Lens test Canon 400mm F5.6 V Sigma 50-500mm

[matt_xyz]

interesting results Graham and Roger. The 400mm is certainly a very sharp lens, I find it a pleasure to use. The difference between 400 and 500mm is also interesting, I would have expected the difference to be greater.

Matt

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

interesting results Graham and Roger. The 400mm is certainly a very sharp lens, I find it a pleasure to use. The difference between 400 and 500mm is also interesting, I would have expected the difference to be greater.

Matt

Checking my memory banks, I think I recall reading somewhere that the Bigma doesn't really shoot at 500mm, but at something more like 460mm? (or something similar?) I wouldn't rely on that being fact, but I think it was something like that?? Either way, for all the shots we took, I can't see much, if any, difference.

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by glsammy

1. The Canon is much sharper, retaining far more detail when viewing images at 100%.

Sharper edge to edge and much better contrast.

Originally Posted by glsammy

2. The 100mm so called advantage of the Sigma, doesn't really show at all, in fact the image size looked just about identical!

The Sigma image is definitely bigger. But only about by 10%. Actually stated focal lengths from all manufacturers are nominal and can vary by as much as +-5% I believe so if by some chance the Sigma is a bit under 500 and the Canon a bit over 400 that more or less accounts for the difference.

Originally Posted by glsammy

3. You also gain in more flexability in poorer light with the faster Glass on the 400mm.

It's only 1/3 stop faster, which is insignificant. What's more significant is that it delivers a good image wide open so you can actually use f5.6 where you may need to stop the Sigma down to get the edges to sharpen up. I'd be interested to see a similar shoot-out between the Sigma 170-500 and the Bigma. On paper the 170-500 looks the sharper lens of the two.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

Sharper edge to edge and much better contrast.



The Sigma image is definitely bigger. But only about by 10%. Actually stated focal lengths from all manufacturers are nominal and can vary by as much as +-5% I believe so if by some chance the Sigma is a bit under 500 and the Canon a bit over 400 that more or less accounts for the difference.



It's only 1/3 stop faster, which is insignificant. What's more significant is that it delivers a good image wide open so you can actually use f5.6 where you may need to stop the Sigma down to get the edges to sharpen up. I'd be interested to see a similar shoot-out between the Sigma 170-500 and the Bigma. On paper the 170-500 looks the sharper lens of the two.

So when someone tells me my "slow" F6.3 lens isn't as good as their F5.6, I can tell them the difference is insignificant. Nice one!

As for the difference in size, it's the perceived difference that matters, and there isn't any.
We both far preferred the 400mm images, especially when viewed at 100%. I could make the Canon image look much larger than the Sigma one, whilst retaining more detail.
The quality of the 400mm more than makes up for any lack of image size, which was the point I was trying to make, i.e. don't buy the Sigma just because of the 100mm supposed extra magnification. Buy it because it's a quality versatile zoom lens, without equal at it's price point.

I'm confused as to why a 170-500 can look sharper on paper. It lacks the HSM motor of the Bigma, so field performance won't be the same. The general on line consensus is that the 50-500mm is superior in both build, performance and optical quality over the 170-500mm.

[Seajay]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Checking my memory banks, I think I recall reading somewhere that the Bigma doesn't really shoot at 500mm, but at something more like 460mm? (or something similar?) I wouldn't rely on that being fact, but I think it was something like that?? Either way, for all the shots we took, I can't see much, if any, difference.

The results of your test are to be expected. I can see a most definate increase in the Bigma's image, approx. 10% as someone has said, however the difference in price is far more than 10% I would imagine! Graham, did you use a tripod for your shots? I have been and indeed still am doing a lot of experimentation with the Bigma and that is the secret especially with converters. It is a heavy, long lens and any vibration whatsoever will reveal itself at high magnification. If you are going to pit it against a lens of the calibre of the 400mm give it a chance of a fight. I reckon if you put your gear onto my Wimberley head and used a cable release you'd give it a run for the money! Your quite welcome to borrow it and try. I see you go to Whisby as do I, have a loan of a Nikon D70 and Sigma converter too if you like. You say you can't get on with a converter with it, then try a different approach.

