I am considering purchasing a good long lens. Which would you say is better the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500?

Both are budget long lens. There is no big difference on sharpness and auto focus speed. The IS is nice on Canon, but I really want the extra reach, so I got Bigma with monopod, it's really heavy. Some samples: http://www.photo96.com/blog/?cat=21 -- Yongbo Photo Gallery:http://www.photo96.com/

I chose the 100-400mm IS over any other option. For me it offered the best compromise in one package.The IS feature was for me very important as it adds much more flexibility in quick shooting situations. Often I find myself using this lens with a monopod, which adds to a higher keeper rate. The sharpness is good at 400mm and it is even usable (when tripod mounted) together with a 1.5x TC.The Sigma gives you some extra reach, but without IS (or OS) it would be a "no-go" for me! In case you use it more tripod mounted it still may suit your needs though.

I went for the Canon 100-400It is hand holdable with some ease even with a 1.4x converter, and many reports note the Bigma isn't as sharp at 500 as it is at 400 thus partly negating it's innate extra reach.As an example -- 100-400 +1.4x extender at 560mm handheld at 1/320th

Would suggest you review this test...http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/bigmapumpAs for me I went for the 100-400 as well and agree with the previous poster that the IS, even though only 2 stops, makes a significant difference at 400mm not to mention that the IQ of this lens is very, very good.I previously used a Sigma 100-300 with 1.4TC to give me an effective 420mm and although the IQ remained fairly good found that I often missed shots primarily because of an inability to keep the lens still consistently.

No question. Canon. Not just because it's a Canon--much better IQ and IS.

I love my Bigma. Although I would probably love a Canon 100-400 too. Either are good depending on what you can afford and 'need'.

Buy Bigma is you are ready to use ISO1600 as your working ISO in a daylight

I'm just wondering if it wouldn't pay to widen the search a little. I'm not sure what you want/need the lens for but why not look at the 400L 5.6? It is a little cheaper if I'm not mistaken.Cheers Mike

It does not have IS, focuses from 3m vs 1.8 (100-400 is a great lens for flowers) and sharpness is equal from f7.1-f8I made my choice for 100-400 and to not regret.For F5.6 you can have so small DOF that only a part of a bird will be in focus

Mike Fursovwrote:Buy Bigma is you are ready to use ISO1600 as your working ISO in a daylightIt's not a big difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3, and Bigma is f/5.6 at 400mm. Are you using ISO-1600 on the Canon during the day? The following example is Bigma with a 2X TC, ISO-400, f/16:

stevek65wrote:I am considering purchasing a good long lens. Which would you say is better the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500?And purchased the 100-400L IS. Best thing I did. No regrets. 100-400L IS is lighter. The IS is invaluable when you handhold.

I got the 100-400 IS and haven't looked back. Its my general walkaround nature lens and I handhold it most of the time.Some sample shots for you to get an idea of what it can do.This one is at 1/125s not the sharpest photo going but sometimes when your under the tree canopy you don't have a lot of choice.Can also be used as a kind-of-macro needed. This shot was with extension tubes.And without extension tubes.And then there is the standard BIF shots.More here:http://www.shawntruaxphotography.com/p761950523/After awhile though you will start wanting more reach and that brings you to the 500 and 600 lenses. I am eyeing the 500mm F4 right now and am thinking about pairing it with my 100-400 so I can cover 100-400 as an all-purpose on one body and the 500mm for the reach on a second body.Shawn

Mike Fursovwrote:It does not have IS, focuses from 3m vs 1.8 (100-400 is a great lens for flowers) and sharpness is equal from f7.1-f8I made my choice for 100-400 and to not regret. For F5.6 you can have so small DOF that only a part of a bird will be in focusWell I don't think the answer is so cut and dry since it seems to depend on what you are shooting.Take a look athttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=22381272For general wildlife the 100-400 seems to be preferred but if taking just birds and BIF then the 400 seems to be preferred.Also I know that many love the 100-400 but I have seen a couple of quality control issue threads with it. Check out.http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23984274I know that many many people are happy with their 100-400 but when you hear of people going through 2-3 copies and still not being happy it does tend to make you pause.Cheers Mike

GearCollectorwrote:I love my Bigma. Although I would probably love a Canon 100-400 too.I love my Bigma, too. I'd take the 100-400 if I could, but would still keep the Bigma.

NJOceanViewwrote:GearCollectorwrote:I love my Bigma. Although I would probably love a Canon 100-400 too.I love my Bigma, too. I'd take the 100-400 if I could, but would still keep the Bigma.I am thinking to add a 400mm prime, but will keep the Bigma for sure. -- Yongbo Photo Gallery:http://www.photo96.com/

Same here, I have tried both lenses for Aviation and WildlifeThe Sigma is an excellent lens and was sharp up to 500mm, but it's very heavy.http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0910512/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0910517/L/The Canon 100-400 was and is a tail of woe, several problems and repairs of four lenses. At the moment I am getting good results.http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0904094/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1264201/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1264200/L/Many wildlife images athttp://www.kevin-bates.com

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23968006I had a Bigma, did a weeks shooting of Ospreys fishing in Scotland. Good reach, but damn heavy. Great shots but... didn't like the fit on the body, so got the Canon.Good fit, much lighter, it's IS and L too. A little shorter is the compromise. For my money, the IS and weight swung it, simply because you've got more chance when handholding (at least with my rubbish technique, haha).They've each got great feature sets, produce fine images, it's a tough call.Good luckMikeblackthornwrote:Same here, I have tried both lenses for Aviation and WildlifeThe Sigma is an excellent lens and was sharp up to 500mm, but it's very heavy.http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0910512/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0910517/L/The Canon 100-400 was and is a tail of woe, several problems and repairs of four lenses. At the moment I am getting good results.http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0904094/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1264201/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1264200/L/Many wildlife images athttp://www.kevin-bates.com

If you want to compare the Canon 100-400 with a Sigma lens, you should be looking at the 80-400 that has a similar system to IS.I STILL THINK the Bigma is on a class of its own: -it's a MEGAZOOM, going 50 to 500 -it's half the price of the 100-400 -it's 500... not 400

I sold the Sigma without hasitation although the Sigma is a excellent lens indeed!But the difference was well worth the change over provide you get a good 100-400IS. Mine is tack sharp at 400mm wide open. The Sigma has a bit more reach but is heaiver.The Canon has slightly better sharpness, much better color, the "IS" is just excellent although it is only fist generation "IS" which gives 2-3 stops of compensation. I can confidently shot at 1/50s. At slower speed, motion blur becomes problem but I still can get excellent results.Here is a sample @400mm, f5.6, ISO1250 on a 1Ds. The original file size 13.5MB that indecated the lens capability of capture details: