I am currently considering the purchase of a new telephoto lens. I'm trying to decide between the SIGMA (APO 150-500 F5-6.3 DG OS HSM) and the CANON (EF 100+400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM). One thought, is the CANON worth the extra $600.00?
I'll be using this lens on a CANON Rebel XT, for bird and other wildlife photography.
Don, I am presently getting ready to sell my copy of the Canon 100-400 IS L as I find it less useful for my style of photography (Flora). I have used it for "birding" and it works rather well, my only complaint is trying to use it with the 2x extender. Works fine with the 1.4, but with a 2x it just doesn't. Sharpest at about 380mm in my opinion w/o the extender, keeping in mind that I use this on a 1.6 crop factor (20d). Very sharp on my eos1v film camera, though.
If you're interested in purchasing a slightly used one in excellent condition, email me. Good luck.
The Canon 100-400 is the most variable lens on the market. If you get a good one, fine, but there are a lot of dogs out there. They are also prone to bearing failure!
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/How-good-is-YOUR-lens-1
The Sigma 150-500 is to new to have any sort of reputation yet. I've used a canon fit on a strange camera briefly and was quite impressed but it will be a couple of weeks before I can get a copy for proper testing.
Most people aren't jazzed with the 100-400mm IQ-wise. It's versatile as far as zoom range, but not stunning under the microsope of Photoshop and a calibrated monitor.
Take a moment to look at Canon's 400mm f/5.6. It's a prime, so the IQ is superb. And if you're birding, I doubt 400mm will ever be too close.
And get this: it's 200 bucks cheaper than the 100-400mm! I think this is Canon's silent gem in the affordable lens category (affordable vs. the 400mm 2.8 that is).
Haven't tried the new 150-500, but I would likely pass on it and get the 50-500, since it has higher build quality standard. The newer lens is not an EX, so cheaper materials and construction makes it a value priced lens. The 50-500 is an EX lens, and I can tell you from experience, it is hard to break one of these. The 50-500 is just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down to F8 or F11 corner to corner, especially on a small format sensor. The 150-500 seems to be sharper in the center, and might have a bit more contrast, although I am getting this information from reviewers that have actually handled the lens. In either case, a good tripod like a series 4 or 5 Gitzo, Feisol 3372 or 3472 or equivalent with a good head - a Markins M20 or Arca Swiss Z1, or a gimbal for moving subjects will help ensure sharp results.
Don, here's a more in-depth look at the Canon zoom. And I've shot it a lot from an XT (350D), which is one of my backup bodies.
I shot the 100-400 for four years, heavily (at least 150,000 shutter clicks), before selling it (because of indoor wedding work) and replacing it with the 70-200 f2.8L, 1.4 TC and 400 f5.6L.
Please remember the following are my views based on my experience with fives copies of this lens (no heresay involved), and are not meant to be taken as if they're carved in stone. Nor are they attacks on those who have had different experiences with the lens.
The best thing about the 100-400 was its supreme versatility. Fixed 400mm is great if you're looking for tight portraits of fairly close birds, but I'd have missed many a fine environmental avian/wildlife photograph if I hadn't been able to zoom out on an instant to capture the scene. If you have only one camera body, this is perhaps one of the best lenses on the market for all-around wildlife and birds. Its combination of flexibility, image stabilization and image quality make it an excellent value. I've shot alongside other pro wildlife/avian shooters who had one of the big guns (500 or 600mm plus TC) on a tripod but sported the 100-400 on a second body for those situations demanding instant flexibility.
