Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-500 (1 Viewer)

[Nick Leech]

[Apologies, but I have posted pretty much the same item on the Sigma forum also - hoping for maximum response!]

A couple of years ago I used to own a Sigma 150-500 lens which I used with a Canon 7D for bird photography. At the time I also had access to a Canon 400mm f5.6 and a Canon 100-400mm zoom. At the time I did some comparison tests and came to the conclusion that the Sigma lens was softer (less sharp) than either of the two Canon lenses. The comparisons were done two ways: (1) by taking photos with all lenses at 400mm and (2) by taking shots at 500mm on the Sigma and comparing the images with cropped shots taken at 400mm with the Canon lenses so as to enlarge to an equivalent size to the Sigma 500mm shots.

My conclusion was that I should sell the Sigma and invest in a Canon 400mm lens. So I sold the Sigma and have since ended up buying both Canon lenses (the 400mm prime is mainly used for wild birds; I use the zoom at zoos and such like where I need the flexibility of the zoom to access lower focal lengths). I sometimes use a Kenko PRO DG 1.4x teleconverter with the Canon 400mm prime, but struggle to get sharp bird photos with that added.

Now, a couple of years later, I am re-thinking my options. I would love more reach than 400mm for wild birds, but I cannot afford a Canon 500mm f4 lens or a Canon 600mm f4 lens. So I have been looking again at the Sigma 150-500. Looking around on the net, some people do seem to get good sharp results with the Sigma, even at 500mm. So I am now wondering whether:

a) My previous Sigma 150-500 was a "soft copy" and I might get a sharper copy next time

and/or

2) Maybe I should have done more comparison tests - perhaps the comparative softness of the Sigma at 400-500mm is less obvious under better light conditions and/or smaller apertures (eg stopping down to f8).

I am definitely keeping my Canon 400mm prime lens, but I am thinking of selling my Canon 100-400 zoom and buying another Sigma 150-500mm zoom in the hope that I might get some good results with the Siggy at 500mm.

What do people think? Especially those who have owned/tried both the Sigma 150-500 and the aforementioned Canon lenses.

 

[frinky]

I also made a comparison between Sigma 150-500, Canon 100-400 and Canon 500/f4 (see http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=238475). The main conclusion is that the Sigma is much less than 500mm at normal distances and doesn't gain much more magnifcation compared to the Canon 100-400 (and even less compared to the 400mm). You can get more detailed results by simply cropping the Canon images more.

IMO if you can afford the extra for the Canon lens(es) they will get you better results most of the time.

 

[Roy C]

Frinky is absolutely correct re the focal length of the Siggy 150-500 (and most other zoom lenses) in that they only get anywhere near the 500mm when shooting at infinity - for normal shooting distances they will be much less and the nearer you are the less the long end will actually be. Having said that it is the same with the 100-400 (at anything like a reasonable shooting distance it is reckoned to be 380mm at most).

I would also go on-long with the thought that you would be better cropping a shot from the 100-400 (or better still the 400/5.6) than relying on the long end of the 150-500 which apart from not being 500mm would also be fairly soft unless you stopped down quite a lot.

 

[Pauhana]

I have used the 150-500 for a couple of years now and have gotten acceptable results. I do think you will find it a love hate relationship. Have a 100-400 I rented to try out and can see a difference in better quality photos. The 150-500 gets soft when you reach out at 500 and its heavy to carry around all day. Am going to rent at 400 5.6 next before deciding about making a change. Roy C's assement is one the money

 

[Birdman7]

Canon 400LF5.6 / 100-1400 & Sigma 150-500 / 120-300

The 100-400 can be quite soft at 400mm, but depends on the unit from the feedback iv read from many owners. The 400LF5.6 is dead sharp and snappier AF! Havent used the Sigma, but seen results from it first hand and they are quite good, but guess it will be much softer on the longer end of the spectrum like the 100-400.

If one can stretch his/her budget, I could also suggest (on paper) the new Sigma 120-300L DG OS HSM (approx £2,200) and can AF with both the 1.4X & 2X extenders and 4-stop stabiliser. http://sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_120_300_28/features.html

Review of the previous model here http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2012/lens-exploration-120-300mm-f2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-part-ii/ and it looks quite impressive.

 

[peter kitchener]

Nick
I previously performed comparison tests (very similar to those you described) for the Sigma 150-500, Canon 400 f5.6 and Canon 100-400, all tripod mounted. By far the sharpest (and easiest to use) was the Canon 400, followed by the Canon 100-400, with the Sigma lagging well behind. I sold the Sigma and bought the Canon 400 which is fine for bird photography (particularly birds in flight) if you don't want to lug a big lens around.

I also tried a Kenko PRO 1.4 converter with the Canon 400 lens. As expected, the AF was much slower and birds in flight were not really possible. The images were no sharper with the 1.4 converter compared with those taken without the converter and cropped to the same size. Consequently, I never use the 1.4 converter with the Canon 400 lens.

