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

glsammy · #1 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 04:22 PM

Today Ollie and I went to Whisby, to compare our lenses, the Canon 400mm F5.6 with the Sigma 50-500mm.

We had a good day, and it was a pleasure to meet with him at last! The test were conclusive, no doubt about the outcome.

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

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

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

So anyone thinking they will gain by going for the Sigma 50-500mm(Bigma) against the 400mm, Prime, you wont, apart from the flexability of the zoom range!

Here's a couple of the example shots. These are straight from the camera, no adjustments have been made.

Click on the images to see at full size.

Sigma 50-500mm. F6.3.

Canon 400mm F5.6 L

Notice the extra detail in the white area on the Canon shot. At 100% it's even more noticable.

Jon · #2 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 04:33 PM

Graham, as you say the results are what might be expected. Having said that the Sigma was good and no doubt the image could be manipulated to enhance, though of course the same could be said for the Canon. Could you tell me though was the Sigma set at 500mm or 400mm? Jon

Chris_Johnstone · #3 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 04:47 PM

shame the price tags aren't as equally matched...

glsammy · #4 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon

Graham, as you say the results are what might be expected. Having said that the Sigma was good and no doubt the image could be manipulated to enhance, though of course the same could be said for the Canon. Could you tell me though was the Sigma set at 500mm or 400mm? Jon

The Sigma was at 500mm..That was the surprising bit, I can't really see 100mm difference.

We thought this would be an interesting test as various people have wondered if the 100mm extra on the Bigma makes much difference, it doesn't.

As for the price difference, their isn't much in it, from the right sources. Our Scottish chum can do the 400mm for around the £690-£710 mark, just about the same price as the Bigma.

I'm not saying the Bigma is suddenly a bad lens, it isn't, and if the zoom capability is important to you, it's by far the best anywhere near it's price range.

I was genuinely surprised by the results though. I knew the 400mm was a fine lens, but it's overall sharpness was quite an eye opener.

Boddie · #5 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 05:54 PM

Steve Fourwings and I have been studying Bigma vs Pump with 1.4 and the Pump set up seems to win too.

glsammy · #6 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boddie

Steve Fourwings and I have been studying Bigma vs Pump with 1.4 and the Pump set up seems to win too.

I can well believe it Andrew. The pump is a fair amount more than the Bigma, but you can can use the converter successfully with it, whereas I never could with the Bigma.

Ollie · #7 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 06:26 PM

I've been reviewing the shots that Graham and I took with each others lens and my conclusion is exactly the same as Graham's so I won't post any I took on here. The only thing I will add is Graham is a top man and he gave me a few useful hints and tips to help me achieve even better results. Thanks for that mate, a great day out in good company
Roger

glsammy · #8 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 06:39 PM

It was my pleasure, a shame the weather wasn't quite what we hoped, but thinking about it, perhaps that's a good thing, I'd have never got back in time if it was any better.

I walked a bit more than I should have done, but that's nothing unusual for me, I'll pay for it later tonight.

I thoroughly enjoyed your company, and look forward to seeing you again.

MTR · #9 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 07:20 PM

Chaps
Sorry to butt in here but I had a good look at the 2 Great Tit images.
Yes there is a slight difference in the detail of the white cheeks between the the 2 images.
Would you gents not agree that was probably down to the different Aperture and shutter speeds between the 2 images.
Please check the EXIF? data
If I am correct a better/true test would be that both images are taken at the same settings
The one thing that has shocked me the most is difference between 400mm & 500mm.
There is none!!!
But as you know I own a Bigma, its not a bad lens, I feel that it is good value for money.
I would like to own a prime lens but its the price and my wife that stop me from buying a nice prime lens

glsammy · #10 (**permalink**) 26-02-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTR

Chaps
Sorry to butt in here but I had a good look at the 2 Great Tit images.
Yes there is a slight difference in the detail of the white cheeks between the the 2 images.
Would you gents not agree that was probably down to the different Aperture and shutter speeds between the 2 images.
Please check the EXIF? data
If I am correct a better/true test would be that both images are taken at the same settings
The one thing that has shocked me the most is difference between 400mm & 500mm.
There is none!!!
But as you know I own a Bigma, its not a bad lens, I feel that it is good value for money.
I would like to own a prime lens but its the price and my wife that stop me from buying a nice prime lens

We took loads Mark, I can assure you the differences were across the board. I chose these two more to show the lack of difference in image size, as they were two very similar shots. If I hadn't show two very similar ones, someone would have said it was because the images were different!

The difference in sharpness stands out every time, whatever the settings.

As I said earlier, I also agree the Bigma is in no way a poor lens, for what it costs it's the best zoom there is, and I've certainly enjoyed using it and still do.
That's not to say I wont be changing to something different one day..soon...