It is softer than a prime lens. All zooms are. It is slightly softer compared with Canon's 70-200 series when both are shot wide open at max focal length, but I have many good-selling fine art prints and glossy mag publication sales captured wide open at 400mm with the 100-400. Images from my 100-400 wide open at 400mm had identical IQ to images from my 70-200 f2.8L/1.4TC. The 100-400 sharpens up noticeably when stopped down one stop to f8 or backed up to 350mm or so. I have found acceptable IQ with a 1.4 TC, but not with the 2 TC. But Canon's sharpest 70-200 zoom series lenses don't offer acceptable IQ with the 2 TC either. I have not shot either of the Siggies mentioned, but I've compared images with my 100-400 in side-by-side tests with no pp to those from the 50-500 and older 170-500 non OS Siggies, and my 100-400 was easily as sharp as the Sigma images, and in some cases sharper.
With apologies to any here who have already commented, the lens' uneven reputation is mostly a matter of folks who haven't mastered the lens' learning curve before they decide they dislike it. With the proliferation of online photo forums, many of which are frequented by thousands of inexperienced photographers, quick and dirty opinions and inaccurate preconceptions are passed on as gospel until nearly everyone is singing from the same hymnal. I've spent a fair amount of time on a couple of those forums trying to present a more balanced view, but once they find out you aren't of their denomination they drum you out of the congregation. Their loss, indeed.
I have no doubt there are bad copies out there. In fact, I've seen one. But mine was sharp, and I shot four others owned by clients who bought the lens but worried they'd gotten "soft" copies. Each was as sharp as mine, and the sometime softness of their images turned out to be technique problems that were easily solved. I believe the bad rap on quality control is as overstated and undeserved as the "softness" claim. These issues get magnified as they are repeatedly passed from mouth to ear. After more than four years of hard use, my copy had very small amounts of dust inside the lens with no impact on IQ, and I believe those who claim the lens is a dust vacuum also have overstated the issue.
Now, it has its problems. It is slow, at f5.6, and I shot it at almost all times with a monopod to help counteract that slowness. The IS from a monopod was a deadly combination. And since I generally kept my aperture stopped down to f8 to allow the lens its sharpest images, that made it even slower. And, as a push-pull zoom, it changes its balance point as it is zoomed, which is difficult for some photograhers to come to grips with. That's part of the learning curve that turns some photographers away right away. In the end, push/pull is an acquired taste, I believe. I got used to mine quickly but still like the twist zoom better.
It focuses slightly (and I mean so slightly you have to work hard to notice it) slower than the 400 f5.6L. I don't know how its focus speed compares with the Siggies, and what I've read online about one of the Siggies being slow to focus I dismiss for the same reasons stated above.
Since the 100-400 is slightly softer than any of the prime telephoto lenses, you will need to do a bit more in pp to bring out the best in the image. I did a fair amount of selective sharpening, lassoing the subject and sharpening it individually while leaving backgrounds alone. And because of that inherent slight softness, subjects at some distance aren't resolved as sharply and well as the are with prime lenses.
I recently shot a pair of eagles at some distance with the 400 f5.6L and was able to crop away 70 percent of the image, leaving 30 percent, and get a smashingly sharp 11x14 out of it. That was with a 1.6 crop 8 Mp sensor. No matter how hard I tried with the 100-400, I couldn't have duplicated that feat with that lens.
If flexibility is unimportant, I completely agree with the previous statement that the 400 f5.6L is one of Canon's best kept little secrets. Light, small, easy to handhold and swing along with birds in flight. As sharp as any other of Canon's supertele primes. Get a tripod and/or monopod and get used to using them with this lens, though, because with no IS there will be technique issues if you lower your guard. If you already have a zoom in the 70-200 or 70-300 range you're happy with, the 400 f5.6L would be a great addition.
In the end, based on the images I've seen from the Canon 100-400 and both the Siggies mentioned, I've got to think you'll be happy with either once you've mastered their idiosyncrases. The differences between these lenses are small, not a matter to really worry about, and the most important thing is, once the choice is made, to really bear down and shoot the new lens a lot. The faster you get used to it, the more fun you will have capturing wonderful images. As always, it's the eye, mind, and heart of the photographer that lead to fine photgraphy.
