100-400 vs 50-500

Has anyone on this site tried the OS version of the sigma 50-500.I had a brief go of it and it seemed to work pretty well. OS seemedvery good and AF was very fast.There was a bluish cast to some of the images on the 500 end but I have been led to believe that this would be fixed with a UV filter.


I have never tried the 100-400, but have seen examples of how good the image quality is by users of this site.


In Australia we mainly get to read about 10 different UK based photographymagazines if we choose to. Even the magazine devoted solely to Canon users rates the new Sigma very highly, higher than the rest.


Ihave used the Canon 500 f4and loved the length but not the price tag.


At this stageI am leaning towards the 50-500, but would prefer an updated 100-400, but that may never happen.


Your input and opinions on the two big zooms would be appreciated.


Steve

When I bought my 100-400L the salesman at the store tried to sell me on the sigma 500. It was cheaper and longer so I asked him, which is the better lens. He said of course the Canon is, but you get a 100mm in reach. (I think they get a higher markup on the nikon and sigma stuff, than they do off Canon. Every time I am in the store if someone comes in and just ask to see a camera or lens they grab the Nikon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

I have never tried the 100-400, but have seen examples of how good the image quality is by users of this site.

---

I've certainly been quite happy with my 100-400mm. I can't comment on the Sigma optical quality, but one reviewer on B&H mentions going through a couple of copies with AF issues (a familiar refrain with Sigma, it seems). If you can test it in a shop before buying, that would certainly help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

There was a bluish cast to some of the images on the 500 end but I have been led to believe that this would be fixed with a UV filter.

---

I'm doubtful that a UV filter would fix a bluish cast. That would probably be true for film, but dSLR sensors are basically insensitive to UV wavelengths, so a UV filter is functionally equivalent to a clear protection filter (but UV filters are often slightly cheaper than their clear equivalent and also usually more widely available).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'm doubtful that a UV filter would fix a bluish cast. That would probably be true for film, but dSLR sensors are basically insensitive to UV wavelengths, so a UV filter is functionally equivalent to a clear protection filter (but UV filters are often slightly cheaper than their clear equivalent and also usually more widely available).
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Thanks for this John, this sort of tech detail helps. I've read the B&amp;H reviews and it is just more confusing.


I have just orgainsed a lend of a 100-400 and a 400, so I will have a play over the next week. See which one suits me.