• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon 100-400is V the Bigma YAWN !!! (1 Viewer)

Darren Williams

Active member
Sorry to go over old ground here this subject must be done to death by now but can any of you guys out there give me an un-biased opinion on which lense to choose?? I use a ( probably by now considered 'fossil' of a Canon 300d!) and really want to get a good lense for wildlife photography. One of the main issues regarding the war between these two lenses is the weight problem this is not a worry for me as i am used to lugging a scope all over the place and have a right arm like Popeye's ! What i am really stuck on is the quality of the end result, sharpness of image, i really strive for excellent quality pictures with minimal faffing about post production. ?For me personally the idea of being stuck on a laptop is time wasted not being in the great outdoors. I am not a pro photographer but just want a bit of guidance from all you ladies and gents out there who know! Is the extra bit of telephoto ooomph on the Bigma worth it compared to the Canon or should i just get better camouflage gear and creep up on unsuspecting subjects better! Sorry to sound so flippant but ive read review after review and still feel brain dead , any advice will be much appreciated as long as it doesn't get too technical cos my brain hurts DER !!! Thanks in anticipation Darren
 
Darren Williams said:
Sorry to go over old ground here this subject must be done to death by now but can any of you guys out there give me an un-biased opinion on which lense to choose?? I use a ( probably by now considered 'fossil' of a Canon 300d!) and really want to get a good lense for wildlife photography. One of the main issues regarding the war between these two lenses is the weight problem this is not a worry for me as i am used to lugging a scope all over the place and have a right arm like Popeye's ! What i am really stuck on is the quality of the end result, sharpness of image, i really strive for excellent quality pictures with minimal faffing about post production. ?For me personally the idea of being stuck on a laptop is time wasted not being in the great outdoors. I am not a pro photographer but just want a bit of guidance from all you ladies and gents out there who know! Is the extra bit of telephoto ooomph on the Bigma worth it compared to the Canon or should i just get better camouflage gear and creep up on unsuspecting subjects better! Sorry to sound so flippant but ive read review after review and still feel brain dead , any advice will be much appreciated as long as it doesn't get too technical cos my brain hurts DER !!! Thanks in anticipation Darren

Hi Darren,

Well worn ground indeed but no harm in revisiting it!

Both lenses are perfectly capable of producing excellent images. How you intend to use the lens will, I think determine which you choose.

If you want the extra reach and are happy to use the lens on a tripod/monopod/beanbag go for the Sigma. If you want to walk around and use the lens handheld buy the Canon. It seems to me a bit of a waste to pay the extra money for IS and then have to switch it off if you prefer to use a support of some sort.

My reason for saying that is that I've owned a Bigma, really rated it for Image quality in its price range but wouldn't say its was perfect for handholding if photographing small passerines. A half day handholding at Gigrin Farm photographing the Kites was no problem but for small stationary birds IS has to be a big plus

The bad news is unless you shoot jpeg and rely on the in camera parameters post processing is a fact of life. As I said both lenses can produce great images but to bring out their best some photoshop work is needed.

I think these 2 lenses along with others which I'm sure will be mentioned pronto are not a million miles apart in performance, each have their fans and detractors and so inevitably cause debate.

My opinion (for what its worth) is that the actual choice of lens is not too important aside from what I've said above with how you intend to use it. What is important is taking the time to learn to use a long lens (it ain't a walk in the park) and unfortunately honing your photoshop skills. If you need good image quality out of the camera you'll have to bite a very large financial bullet and go for a long prime!

Paul
 
Last edited:
Thanks Paul

Thanks Paul thats the sort of straight advice im after. I have just viewed some of your images and can.t help but be impressed i assume they are all Bigma? Either way thats the clarity and definition im after . I am ok with the tripod issue and i dont mind the Photoshop issue really, i appreciate it is a fact of life .Those red squirrel shots really are stunning i will have a proper view of your galleries later and see how its all really done, many thanks for your tips , Darren
 
Darren Williams said:
Thanks Paul thats the sort of straight advice im after. I have just viewed some of your images and can.t help but be impressed i assume they are all Bigma? Either way thats the clarity and definition im after . I am ok with the tripod issue and i dont mind the Photoshop issue really, i appreciate it is a fact of life .Those red squirrel shots really are stunning i will have a proper view of your galleries later and see how its all really done, many thanks for your tips , Darren

Thanks very much for the comments on the gallery Darren. They are much appreciated.

Most of the shots are with the Bigma, a few of the recent ones are with a 500mm f4.5 Sigma prime.

All the best

Paul
 
Darren if the lens is to be usedfor wildlife then have you considered the Canon400 5.6L light enough to carry around can be used with a monopod very sharp wide open.Look up the other threads in the Canon section. There is also an artice on the Luminos-landscape.com web site called the forgotten 400 that contains a comparison between the 100-400 abnd the 400 5.6L you can find a lead onto this site from one on the Canon site. the thread is small woodland birds 400 or 100-400 is look on the bit by Richard Ford there is a lead in to the artical from there.
 
Last edited:
Hi Darren,

Well there's one of the lenses I mentioned in the pm. Undoubtedly a great sharp lens, but it would have been useless for those squirrel images. Days like that prove how useful a zoom can be. Expecting the squirrels to be a long way away I took the Bigma and was stunned to discover them running round our feet. The long zoom range and close focus really paid off that day.

The Red Kite images from Gigrin Farm used most of the Bigma's range as well. I'd taken a shorter lens thinking it would be easier to use when the birds came in close but never took it out of the bag.

Both these trips were one off's for me and I'm convinced that the zoom gave me far more images than a prime would have.

If your interest is in wildlife (rather than specific bird) photography and you only plan on having one lens I think a prime could prove a bit restrictive.

