tanager by ACW#, on Flickr
IMG_3162 by ACW#, on Flickr
IMG_8566 by ACW#, on Flickr
Not the greatest images but hopefully show it can be quite sharp.
Last edited:
150-500 OS here too. It's a good lens.
If you're after more examples:
Mule Deer / Elk feeding by ACW#, on Flickr
Eastern Bluebird by ACW#, on Flickr
Summer Tanager by ACW#, on Flickr
IMG_3162 by ACW#, on Flickr
IMG_8566 by ACW#, on Flickr
Not the greatest images but hopefully show it can be quite sharp.
they look pretty good to me,seems a very capable lens