So here's the 'Big'.... ma question - is the Sigma 50-500m OS better than the Canon 100-400mm IS overall?
Printable View
So here's the 'Big'.... ma question - is the Sigma 50-500m OS better than the Canon 100-400mm IS overall?
Ummmm...no.
and ...no
Overall no. It has good OS and is capable of good images, but so is the 100-400. A lot of people love the Sigma, more people on this site love the 100-400.
I've tried both of them and I prefer the 100-300mmL to the other two.
It all depends on what you like doing and what you shoot the most. Unless you go hiking and wildlife watching every weekend, you will get more use and see more benefit in the EF-S 17-55mm that you are dicussing on other threads.
As others have saidQuote:
Originally Posted by JTPAIN
Below was shot with the 100-400. There may be things wrong with the image, but the glass is hard to beat when properly used.Quote:
Ummmm...no.
http://rwilliamsimaging.com/img/s10/...24223741-4.jpg
If the glass is soft, it doesn't matter how good the OS/IS is.
Can anybody find a fault with this image? I wish all my images were only this bad:rolleyes:.
@Bob I rented one of these to shoot my son playing football. In comparing it to the 7k shots (seriously) I took with my 70-200 f/4L IS I found that at the pixel level the 70-200 carried almost twice the detail as the 100-400 such that I'd almost be better off simply cropping the shorter lens and doubling/interpolating pixels in the region of interest. Maybe the lens I rented just didn't play nicely with my T2i. And without microfocus adjustment there was nothing I could do about it.
That said, if the shot above is the full crop (from any size sensor) then we're nowhere near the pixel and/or resolution limit of this lens or even of a 200mm that's been cropped to the same shape.
Not sure about Bob's hummingbird, but this is a 100% crop from the 100-400mm on a 7D:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4079/4...711dee05_o.jpg
Here's the full image:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4154/4...df64efd0_z.jpg
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200
@neuro I like that shot. <deleted text that no longer applies>
I'm almost always shooting wide open. I wonder if that's part of the reason I didn't get the sharpness out of the 100-400 I rented. Or, as I mentioned, maybe that lens just didn't like my body. I don't think my detail has 2x the detail as yours. I had the fortune to shoot ISO 200 so I've got a lot less noise.
Attachment 428 Detail
Attachment 426 full sensor picture
I don't have a Flickr acct. setup so I can't embed the image as easily.
I'm going to guess the latter. It's plenty sharp wide open on my 7D with AFMA, and the shot I posted was only 1/3 stop down. That's because I was standing on a bridge shooting birds flying over, and looked down to spot this guy, and took the shot without changing settings. It's a bit noisy between the ISO 3200 and the fact that I had to push that slightly in post.
It's also certainly not as sharp as my 70-200 II - that becomes very evident with a 1.4x TC, where the 70-200 is usable (even with the 2x, in fact), but the 100-400 takes a much bigger hit from the TC.
I've used the 50-500mm Sigma (albeit on a Sony body) and it was awful. Image quality is mediocre. The Canon 100-400 is a very versatile lens with much better IQ.
I'm with Neuro though - the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is spectacular. I've been using it with the 2x III teleconverter and getting some pretty good results.
Don't have experience with the 50-500. Do have the 100-400. When I picked it up it was for the reach and versatility of the range in a compact lens for transporting in a regular shoulder hung camera bag. I very quickly learned that with a C sized sensor that it was a challenge for me to hold it steady enough at full extension for consistently sharp shots. A comparison of hand held and tripod mounted shots of a distant brick wall confirmed this. On a full frame body this is not as much of a problem. For me the point of diminishing returns is around 500 mm equivalency. With an ef300 f4 I have no similar issues due to the shorter lens length and superior balance.
The other lesson that I learned shortly after is that it is a lens that likes good light. The combination of narrower apertures, longer focal lengths, and earlier version of IS requires faster shutter speeds than a 70-200 IS lens to capture sharp images of still subjects.
In case this sounds too negative I'd also like to point out that it is one of my most used lenses. I regularly go hiking and use it to capture wildlife shots as well as detail images of landscape features some of which I can't get closer to. I have also used it for daytime sporting events, on a tripod, with a C frame body with excellent results. Once you learn what the lens is capable of doing and learn to use it within its limitations, the images captured will be most amazing. For the money, the 100-400 delivers quite a lot.
Here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the H-Bird shot with a 50D and the 100-400Quote:
Not sure about Bob's hummingbird, but this is a 100% crop from the 100-400mm on a 7D
http://rwilliamsimaging.com/img/s11/...08433456-4.jpg
Damned nice - and not nearly so creepy as looking at a 8" eyeball on my screen - even if it is my own kid! After seeing the two 100% crops from you and Neuro clearly the 100-400 has at least the resolving power of my 70-200 f/4 IS. Maybe I'll take it off the "never to be considered again" list of lenses. Besides, the odds of me buying a 400 f/2.8 II are slim...Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
Out of curiosity, what did you use for Raw to JPEG conversion? There's a bit of texture added to the background that looks like an artifact. I was (once again) shooting only JPEGs with the shot of my son so that was the in-camera conversion (on faithful).
