Africa Wild

Hey guys, I can’t afford a new lens, but there seems to be a relativity good second hand market for these:

Canon 100-400mm L IS USM or Sigma 150mm-500mm

Please advise which is better and why?

If it is not a price issue, I would suggest the Canon lens!

Hi BC

I have the Sigma 120-400 and to be honest I tried the 100-400 on my camera and did not notice a difference in speed and focus, 2ndly what I have seen the 2nd hand price of the 100-400 is nearly the same as a new one.

What I suggest is take you're camera with when deciding as you know the speed and focus of what you have and decide from there, try both

The 150-500 has that extra reach which sometimes comes in handy but the neg is if the animal comes too close

diffecult

Thanks all

From what I have seen on internet polls 86% of all people that voted went for the Canon, but it’s 30% more in price, so is it worth it.

They also say that a cropped Canon pic taken at 400mm F5.6 is still better than a Sigma 500mm F6.3 pic???

BC....I got the Sigma lens a couple of months ago and am very happy with it....but then I haven't compared it to the Canon lens. I can only compare it to my old Canon 75-300mm and apart from the obvious extra zoom, I love it!! It focusses much faster than my old lens, plus it has OS which my old lens doesn't have. I know that doesn't really help you, but my 2c worth.

Bushcraft wrote:
They also say that a cropped Canon pic taken at 400mm F5.6 is still better than a Sigma 500mm F6.3 pic???

,now I am really befuddled, as far I know this has to do with the amount of mega pix you're camera has and not with the lens as it works back from the c-mos when cropping for eg 8.2 megapix at 50% crop is infact a 4.1 megapix camera, that's why you get grain when going too big .A 8.2 megapix photo should be nearly twice the size as a 4.1 megapix for the same quality

Dewi anybody Heeeeeeeelp as I am now very interested myself to find out

PRWIN, maybe I have the wrong end of the stick

They say an interpolated Canon 400mm pic (whatever that means – I thought it meant cropped) to make object the same size as that what could be achieved with a Sigma 500mm lens.

Supposedly the IQ is so much better with the Canon lens that when both subjects are the same size the Canon pic is still better; therefore one can achieve better results with a Canon 400mm for distant subjects?

From a Review

Let me repeat that the images produced by the Sigma are very, very nice. When comparing the best 400mm images from each lens, the Sigma images were nearly as good as Canon images. Having said that, remember I shot both at their maximum aperture. Had I shot the Canon at f/6.3 (the same as the Sigma's maximum aperture) I believe it would have pulled ahead, as this lens also "sweetens" above f/5.6. However, at 500mm and at f/6.3, the Sigma grew unacceptably soft.

To satisfy my curiosity, I even took a Canon image (taken at 400mm f/5.6) and interpolated it up in size so that the flower blossom would appear the same size as it does in the Sigma image (taken at 500mm f/6.3). Despite a process (interpolation) that can degrade image quality the "pseudo-500" from the Canon STILL was as good or better than the image from the Sigma

And more

Plain and simple, at 500mm the Sigma just doesn't give the image quality I had hoped for, or that a Canon "L" series lens routinely delivers. Considering that you can even interpolate a Canon 400mm image up to an equivalent size as one taken with a the Sigma at 500mm and have as good or better image quality than that produced by the Sigma, even the Sigma's selling point of giving you an additional 100mm focal length quickly falls aside

Bc where did you get the above