Peter

 

[Nick Leech]

1.4x teleconverter with Canon 400mm f5.6prime

I also tried a Kenko PRO 1.4 converter with the Canon 400 lens. The images were no sharper with the 1.4 converter compared with those taken without the converter and cropped to the same size. Consequently, I never use the 1.4 converter with the Canon 400 lens.

Peter

Does everyone agree with this? Or do some people think that you CAN get sharper results with a 1.4x teleconverter (Kenko or Canon), compared with just using the 400mm alone and cropping?

 

[hampers]

Nick
I use a 400 f5.6 and 1.4 MkIII. I, personally, cannot see any impact on image quality and am very happy with the combination. I've not noticed any impact on AF either. I always use a tripod or bean bag. My body is a 1DMkIII.

Phil

 

[Roy C]

Does everyone agree with this? Or do some people think that you CAN get sharper results with a 1.4x teleconverter (Kenko or Canon), compared with just using the 400mm alone and cropping?

I don't' know about sharper results but the extra focal length with the converter should yield more detail IMHO - if you just crop an image you cannot put detail in where it was not their to begin with.
I have always found the 400/5.6 takes a 1.4x tc very well IQ wise although I always liked to stop down a bit when using a tc as opposed to shooting wide open with the bare lens.
Of course you have the AF problem if using a non 1 series Camera - at f8 (or even f11) I found live view AF on the 7D very accurate albeit slow compared to normal phase AF and there is no need to fool the Camera in live view AF as it is not limited to f5.6. I personally preferred Live view AF too taping pins or using a non reporting tc - even with the Kenko Pro DGX converter AF is very poor if using the centre AF point.

 

[peter kitchener]

"I also tried a Kenko PRO 1.4 converter with the Canon 400 lens. As expected, the AF was much slower and birds in flight were not really possible. The images were no sharper with the 1.4 converter compared with those taken without the converter and cropped to the same size. Consequently, I never use the 1.4 converter with the Canon 400 lens."



I should have stated that I was using a Canon 40D body with the pins taped. Because AF was so slow, I subsequently removed the tapes and used manual focus, but like Nick, I struggled to get sharp images (with the dioptric adjustment correctly adjusted). A more up-market Canon body may have given me different experiences like Phil and Roy.

For insects I use an old, heavy Minolta macro 200mm lens on a Sony alpha 200 body. In this case, the addition of a 1.4 converter produces sharper images.

 

[ramfan]

Hi Nick

Have to say both my Canon 100-400s were sharper than the Siggy 150-500 I had; I just do not particularly rate this particular Sigma lens.

Personally, and in your shoes, I would definitely be looking at the newish Sigma 50-500 OS version. Abargin lens given its versatility.

I know one person who has road tested all the Canon mightty whites and who rates the Sigma 50-500 OS very highly.

Lots of good reviews out there as well !


Regards

Gary

 

[Nick Leech]

Does anyone else have views on the Sigma 50-500?

Also, the Tamron 200-500mm?

Or perhaps I am better off sticking with my Canon 400mm and Canon 100-400mm and cropping to achieve the equivalent of 500mm

 

[geoffreyc]

I bought the Sigma 150-500 today and will be out with it tomorrow.

Initial impressions are pretty good.

Had a look at the Canon 100-400L and wasn't too keen on the zoom action, also the Sigma seemed much better balanced on my 7D with grip.

 

[Hor Kee]

Or perhaps I am better off sticking with my Canon 400mm and Canon 100-400mm and cropping to achieve the equivalent of 500mm

I think you have a winning combo already :t:

 

[Gronk08]

I think you have a winning combo already :t:

Never tried either of the Canon lenses but I do have a Sigma 50-500 I have found that at 500 I still get good results and have even used the lens for BIF shots. Ok it's not the lightest of lenses but I have always found that the results are Ok to me, quite a few of my gallery shots are taken with the lens.

Tim.

 

[Richard G]

I've just upgraded my 450D & Tokina 80-400 to a 7D & 100-400 IS. Not had a lot of chances to get out & use it but I'm hoping it's the right combination. I think it will be as most of my photography is done on the move.

I wanted the flexibility of a zoom for now. Maybe I'll be able to add a bigger prime to my kit in future years.

Richard

 

[geoffreyc]

Just thought I'd post a couple of my first shots taken with my new Sigma 150-500.
The first was taken on Tuesday afternoon in my garden. The second was taken yesterday after a trip to Moore Nature Reserve in Cheshire (all the lakes were frozen over and nearly everything still covered in snow so not much to see really) But on my way back I spotted some ducks on a frozen section of the Bridgewater canal and so I've included one I took there. These are the first bird shots I've taken so forgive me if they're aren't up to the usual standard you are use to seeing!

I'll get better with time I'm sure!

Thanks

 

[Paul Jarvis]

Richard thats a very good setup you will be well pleased with it, loads of people use it and get stella shots, enjoy pal!

 

[Richard G]

Richard thats a very good setup you will be well pleased with it, loads of people use it and get stella shots, enjoy pal!

Thanks Paul. Just wish I could get some time to go out with it & practice. Since I got it at Christmas, work, the weather & illness have all conspired against me!!

Richard