Paul
 
Thanks Graham

Ragna said:
Darren if the lens is to be usedfor wildlife then have you considered the Canon400 5.6L light enough to carry around can be used with a monopod very sharp wide open.Look up the other threads in the Canon section. There is also an artice on the Luminos-landscape.com web site called the forgotten 400 that contains a comparison between the 100-400 abnd the 400 5.6L you can find a lead onto this site from one on the Canon site. the thread is small woodland birds 400 or 100-400 is look on the bit by Richard Ford there is a lead in to the artical from there.
Thanks for that Graham i shall look into those, im in no real rush so i will do all the homework i can its quite an investment to obtain a decent lense so the more i can look into it hopefully the more i can minimise make a costly mistake,kind regards Darren
 
Darren Williams said:
Sorry to go over old ground here this subject must be done to death by now but can any of you guys out there give me an un-biased opinion on which lense to choose?? I use a ( probably by now considered 'fossil' of a Canon 300d!) and really want to get a good lense for wildlife photography. One of the main issues regarding the war between these two lenses is the weight problem this is not a worry for me as i am used to lugging a scope all over the place and have a right arm like Popeye's ! What i am really stuck on is the quality of the end result, sharpness of image, i really strive for excellent quality pictures with minimal faffing about post production. ?For me personally the idea of being stuck on a laptop is time wasted not being in the great outdoors. I am not a pro photographer but just want a bit of guidance from all you ladies and gents out there who know! Is the extra bit of telephoto ooomph on the Bigma worth it compared to the Canon or should i just get better camouflage gear and creep up on unsuspecting subjects better! Sorry to sound so flippant but ive read review after review and still feel brain dead , any advice will be much appreciated as long as it doesn't get too technical cos my brain hurts DER !!! Thanks in anticipation Darren

Isn't the Tamron 200 - 500 another lens to consider?

Steve
 
I use the bigma on a 1V body - heavy pro-spec film body (Havent got the readies to upgrade yet). I dont find the weight to much of a problem as it balances well with the heavy camera. (In fact I prefer to handhold, and find it quite easy to brace myself against trees, fences etc or rest the lens hood against something as a support.) The added range (short and long) over the canon decided it for me - I use it as my walking around lens, and rarely use anything else other than a telemacro on 'nature' days.
The only problem I have with it is the 6.3 apeture on telephoto settings, which can be a bit dark when you're stuck with whatever film you put in when the sun was shining! (Not a problem for digi, of course)
 
Thanks Steve

Steve Babbs said:
Isn't the Tamron 200 - 500 another lens to consider?

Steve
Thanks Steve i havent even considered a third option, oh dear this really is a tough call so many to choose from feel like that kid in the proverbial sweet shop! I shall investigate your suggestion ,thanks for your help Darren
 
Cheers Gordon

gordon g said:
I use the bigma on a 1V body - heavy pro-spec film body (Havent got the readies to upgrade yet). I dont find the weight to much of a problem as it balances well with the heavy camera. (In fact I prefer to handhold, and find it quite easy to brace myself against trees, fences etc or rest the lens hood against something as a support.) The added range (short and long) over the canon decided it for me - I use it as my walking around lens, and rarely use anything else other than a telemacro on 'nature' days.
The only problem I have with it is the 6.3 apeture on telephoto settings, which can be a bit dark when you're stuck with whatever film you put in when the sun was shining! (Not a problem for digi, of course)[/QUOT
Well i have resigned myself to the tripod issue , have had lots of positive feedback from the bigma users and what results ive seen have been stunning. As you state the extra range is quite tempting as long as image quality doesn't suffer too badly as a result. Thanks for you tips all the best Darren
 
Ragna said:
There is also an artice on the Luminos-landscape.com web site called the forgotten 400 that contains a comparison between the 100-400 and the 400 5.6L
In the interests of fairness, it should be mentioned that the consensus "out there" is that this comparison was based on a seriously poor 100-400mm.
 
Darren Williams said:
Thanks Steve i havent even considered a third option, oh dear this really is a tough call so many to choose from feel like that kid in the proverbial sweet shop! I shall investigate your suggestion ,thanks for your help Darren

I flicked through a camera mag today which was reviewing 'super zooms' today and the tamron came out top - just.
 
Isn't the Tamron 200 - 500 another lens to consider?

Yes it is .
As a Tamron holder - all i can do is praise that lens .
I have written quite a few times my opinion of the lens .
I think that looking at MY GALERY is the best answer for your question .
If you need further info - just ask .
 
Doc just had a quick look at your gallery all the shot i looked at were stunnig just going to show what can be achieved from this lens in the right hands,www.photozone.de also gave the vote (just) to the Tamron.
 
Ragna, thanks for refering the Photozone article. I must add that i their conclusion that the Tamron needs a monopod\ tripod - is wrong.
Almost all my shots are hand-held ( or with a bean bag) at the 500 m"m reach- with no problem at all . That is the major advantage of the Tamron : it's weight - it is the lightest in it's group- thus enabling hand held shots quite easily.
A monopod \ tripod is better - especially when lighting is an issue - because thats when you shoot at slow shutter speeds. ( but thats true for all long zoom lenses).
 
Thanks Doc

DOC said:
Yes it is .
As a Tamron holder - all i can do is praise that lens .
I have written quite a few times my opinion of the lens .
I think that looking at MY GALERY is the best answer for your question . Thanks for that Doc i have viewed your gallery and the images are of the outstanding quality i hope to attain.Unfortunately all this choice makes it even harder to make a decision, i fear it will come down to the usual financial restraints we all encounter. Great gallery thanks for the tips,kind regards Darren
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top