There, that's my $.02. Well, OK, turned into more than two cents, but then of course monetary value is debatable.
I'd like to add my support for birding with the Canon 400mm fixed focal rather than a zoom. It is an incredibly sharp lens. I mostly shoot out of a blind and very seldom change to my zoom. Instead I often put on my 2x converter and the edges hold up well. I've used the 400mm through the migratory season and got the sharpest captures I've ever had.
I have both lenses and, for general purpose photography, I use the 100-400 much more than the 400 5.6. The zoom is a great lens. I agree completely with Steve's comments above. The only thing that I might add is that its close focusing capability (1:5 magnification) also comes in quite handy in a number of situations.
I'm with Michael on that. I used the 100-400 at 400mm quite often for flowers and butterflies. It's particularly fine for flower portraits that don't require true macro, and butterflies were quite large enough for it to do a good job on, and with a working distance of 6 feet, you didn't tend to spook the butterflies. At MFD, a fritillary butterfly on a thistle flower took up half the frame on a 1.6 crop body.
You can't do that with the 400 f5.6L unless you add extension tubes, and then you lose distant focus.
Discussion
9 repliesI'll be using this lens on a CANON Rebel XT, for bird and other wildlife photography.
Any and all thoughts are greatfully appreicated.
Sincerely,
Don R. Millbranth
If you're interested in purchasing a slightly used one in excellent condition, email me. Good luck.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/How-good-is-YOUR-lens-1
The Sigma 150-500 is to new to have any sort of reputation yet. I've used a canon fit on a strange camera briefly and was quite impressed but it will be a couple of weeks before I can get a copy for proper testing.
Ian
Take a moment to look at Canon's 400mm f/5.6. It's a prime, so the IQ is superb. And if you're birding, I doubt 400mm will ever be too close.
And get this: it's 200 bucks cheaper than the 100-400mm! I think this is Canon's silent gem in the affordable lens category (affordable vs. the 400mm 2.8 that is).
Have a look!
I shot the 100-400 for four years, heavily (at least 150,000 shutter clicks), before selling it (because of indoor wedding work) and replacing it with the 70-200 f2.8L, 1.4 TC and 400 f5.6L.
Please remember the following are my views based on my experience with fives copies of this lens (no heresay involved), and are not meant to be taken as if they're carved in stone. Nor are they attacks on those who have had different experiences with the lens.
The best thing about the 100-400 was its supreme versatility. Fixed 400mm is great if you're looking for tight portraits of fairly close birds, but I'd have missed many a fine environmental avian/wildlife photograph if I hadn't been able to zoom out on an instant to capture the scene. If you have only one camera body, this is perhaps one of the best lenses on the market for all-around wildlife and birds. Its combination of flexibility, image stabilization and image quality make it an excellent value. I've shot alongside other pro wildlife/avian shooters who had one of the big guns (500 or 600mm plus TC) on a tripod but sported the 100-400 on a second body for those situations demanding instant flexibility.
It is softer than a prime lens. All zooms are. It is slightly softer compared with Canon's 70-200 series when both are shot wide open at max focal length, but I have many good-selling fine art prints and glossy mag publication sales captured wide open at 400mm with the 100-400. Images from my 100-400 wide open at 400mm had identical IQ to images from my 70-200 f2.8L/1.4TC. The 100-400 sharpens up noticeably when stopped down one stop to f8 or backed up to 350mm or so. I have found acceptable IQ with a 1.4 TC, but not with the 2 TC. But Canon's sharpest 70-200 zoom series lenses don't offer acceptable IQ with the 2 TC either. I have not shot either of the Siggies mentioned, but I've compared images with my 100-400 in side-by-side tests with no pp to those from the 50-500 and older 170-500 non OS Siggies, and my 100-400 was easily as sharp as the Sigma images, and in some cases sharper.
