Sigma 170-500 or canon 100-400IS

[Robert Tilt]

Hi!
I have read threads on this forum for best part of a year now but still find myself with a question -

My photos are mostly birds, large insects and approachable animals (including whales off Monterey and a bear in Sequoia this year! or dear in UK).

Should I buy the new improved sigma DG 170-500 lens to replace my present one (which is prone to flare and rather `worn` OR would I be better off with the canon 100-400 IS lens? (Shorter focal length but sharper and smaller to carry)? I could add a `dumb` 1.4 converter?

New regulations on UK `planes may make carrying of bigger sigma lens a no-no for hand luggage as well?

[christineredgate]

Robert the 100-400 is a good lens.Very versatile,and yes ,it is not too large to carry around.It is the lens I use when I cannot take a fixed focal 400.One can even take a landscape shot-of sorts.Not too heavy,but easy to use.The "dumb" converter ,as you call it ,can be taped so you can use on auto-focus,just up the ISO and you can have good images.

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks for the reply!

I note that you are not concerned that I shall be moving `down` from 500mm max to 400mm max even though most photos will be taken in UK.

Thanks again.

[Tectortony]

Well I have the Sigma 150-500 DG lens and I am very satisfied with it. The only grouse I have is that it does not have a Zoom lock and this can be a pain at times. If I lost it ( stolen) or it got damaged I would buy another.

[IanF]

I use the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 and can't really fault it. The lens is compact for carriage and not too weighty. The IS is a real boon though for birds and insects especially the latter when used with an extension tube.

The lens works with a 1.4x converter using manual focus and takes reasonable photos, though you do lose that pin sharp result.

The main thing going for the Sigma is the 500mm end - it certainly takes decent photos going by the examples I've seen in the Gallery.

[danake2]

I started with the sigma DG 170-500 lens what was very nice(but very big) but I got a canon 100-400 IS lens very cheap. So glad that I bought it. It is much the better lens I find the AF so fast on it compared to the Sigma. I would always go for the Canon.

[Robert Tilt]

I started with the sigma DG 170-500 lens what was very nice(but very big) but I got a canon 100-400 IS lens very cheap. So glad that I bought it. It is much the better lens I find the AF so fast on it compared to the Sigma. I would always go for the Canon.

Thanks for that info danake - do you think the loss of the 500mm `reach` in exchange for better quality at 400mm was worth it - I presume you do. Is it worth experimenting with the 1.4 converter on stationary birds etc? Or can we just crop that little tighter due to the higher image quality? I am ineffect going from 6m pixels (canon 300D) to 8m pixels on a 30D anyway...

Hope that makes sense?

[Robert Tilt]

Well I have the Sigma 150-500 DG lens and I am very satisfied with it. The only grouse I have is that it does not have a Zoom lock and this can be a pain at times. If I lost it ( stolen) or it got damaged I would buy another.
Thanks for the info - as always it seems that in the end I will have to follow one or other contary oppinion! The new sigma has a lens lock and is now improved for digital as well so it would make a sensible upgrade from my older model - it was just that the canon lens caught my eye...
IS would be very niceas well!

Thanks again!

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks again everyone.

The upshot of these weeks of agonising (and looking at finances) will likely result in my getting a 50-500 Sigma lens - I came across this possibility and its high image quality from reading the threads on this forum.
I had not appreciated that a sigma 1.4 converter was useable (on MF) as well - attempts with my 170-500mm have been useless.

This may well prove to be the best compromise in the end - it will mimimise lens changes when birding on holiday and will still offer the 500mm focal length.

[paul goode]

Thanks again everyone.

The upshot of these weeks of agonising (and looking at finances) will likely result in my getting a 50-500 Sigma lens - I came across this possibility and its high image quality from reading the threads on this forum.
I had not appreciated that a sigma 1.4 converter was useable (on MF) as well - attempts with my 170-500mm have been useless.

This may well prove to be the best compromise in the end - it will mimimise lens changes when birding on holiday and will still offer the 500mm focal length.

I think you will find the 50-500 with its HSM motor much better than the 170-500. I didn't have much success with a 2x converter on mine but put that down to my crummy mf technique. The only, oft stated, downside is that the 50-500 is a bit heavier but I never found that a problem.

However, if you plan to MAINLY handhold the lens (whales and bears don't sound tripod friendly) I think an IS lens would probably be best. Although I was really pleased with my 50-500 I always tried to support it unless I was taking flight shots. That way I got sharp images wide open at 500mm.

Hope that hasn't confused things more!

Paul

[Robert Tilt]

I think you will find the 50-500 with its HSM motor much better than the 170-500. I didn't have much success with a 2x converter on mine but put that down to my crummy mf technique. The only, oft stated, downside is that the 50-500 is a bit heavier but I never found that a problem.

However, if you plan to MAINLY handhold the lens (whales and bears don't sound tripod friendly) I think an IS lens would probably be best. Although I was really pleased with my 50-500 I always tried to support it unless I was taking flight shots. That way I got sharp images wide open at 500mm.

Hope that hasn't confused things more!

Paul

No -that`s fine. I would anticipate using my IS 70-300canon lense for such subjects. The 50-500 will be a `tripod in hide` lens. One attraction of the 100-400mm canon was that it might be a compromise that would span both lenses - but the more I think of it; the more i realise that the 500mm focal length is probably indispensible in this country for birds. I would not generally hand hold over 300mm in fact.

[paul goode]

No -that`s fine. I would anticipate using my IS 70-300canon lense for such subjects. The 50-500 will be a `tripod in hide` lens. One attraction of the 100-400mm canon was that it might be a compromise that would span both lenses - but the more I think of it; the more i realise that the 500mm focal length is probably indispensible in this country for birds. I would not generally hand hold over 300mm in fact.

Now I'm really going to throw a spanner in the works!
If you're after a 500mm 'tripod in hide lens' to go with a smaller zoom and the budget can stretch to it, how about looking out for a S/H Sigma 500mm f4.5.
I bought one recently for not a great deal more than a new Bigma and although circumstances have meant I haven't been able to get out much with it the couple of times I have the results have been very encouraging.

With regard to the different models mine is the EX HSM and works perfectly with a 20d, a DG would be fine with any digital SLR, BUT, from what I have read the earlier non-HSM model may not work with recent SLR's.

To date I would say the benefits are, better IQ, faster aperture, faster AF, and AF works with a kenko 1.4x pro300 (with pins taped.)

Downsides are, heavy to carry around, lacks the flexibility of a zoom (have already had a good swear at it because of this) and the minimum focussing distance is considerably more (shouldn't be a problem because I can get a full frame image of a 'finch' size bird without recourse to extension tubes.)

I've attached a couple of shots to try to show what each lens can do, although I'm not sure if these actually show that I'm hopeless with the 500mm, or, the Bigma is a pretty good lens!

The first is with the 500mm, the second with the Bigma, and as usual for me the weather was rubbish so they are both highish ISO and have been 'neat imaged'. To me the 500mm looks a little more 'natural' and didn't need as long in photoshop to make a decent image.

[Robert Tilt]

Cheers Paul

Sorry for delay in response - we seem to be conversing in anoither thread!

Robert