lens help

[span130502]

hello everyone im just after a bit of advice i was going to buy the canon 100 -400 l lens then noticed i could get the bigma and the sigma 105 mm macro for the same price as the canon. the problem is the sigma's are off a popular auction site and dispatched from hong kong. so what i would appreciate your opinion on is should i go for the 1 canon or the 2 sigma's and do you have any experience of buying from hong kong. thanks in advance

[NickCantle]

I look forward to advice regarding the Hong Kong issue...

Now, the Sigma deal sounds excellent to me. I have the Sigma 105mm (Check my Gallery for results ) and I cannot fault it as a Macro lens. I'm after the Bigma myself as it's (so I'm told) a very good lens. A select few here use both of the lenses. I'm not sure how much you know about lenses and wouldn't want to start telling you thinks that you already know.

There are threads of this nature floating about in this section, it's just rooting through them to find what you want

Cheers,

Nick

[zan]

From what I've heard, the 100-400mm is an excellent lens for wildlife and is used by a lot of people. I think the bigma is a lower quality lens (not surprising given the very large focal range), and usually people will recommend you buy the best you can afford to save needing to upgrade later. I'd go with the Canon myself - it gets pretty good reviews if you have a search online. If you need a macro lens later, you can always get one then (the Tamron 90mm is reputedly excellent, and relatively cheap)

You also have to be careful buying from Hong Kong, as you may not be covered by the waranty, or may be liable to pay duty on the imported goods.

Hope this is of some help

Zan

[NickCantle]

Oh god. Am I going to have to save up for the Canon? I was going to get the bigma but...

[zan]

haha! right, before I scare any more people, I should probably point out that I don't own or have used either of these lenses and I was basing my opinion on what I'd heard from other users. I have just read through reviews of the lenses (same reviewer) though, and the conclusion is that the Canon is sharper, with better overall image quality and image stabilisation, but stops 100mm short of the bigma and is more expensive.

I still think if you can afford the Canon, that's the better lens. But if you can't justify the cost, then the bigma still looks like a really good lens, especially as a 500mm!

[Boddie]

The 100-400 is a better lens than the Bigma. The 105 is a nice lens but I got annoyed with mine and had to buy a Sigma 150. I have had no problems buying from Hong Kong and have bought loads from there. Check the sellers' feedback.

Incidentally, although the 100-400 is supposed to be 100 mil shorter than the Bigma tests by users on this forum suggest that there is very little - more like the 100-400 is maybe 440 and the Bigma maybe 460. Does not make sense but we have had the two side by side and there is nothing in it. Besides the sharper image of the PUMP will crop nicer.

[NickCantle]

You've done it now Bod

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

You've done it now Bod

If by that you mean 'opened a can of worms'. No I haven't, as I am correct. There is no argument.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Boddie

If by that you mean 'opened a can of worms'. No I haven't, as I am correct. There is no argument.

Yep, he's absolutely right. And that's from a Bigma user and admirer. The difference is simple, the Pump cost a lot more than the Bigma. If cost were no barrier, go for the 100-400mm. I would.
If you look at the review site mentioned earlier, you'd see that the 100-400mm produces much sharper images straight out of the camera. The loss of the so called 100mm is cancelled out by this superior images quality.
There again, I haven't changed to the 100-400mm yet, and if I thought I'd get substantially better images I can assure you I would! The differences in the real world aren't that marked.
When I had the chance of testing a 400mm F5.6 prime, I found the images were better, but not to the extent of making me want to change. I found that I could apply more sharpening to the Bigma images which helped raise them almost up to the 400mm. You had to go to 100% to see the real differences.

[BillyPilgrim]

Not too long ago I would have bought the 2 Sigmas but these days I would get the Canon (simply because it is the better lens) and save up for the macro lens.

I haven't used the 100-400 but I'd guess it can take excellent close-up shots of insects etc. which, unless you need true 1:1 macro immediately should tide you over until you get a macro lens.

I used to have a Sigma 180mm macro but after I bought a Canon 300mm f4 L I could hardly ever be bothered to swap lenses unless I needed minute detail.