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.
@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.
Detail
full sensor picture
I don't have a Flickr acct. setup so I can't embed the image as easily.
Last edited by ChadS; 01-27-2012 at 01:57 AM. Reason: Matching Neuro's post layout
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