With apologies to any here who have already commented, the lens' uneven reputation is mostly a matter of folks who haven't mastered the lens' learning curve before they decide they dislike it. With the proliferation of online photo forums, many of which are frequented by thousands of inexperienced photographers, quick and dirty opinions and inaccurate preconceptions are passed on as gospel until nearly everyone is singing from the same hymnal. I've spent a fair amount of time on a couple of those forums trying to present a more balanced view, but once they find out you aren't of their denomination they drum you out of the congregation. Their loss, indeed.
I have no doubt there are bad copies out there. In fact, I've seen one. But mine was sharp, and I shot four others owned by clients who bought the lens but worried they'd gotten "soft" copies. Each was as sharp as mine, and the sometime softness of their images turned out to be technique problems that were easily solved. I believe the bad rap on quality control is as overstated and undeserved as the "softness" claim. These issues get magnified as they are repeatedly passed from mouth to ear. After more than four years of hard use, my copy had very small amounts of dust inside the lens with no impact on IQ, and I believe those who claim the lens is a dust vacuum also have overstated the issue.
Now, it has its problems. It is slow, at f5.6, and I shot it at almost all times with a monopod to help counteract that slowness. The IS from a monopod was a deadly combination. And since I generally kept my aperture stopped down to f8 to allow the lens its sharpest images, that made it even slower. And, as a push-pull zoom, it changes its balance point as it is zoomed, which is difficult for some photograhers to come to grips with. That's part of the learning curve that turns some photographers away right away. In the end, push/pull is an acquired taste, I believe. I got used to mine quickly but still like the twist zoom better.
It focuses slightly (and I mean so slightly you have to work hard to notice it) slower than the 400 f5.6L. I don't know how its focus speed compares with the Siggies, and what I've read online about one of the Siggies being slow to focus I dismiss for the same reasons stated above.
Since the 100-400 is slightly softer than any of the prime telephoto lenses, you will need to do a bit more in pp to bring out the best in the image. I did a fair amount of selective sharpening, lassoing the subject and sharpening it individually while leaving backgrounds alone. And because of that inherent slight softness, subjects at some distance aren't resolved as sharply and well as the are with prime lenses.
I recently shot a pair of eagles at some distance with the 400 f5.6L and was able to crop away 70 percent of the image, leaving 30 percent, and get a smashingly sharp 11x14 out of it. That was with a 1.6 crop 8 Mp sensor. No matter how hard I tried with the 100-400, I couldn't have duplicated that feat with that lens.
If flexibility is unimportant, I completely agree with the previous statement that the 400 f5.6L is one of Canon's best kept little secrets. Light, small, easy to handhold and swing along with birds in flight. As sharp as any other of Canon's supertele primes. Get a tripod and/or monopod and get used to using them with this lens, though, because with no IS there will be technique issues if you lower your guard. If you already have a zoom in the 70-200 or 70-300 range you're happy with, the 400 f5.6L would be a great addition.
In the end, based on the images I've seen from the Canon 100-400 and both the Siggies mentioned, I've got to think you'll be happy with either once you've mastered their idiosyncrases. The differences between these lenses are small, not a matter to really worry about, and the most important thing is, once the choice is made, to really bear down and shoot the new lens a lot. The faster you get used to it, the more fun you will have capturing wonderful images. As always, it's the eye, mind, and heart of the photographer that lead to fine photgraphy.
There, that's my $.02. Well, OK, turned into more than two cents, but then of course monetary value is debatable.
I have both lenses and, for general purpose photography, I use the 100-400 much more than the 400 5.6. The zoom is a great lens. I agree completely with Steve's comments above. The only thing that I might add is that its close focusing capability (1:5 magnification) also comes in quite handy in a number of situations.
You can't do that with the 400 f5.6L unless you add extension tubes, and then you lose distant focus.
It's ALWAYS a tradeoff somewhere down the line.
I settled on the Sigma lens, but have yet had a chance to "put it through its' paces".
Thanks again,
Don