[Blackdog]

Just out of interest gents, what body's did you use for this experiment? Were they comparable in terms of sensor size and pixel rating? Or, did you use the same body and swap the lenses?

Those pictures are both very good indeed, but if I were asked to choose between them, I think the Canon version would clinch it, but, not by a whole lot.

Yes, I do own Canon kit, but I'm not overly partisan about it, there are people posting on this site who could produce better images than me with a box brownie

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

Just out of interest gents, what body's did you use for this experiment? Were they comparable in terms of sensor size and pixel rating? Or, did you use the same body and swap the lenses?

Those pictures are both very good indeed, but if I were asked to choose between them, I think the Canon version would clinch it, but, not by a whole lot.

Yes, I do own Canon kit, but I'm not overly partisan about it, there are people posting on this site who could produce better images than me with a box brownie

Hi Blackdog, the shots Graham posted were taken with the same body, we just swapped the lenses.
Roger

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Seajay

The results of your test are to be expected. I can see a most definate increase in the Bigma's image, approx. 10% as someone has said, however the difference in price is far more than 10% I would imagine! Graham, did you use a tripod for your shots? I have been and indeed still am doing a lot of experimentation with the Bigma and that is the secret especially with converters. It is a heavy, long lens and any vibration whatsoever will reveal itself at high magnification. If you are going to pit it against a lens of the calibre of the 400mm give it a chance of a fight. I reckon if you put your gear onto my Wimberley head and used a cable release you'd give it a run for the money! Your quite welcome to borrow it and try. I see you go to Whisby as do I, have a loan of a Nikon D70 and Sigma converter too if you like. You say you can't get on with a converter with it, then try a different approach.

There was no need for a tripod. We were at the bird feeders where there's a substantial shelf and ledge that supports the camera and lens better than any tripod could. Both lenses were used in that way, apart from a few I tried hand held with the 400mm which were just fine.
There isn't much difference in the price as I pointed out earlier.

I'm not knocking the Bigma, it's my lens after all! It's just a different type of lens, with different advantages.
The only reason we did this was that some people were asking if the 100mm extra length on the Bigma was a big advantage over a 400mm prime. It simply isn't.
When I tried the converter, how do you know how I used it It was solidly mounted, in excellent light. The shots simply weren't up to it. Extremely soft would be the kindest description I could give for them.

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by glsammy

So when someone tells me my "slow" F6.3 lens isn't as good as their F5.6, I can tell them the difference is insignificant. Nice one!

Of course when you get that 120-300/f2.8 you'll have some real fast glass (had a little play with one at Focus On Imaging BTW - very nice lens).

Originally Posted by glsammy

As for the difference in size, it's the perceived difference that matters, and there isn't any.
We both far preferred the 400mm images, especially when viewed at 100%. I could make the Canon image look much larger than the Sigma one, whilst retaining more detail.
The quality of the 400mm more than makes up for any lack of image size, which was the point I was trying to make, i.e. don't buy the Sigma just because of the 100mm supposed extra magnification. Buy it because it's a quality versatile zoom lens, without equal at it's price point.

Agree 100%.

Originally Posted by glsammy

I'm confused as to why a 170-500 can look sharper on paper. It lacks the HSM motor of the Bigma, so field performance won't be the same. The general on line consensus is that the 50-500mm is superior in both build, performance and optical quality over the 170-500mm.

The lack of HSM makes it slower to focus but doesn't affect the optical quality. If it is indeed optically worse than the Bigma then Sigma have a bit of explaining to do as their published MTF charts show it be a bit sharper

[eeyore]

i am a little bigma user and this was taken in roughly similar conditions to your shots - i would have said that bigma is sharper but that could be down to exposure etc. I'd be up for a day out if you want to try it oiut more scientifically sometime


With regard to the 400 vs 500 thing what camera bodies are you using ? are they both the same ? - I just wondered if the 500 was on a 1.3 crop such as the 1D while the 400 was on a 1.6 crop such as the 30D they would both be roughly the same effective length - mind you i am sure you guys would have thought of that already so i am probably talking rubbish