Africa Wild

PRWIN wrote:Bc where did you get the above

Off a comparison review I found on the web - I just googled Canon 100-400 vs Sigma 150-500 and it was the first review to pop up

THANKS

BC not the comparison you asking but I used to own the 50-500EX and sold it after buying the 100-400.

My reasons were:
- The 100-400 was much lighter
- I like the push-pull zoom
- The IS on the 100-400 improved my handheld keeper rate
- Due to the costs I could not justify keeping both

Both were capable of great results - my keeper rate with the 100-400 was substantially better. I also found that I missed the loss in the range between 50 and 100 far more than the loss of the range from 400 to 500.

mikef wrote: - I like the push-pull zoom

I on the other hand don't enjoy push-pull. My biggest hang up with this system in dust. Every time the elements move a vacuum effect is caused which sucks in dirt. If you can afford regular lens services, it is no big deal.

Hey mifef

Thanks for your input

Sprocky, the push, pull thing doesn’t seem to be an issue with those made after 2007 as there’s supposedly a new seal arrangement

I checked out both today and a second hand Sigma is in my price range, but the canon seems to produce betters pics though

Let me throw another spanner in the works.

I looked at the new Sigma 120 - 400mm lens today. What a beaut!! And at R8000 at Makro Nelspruit, it seems a good buy. Quite a bit faster than the 150 - 500mm and a lot cheaper than the Canon 100 - 400.

You have come around Sprocky, that's what I am using -O -O

PRWIN wrote: You have come around Sprocky, that's what I am using -O -O

If all your shots are with this lens...I NEED ONE!!!

Sprocky

have a look at the web site in my signature, all where taken with that lense

and what about the new Canon 100-400 L IS II USM