Canon & Sigma?

[Sam_swfc123]

Hello.

I am currently looking at upgrading my lens that i have at the moment. The lens that i currently have is a Sigma 150-500mm OS lens for Canon with a Canon EOS 20D, it is a fantastic lens, but i want better.
I am looking at upgrading to a Canon 100-400mm IS lens. So the question that i am asking is, Is it worth upgrading to the Canon from the Sigma or is there not that much difference? Is the IQ a lot better on the Canon. Thank you.

Regards,
Sam Winslow.

[Lacerta]

Hi Sam

Basically the answer is Yes. With large Zoom lenses like the Sigma 150-500, they are not optically sharp in the entire zoom range, also if you want to get the best out of the extreme zoom range at say 500, you will need to set the apeture to F8 or more.

I used to own a Sigma 50-500 which suffered from the above, it was also very heavy. I am not saying the large Sigma zoom lenses are bad, but they are a compromise and you can get good results from them.

I looked at the Canon 100-400 but opted for the Canon 400 5.6 which were around the same price, but only because I was only using the extreme end of the zoom range anyway. Image quality is excellent on both these L series lenses with the apeture wide open, also build quality is excellent and they are a bit lighter than the sigma equivalent, but that is what you pay for.

regards

Heath

[squishy]

It's a tricky question. The 100-400 is sharper than the 150-500, but not massively sharper.

Take a look at this comparison
Juza Nature Photography

At 400mm you can see the canon is sharper (and more noticeably more contrasty) at f/5.6 and especially at f/8, but a test like that is going to exaggerate the difference in sharpness. I recently bought a 100-400 and I'm so far very satisfied with it's IQ wide open (my skill at using it, however, is another matter ), but if I already owned a 150-500mm siggy, I don't think I would spend that much money upgrading to it. It's smaller, lighter, faster (both in aperture and AF speed) and superbly built, but I don't think it's good enough to merit selling a 150-500 to upgrade, even if it is better than the sigma.

How much do you rely on the OS on your 150-500? And how often do you shoot small birds or dragonflies? If you want the absolute best IQ and can do without IS or the close focussing, the 400mm f/5.6L prime is definitely sharper wide open (It's about as sharp as the 100-400 is at f/8 across it's entire aperture range) and has faster focussing.

The 400mm prime is a more definite upgrade in IQ and AF, but a downgrade in terms of IS and close focussing (which is the reason I went with the 100-400).

[Geoff F]

If you regularly use the 500 mm end of the Sigma, Sam, you will probably find that in most conditions (plenty of small print opt outs here) the Sigma actually produces better results than the Canon plus a converter to get you to the same 500 mm size.

I am frequently amazed at the results that I achieve with the Sigma at 500 mm. But, as previously mentioned, you do need good light and the correct settings for best results with this lens; F8 to F11 and a ISO of 400 or less. Also sufficient shutter speed, even with OS, or use a tripod and turn off the OS function.

However, if you shoot more at the mid range and need to open up the aperture wider than F8 you may prefer the Canon option.

But if you want the best quality and can work without a zoom, then a fixed length (prime) lens would definitely be worth considering. 500mm, or bigger won't be cheap though; the Sigma is excellent value.

[Sam_swfc123]

Thank you very much for all your help guys it has been brilliant. I do love the sigma it is a fantastic last and am reluctant to get rid of it. So I have another option. Shall I get the canon 400mm f/5.6 prime and keep my sigma aswell, so then I still have a lens for close up shots but also have a lens that is deadly sharp, say for when I use it at a hide at a reserve or something like that? What do you all reckon?
Thanks for your help again.

Regards,
Sam Winslow

[squishy]

That sounds like an excellent plan.

You certainly wouldn't be disappointed with the IQ of the 400 prime.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Sam_swfc123

Thank you very much for all your help guys it has been brilliant. I do love the sigma it is a fantastic last and am reluctant to get rid of it. So I have another option. Shall I get the canon 400mm f/5.6 prime and keep my sigma aswell, so then I still have a lens for close up shots but also have a lens that is deadly sharp, say for when I use it at a hide at a reserve or something like that? What do you all reckon?
Thanks for your help again.

Regards,
Sam Winslow

Sounds like a good idea. I'll never get rid of my Sigma 50-500mm, there are times when that zoom is very useful. However, for the majority of my shots I use my 400mm F5.6.

[Geoff F]

Did I read somewhere that Canon were introducing a new version of the 400 mm?

But they also promised a new 'L' version of the 70-300 IS but it doesn't appear to have materialised in the UK yet. I was considering getting one but have eventually decided to get the well trusted 70-200 IS before the vat increases.

[david156]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Did I read somewhere that Canon were introducing a new version of the 400 mm?

But they also promised a new 'L' version of the 70-300 IS but it doesn't appear to have materialised in the UK yet. I was considering getting one but have eventually decided to get the well trusted 70-200 IS before the vat increases.

There is also rumours of a new 100 - 400 zoom coming next year.

[Sam_swfc123]

Thank you for all your comments and advice, very helpful.

One last question for you all though.

The Canon 400mm f/5.6 is it a lens that i would be able to take around the woods and on walks by free hand or do i have to have a tripod with it?

Please could i have a bit of information about please? thank you that would be very helpful.

Regards,
Sam Winslow.