Bigma OS vs. canon 100-400

[neuroanatomist]

I will shoot landscape and wildlife (probably handheld) and travel.

I'll start with the same disclaimer as Jan - I've never used the Sigma 50-500mm f/5-6.3 OS. I own, use, and love the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM. But just looking at the specs, the Bigma is a pound heavier than the 100-400mm, and that's going to make a difference for travel and handholding. If you use filters (personally, I use a CPL frequently when shooting animals in/on water) the 95mm filter size (no internal option) of the Bigma is going to be an issue in terms of added cost. Not sure what other lenses you have, but I like that 77mm filters work on 5 of my lenses.

The canon has better focus, better image quality wide open and I think it'll be more reliable...

Focus is critical - if the Sigma doesn't do it as well, the extra 70mm or so (testing shows it's shorter than 500mm at the long end) won't matter. You will likely be shooting at or near wide open with slow lenses like these, since you'll often want fast shutter speeds for wildlife - so IQ wide open is important. If you're shooting large animals, you'll want to stop down for more DoF, of course, but then the extra range of the Bigma is less needed.
<div>

Everyone has the 100-400...

<div>There's probably a reason for that! [:P]</div>
</div>

[Brendan7]

I've read in multiple places that the OS on the Bigma is only actually effective to about one stop. It's clearly not up to the Canon standard. With that said, the 50-500 can be a great lens -- but it's slower, bigger, slower to focus, and it ain't even white!


I vote 100-400.


Maybe buy both and return one?

[Jarhead5811]

I'd get the Canon being there is not much difference in price.

The Bigma is kind of iffy. The peope giving it good reviews alway seem kinda soft on Sigma and Tamron (advertisers maybe?). I only consider 3rd party when it get all around reallygood reviews and is much cheaper. 6.3 is awful slow.

You could at least rent the Bigma to see what you think but I wouldn't buy it sight unseen.

[Sheiky]

<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]

With that said, the 50-500 can be a great lens -- but it's slower, bigger, slower to focus, and it ain't even white!

<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]For the 50-500:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-ex-dg-hsm-lens-review.aspx


<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]



<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]But I'm puzzled, where we talking about the sigma 50-500 vs canon 100-400 or the sigma 150-500 vs canon 100-400?


Nevermind I hadn't seen that the 50-500 was updated to version 2 with IS [+o(]

[crosbyharbison]

There's probably a reason for that

Well the OS just came out so thats the reason everone has the 100-400.