So here's the 'Big'.... ma question - is the Sigma 50-500m OS better than the Canon 100-400mm IS overall?
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.
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
As others have saidOriginally 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.Ummmm...no.
If the glass is soft, it doesn't matter how good the OS/IS is.
Bob
Can anybody find a fault with this image? I wish all my images were only this bad.
Canon EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105L, EF 50 f1.2L, EF 70-300L, 430EX.
"Criticism is something you can easily avoid, by saying nothing, doing nothing and being nothing." - Tara Moss
@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:
Here's the full image:
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200
Last edited by neuroanatomist; 01-27-2012 at 01:34 AM.
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 100-400Not sure about Bob's hummingbird, but this is a 100% crop from the 100-400mm on a 7D
Bob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