@ChadS I am assuming you are comparing just the 70-200mm using a cropped section, and not the 100-400mm at 100-200mm. At 100-200mm I thought the 100-400mm was weak, and I think the 70-200mm would outperform the 100-400mm at anything close to 200mm. I found my copy of the 100-400mm did a good job at 300-400mm. It seemed to have a sweet spot at 320-350mm. However the IQ was not so good that it would hold up to a large amount of cropping, of course I say this from my perspective and no one else’s because how much you can crop really depends on the final use of the pic will be. I think as far as cropping goes the 70-200mm will give you more usable image to work with, but definitely not enough to crop a pic to match the IQ of the 400mm's framing.
@Neuro, A quote from Arthur Morris when someone asked about selling their 100-400mm and going strictly 70-200mm F2.8L II with TC’s. “I can never know if anything is “worth it” to someone else.... I do know that the 70-200 II is far more versatile than the 100-400, far more rugged, and, in the right hands, will consistently create sharper images. I recently sold my 100-400 and will be selling my last 400 5.6 when the person who borrowed it returns it. And I will likely be selling my 400 DO soon....” While the charts do not support his claims at 400mm, the 70-200mm II deffinetly wins with the 1.4x compared to 250 and 300mm. I wonder if the real benefit that Morris realizes is in the superior IS system. I have yet to actually try the 70-200mm II with the TC’s to test out his claims in real situations. I was wondering if you have.
@HDNitehawk you are correct. I'm comparing the results of a 2x crop of the 70-200 @ 200 to a 100-400 @ 400. When I did this with shots from my son playing football the results were very similar. Perhaps the 100-400 had a bit of an edge but not by much - certainly not by the factor of two that one would expect if each lens were equally sharp (as a fraction of the sensor). Again, it's likely the problem was lack of AFMA on the T2i.
A 70-200 f/2.8 II + TCs is $2.6 or $3k (for both). That's quite a bit more than just the 100-400. If you're also adding in a 400 f/5.6 to the comparison then I'd say that's valid. I wonder what the AF speed comparison is vs. the prime.
Not specifically, although I've been pleased with the results delivered by the 70-200 II with a 2x II. Here are a couple of examples of that combo:Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5...c60199d1_z.jpg
EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6120/6...5a3424b4_z.jpg
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400
Those are impressive. Is the AF speed of the 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x on par with the 100-400L? I've always assumed that the AF of the 100-400L, or any lens without an extender, was much faster than a lens with an extender.
I don't think the "factor of two" logic would apply. While it might sound logical when it comes to L series lenses and the amount of improvement you get from one set up to another is fractional. The only relationship I have found in whole numbers is the price; to get fractional better IQ it seems you have to pay 3 times as much. You are probably correct, it was a AF issue that you were having.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadS
I think the AF would be much slower. I think the advantage of the 70-200mm II would be the IS system, and a slight advantage from the new coating technology that the new 70-200mm II has that the older 100-400mm does not. You are correct as well about the price, however, many that may be making such a decision already own the TC’s and it wouldn’t be a factor. Keep in mind the quote from Arthur Morris and who it is coming from, he probably carries a lens like the 70-200mm II around as a walk around lens, when he goes out and is serious he takes an 800mm or something similar. He wouldn’t be considering the 100-400mm or the 70-200mm as his main lens, only as something to fill a spot in his kit.
Yes, the AF is slower with the extenders, especially the 2x. With the 1.4x on the 70-200 II, it's on par with the 100-400; with the 2x it's slower. It's all relative, though - even 'slower' is pretty darn fast with the 70-200+2x.
@John, those are very good. Now I am wondering if I need to get another attachment for my camera bag so I can carry my TC's with me :confused:
Sure...why not? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
If I plan to go out and shoot small things from far away, I'll take the 100-400mm on the 7D. The 70-200 II + 2x is a good substitute if it's wet outside - that was the case for the Eastern Towhee (I was out with Bill W. on a drizzly morning when I took that one). But if I'm not planning to shoot birds, I'll usually take the 5DII + 70-200 II in a Lowepro Toploader 75 AW, with the 24-105mm in a Lens Case 1W on the side. In that case, I often put the 2x TC in the outside pocket of the Toploader, just in case. The wattled crane was shot on a trip to a zoo with my daughters.
@HDNitehawk I think I wasn't being clear on where I got the factor of two. Let's assume that both my 70-200 and a 100-400 can resolve a feature (at whatever definition you like) at 2 pixels being lenses of relatively the same cost. Obviously 200 mm is going to frame differently than 400 mm - a factor of two for an infinite target (I'm being lazy). I could crop my 200 mm image to have the same boundary as the 400 mm image - but would have 1/4 the pixels (half in each direction). To match pixel counts I can double each pixel in the 200 mm crop shot in both directions. Doing so I double my blur from 2 pixels to 4. So even though both lenses might have 2 pixel resolution to start, the detail on the object that can be resolved will be half the size with the 400 mm frame than at 200 mm. That's where I got the idealized factor of 2x.