100-400 vs 50-500

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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).

[Steve U]

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.