Canon EF100-400 or Sigma 50-500 ??? Opinions? Recommendations?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 8 Dec 2010 11:56:04 GMT
Vid says:
I am an amateur and not very experienced photographer who would like to start doing some wildlife photography. I currently have a Canon 350d which I tend to use with a tamron 18-250 for vesatility when out walking. I intend to upgrade to a 60D in the not too distant future, and am keen to get a greater magnification zoom to go with it. based on reviews to date I am in interested in the above two options anyone got any thoughts

Posted on 17 Dec 2010 13:40:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Dec 2010 13:41:40 GMT
I bought the Canon 100-400 back in May as an upgrade for my sigma 170-500 (the precursor to the 50-500). The main reasons being the image stabilisation and the L-series optics. I am a keen wildlife photographer in the process of turning semi-pro. The difference in handling and the quality of the images is massive. I have used this lens to take images of wild otters, birds, and dogs going around agility courses, all handheld and they come out pinsharp, not something that I could do with the sigma. I hear two criticisms (1) its a dust pump - I have had no problem at all in this regard, (2) its heavy - its bound to be, its an L-series and made of metal! (unlike the Sigma which is plastic) I actually find that the weight helps to steady it when handholding, in my opinion its easier to handhold a heavier, but balanced lens than a long lightweight lens . The image stabilisation is excellent.

Posted on 18 Dec 2010 12:09:45 GMT
Vid says:
Thanks, that is very helpful feedback. Although I have also learnt that the new version of the Sigma also has IS, and is supposed to be much better. But seems like the Canon is a fantastic lens.

Posted on 18 Mar 2011 10:43:44 GMT
P. French says:
I recently upgraded from the Sigma 150-500mm to the Canon F4 100-400mm. In my honest opinion the upgrade was well worth it - the image quality is much sharper, especially at the zoom end. My reason for upgrading was after I had used the Sigma for video on my 7D, it just wasn't sharp enough and the colours weren't as vivid as I'd liked. With the Canon, these problems are no longer there. It really is worth the extra few £'s. Good Luck

Posted on 14 May 2011 22:09:45 BDT
You don't mention your budget , Vid , but I would put in a word for the Sigma 120 - 400 mm zoom, I've recently bouight one , and it seems to me an excellent lens , very sharp , stabilised , and I'm told by a semi-pro who has used both that it is at least as good as the Canon , and of course at half the price . and the price includes lens hood and case .

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2011 08:58:15 BDT
Vid says:
Thanks Ted, actually this is somewhat out of date now.. in the end I went for the Canon 70-300L due to its more compact size (I plan to take it on a tour to Vietnam later this year) and I have been delighted with the results so far. I will probably get a bigger zoom at some point in the future but not for a year or so... I notice that the Sigma you refer to has been getting rave reviews in a lot of the magazines.. many thanks, Vid
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  4
Total posts:  6
Initial post:  8 Dec 2010
Latest post:  16 May 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras by Canon
4.6 out of 5 stars   (69)