lens help

span130502 · #1 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 03:33 PM

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 · #2 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 03:43 PM

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 · #3 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 03:53 PM

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 · #4 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 04:00 PM

Oh god. Am I going to have to save up for the Canon?

I was going to get the bigma but...

zan · #5 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 04:30 PM

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 · #6 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 04:43 PM

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 · #7 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 04:49 PM

You've done it now Bod

Boddie · #8 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

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 · #9 (**permalink**) 27-12-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

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 · #10 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 12:03 AM

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.

span130502 · #11 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 12:24 AM

thanks everyone for that i am now swaying towards the canon i was worried about the warranty when buying from hong kong as i seem to remember reading somewhere that the international warranty offered does not exsist.

span130502 · #12 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

thanks for the help but could you let me know what was annoying about the 105mm

NickCantle · #13 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickCantle

You've done it now Bod

What I meant with that Bod, is that you've now done it as to sway me to consider the Canon...which isn't cheap. But it's amazing

I wasn't trying to start something

Nick

JeffH · #14 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 09:06 AM

I'm with Boddie on this (and also a 100 - 400 user) - go for the Canon.

It's a classic example of 'you get what you pay for' and judging by everything I have read the Canon is undoubtedly a better lens than the Bigma - as it should be given that it costs several hundred pounds more!

If any doubts remain, consider this - how many wildlife Pros use the Canon and how many use the Bigma? I think you'll find that the Canon wins hands down

Jeff

glsammy · #15 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by span130502

thanks everyone for that i am now swaying towards the canon i was worried about the warranty when buying from hong kong as i seem to remember reading somewhere that the international warranty offered does not exsist.

I bought my Bigma from a Hong Kong supplier. I also had to have it repaired under warranty by Sigma. I had no problems at all. They did insist on seeing evidence that all duties had been paid, which the supplier I used gave me.
It's all down to who you buy from. If they offer to "hide" the purchase by stating it's a gift, then you can expect problems. The one I used, offered a "We pay if your charged" sale on the Bigma. I was charged, and sure enough they paid.

I saved a lot of money by buying from them and I've used then three times since, never with any problems.
If you ask, I'll PM you with their details.

Sigma even repaired the lens later out of warranty free of charge. The only thing you lose when buying from abroad is that Sigma offer UK buyers a 3 year Sigma warranty, whilst their international warranty is only 12 months. My purchase included a 3 year international independent warranty, so I didn't lose out there either.

Boddie · #16 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by span130502

thanks for the help but could you let me know what was annoying about the 105mm

I just got annoyed about the magnification and working distance. I became aware that the 150 users around me were getting better shots for no other reason than these factors. As I said its a great lens for still life but the 150 is far better for insects

Boddie · #17 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickCantle

What I meant with that Bod, is that you've now done it as to sway me to consider the Canon...which isn't cheap. But it's amazing

I wasn't trying to start something

Nick

I know mate

. You wont regret getting the Canon, its a super lens

span130502 · #18 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glsammy

I bought my Bigma from a Hong Kong supplier. I also had to have it repaired under warranty by Sigma. I had no problems at all. They did insist on seeing evidence that all duties had been paid, which the supplier I used gave me.
It's all down to who you buy from. If they offer to "hide" the purchase by stating it's a gift, then you can expect problems. The one I used, offered a "We pay if your charged" sale on the Bigma. I was charged, and sure enough they paid.

I saved a lot of money by buying from them and I've used then three times since, never with any problems.
If you ask, I'll PM you with their details.

Sigma even repaired the lens later out of warranty free of charge. The only thing you lose when buying from abroad is that Sigma offer UK buyers a 3 year Sigma warranty, whilst their international warranty is only 12 months. My purchase included a 3 year international independent warranty, so I didn't lose out there either.

that would be fantastic if you could pm those details, ive even noticed some of the sites offering to send them as a gift of no value !!!

Boddie · #19 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 01:29 PM

From what I have heard the Sigma warranty is superb. I know people that have returned theirs well out of warranty and had repaired free of charge. I have always had people applaud Sigmas customer service

glsammy · #20 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boddie

From what I have heard the Sigma warranty is superb. I know people that have returned theirs well out of warranty and had repaired free of charge. I have always had people applaud Sigmas customer service

Yep, I totally agree. I didn't even have to ask. All I did was contact them for an estimate of repair so I could claim under my independent warranty. It was Sigma that offered to do it for me, as their rep said, it shouldn't have failed in the way it did.
A refreshing attitude that you rarely find these days.

Chris_Johnstone · #21 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 03:33 PM

I'm another user of the Canon. It's L glass, USM and IS equipped. You can't go far wrong. It's a zoom which is both a blessing and a curse in terms of flexibility and IQ, respectively. I recently read a review from Andy Rouse commenting on how he disliked his 100-400 however, unless you can afford a suite of prime lenses then you can't go far wrong. Actually, Andy recommends this lens for the traveling photographer in a book he wrote a year ago... all very confusing.

Bottom line is that the Canon is better than the Sigma in my opinion - buy the best you can afford.

Chris

glsammy · #22 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 04:17 PM

The biggest problem you'll probably get with the Pump, is dirt on your sensor screen, as experienced by John on his recent visit to Spain. He never took the lens off, but came back with a screen so dirty he needed to get it professionally cleaned.
The Bigma isn't completely free of this problem either, although not to the same extent. On the Bigma dust tends to get trapped inside the lens itself. It's a relatively easy fix, if your brave enough!

Andy Rouse isn't in love with the 100-400mm lens either. He's recently commented on it:

Quote:

When I wrote the LP book the brief was for the normal average travel photographer which is why I recommended the 100-400 as it is the perfect lens for this. I always try to recommend equipment that fits the individual usage rather than put in my own prejudices (believe it or not).

My personal feelings are different. I feel that the 100-400 is painfully slow to autofocus on the fast moving subjects that I like doing, inaccurate when it does focus, useless when trying backlight, flares like mad, slightly less quality than my true L lenses (and as you know anything counts as my clients will see it)and most importantly I do not trust it! Others do and love it and that is great, but when I am asked my opinion I happily give it.

To read this and other comments, here's the link:

The 100-400 4.5?5.6L IS USM Lens / Technical Talk - Express Forum

Boddie · #23 (**permalink**) 28-12-2007, 05:13 PM

When you have access to a number of different lenses I think you can be negative about a hybrid such as the pump, in the way that Andy Rouse is. Its all relative. However, I would say for the vast majority of users the pump is an excellent lens. Those of us that have a collection say that the kit lens is rubbish, when infact its not that bad a lens. Its fine for attaching to your camera whn your kids play with it for example. I dont personally know a user that has any complaints about thei pump.

I am pr