Pentax K10 with Sigma 170-500 Vs Canon 400 with Sigma 100-400 (1 Viewer)

David Smith · Apr 29, 2007

Getting ready to move into DSLR. I think I want image stabalisation.
If I go for Canon body I need an IS lense either Canon or Sigma and therefor can only go for 100-400 which both have IS.
If I go for Pentax it's built into the body so can go for the longer reach.
I was leaning towards the Sony Alpha but the 'noise' seems to be a real problem for birds/cropping etc. I haven't seen any comments re Pentax noise.
Any comments re the above would be appreciated.

Keith Reeder · Apr 29, 2007

There is no Sigma 100-400mm, Dave - do you mean the Canon, or the Sigma 80-400mm OS?

In any event: I use the Canon 30D and 100-400mm IS, and I've taken to using a Kenko Pro DG 1.4x converter recently.

Image quality is excellent, and I've got 560mm that I can very easily handhold.

A "no-brainer" in my humble opinion, over the Sony/Pentax/Sigma options you're considering - excellent IQ, more reach and great noise characteristics.

There's also the big question of whether in-body IS can really hack it with long lenses. Much of the internet chatter says it struggles, and my gut would agree: but I know in-lens stabilisation works...

Some random odds and sods here, all hand-held. The bearded tit and the ruff are 800 ISO. The ruff hasn't had any NR, but although the bearded tit has, you can still see loads of really fine feather detail. I can name several cameras where if you NR'd a similar picture from them to get the background that clean, there'd be no feather detail left.

The rest are 400 ISO, all of these were with the set up I mention - and as you can see they're sharp, detailed and with fine noise handling.

I should add that not all were at 400mm (really 560mm), but all but one were with the lens at a nominal f/5.6, but I bet you can't tell which by just looking at sharpness (it's the lapwing), and as I say the converter was used with all of these.

David Smith · Apr 29, 2007

Keith
Sorry-it's 80-400mm. I'm going through your reply now )digesting the points and appreciate your imput.
Dave

David Smith · Apr 29, 2007

Keith
Had time to digest your comments now. Your photos are very impressive. One of the things that concerns me is "reach". Obviously the 170-500 will give me an effective 800mm which seem so much longer than 640mm. I appreciate your comment re "no brainer" but I wonder if-in the hands of a good photographer-would we really see a major difference ?

Keith Reeder · Apr 29, 2007

Hi David,

where does the 800mm come from? If it's the "crop factor", that really doesn't give you any extra reach, but in any event the same argument provides nearly 900mm from the 100-400mm plus 1.4x converter.

But I don't know if a converter will work well on the the 170-500mm lens, it hasn't got IS, and although IQ from that lens can be very good, I'd expect more of the Canon.

I don't really expect that the Pentax would perform as well as the 30D for image quality. The DPReview conclusion is very cool on IQ, saying:

When we reviewed the K100D we thought Pentax had got their image processing just right, however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.

And:

In-camera image processor unable to deliver crisp sharp edges, better to shoot RAW

About a third of a stop less highlight dynamic range than the competition

Turning up sharpness setting doesn't deliver crisper edges

(Admittedly this is about jpegs from the camera - maybe shooting RAW would mean a better end result).

Then if you go with Pentax, you're limiting yourself for an upgrade path - there's no Pentax equivalent to the Canon 500mm f/4 IS, for example...

There is this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/600mm.shtml

I've no doubt that people the world over do great things with the K10, but the 30D/Canon IS lens route is a proven, known quantity where bird photography is concerned.

pduxon · Apr 29, 2007

Keith Reeder said:
Hi David,

where does the 800mm come from?

isn't that 500mm on a 35mm camera equivalent to 750 on a dSLR? presume that's what he means

David Smith · Apr 29, 2007

I am inclined towards Canon as (from most comments) they seem to "have it right". By 800 I am refering to the 500 x 1.6 as compared to 400 x 1.6.
Most reviews seem to suggest Canon is superior but I wonder if cropping the 400 is better than the 500 Sigma - but to get IS I would have to go for a Pentax body

Modular · Apr 29, 2007

Thought i'd mention that the Sigma 170-500mm Which i own is a
good lens but not up to Canon lense's in my opinion and also if i
place a Tc 1.4 on it ... It will only be Manual focus even with the pin's
taped, Just thought you may want to know just in case,
Good luck and great picture's as usual Keith, :t: ,
Take care,
John,

Neil · Apr 30, 2007

The Canon lens is sharper and the image stabilising works well. I have the Nikon 80-400 and the Sigma 170-500. The Sigma is a bit slower to AF at the longer end of the zoom and at 500 needs to be on a tripod for good results. Your can't really use a tele converter with it as the quality drops right off. You might need a closeup adapter for it though as close-focusing is much longer than the 100-400 zooms.
If I had no legacy lenses I would go with the Canon solution as Keith's photos prove. Neil.

postcardcv · Apr 30, 2007

I'd agree that the 400D with 100-400 IS is a great set up. I've not used the Pentax camera so can't comment on that but I have used the Sigma 170-500 and it is not of the same standard as the Canon lens. The Canon lens has noticeably faster AF and is sharper wide open, that said the Sigma 170-500 is a decent lens and is capable of delivering excellent results.

I have tried putting a 1.4x tc between my 400D and 100-400, I do get AF, but the IS doesn't work so I then need a tripod. Using a 1.4x tc with this lens seems to work for some, but not for others (I can see no reason for this), so I wouldn't recommend relying on this as it may not work.

David Smith · Apr 30, 2007

My thanks to everyone for the advice. Interesting to note from "Modular" the Sigma loses AF with the 1.4 but Canon doesn't (wonder why this is ?)
Just to get it in my mind as I don't think it's been answered specifically-as I see it the sigma x 1.6 would give me 800mm whereas the Canon x 1.6 would give me 640mm. This (I think is a 20% difference). Therefor the Canon would have to be cropped 20% more than the sigma for the same photo. Would the Canon still show better results ? Tell me if I have this all wrong-it seems right on paper !

paul goode · Apr 30, 2007

David Smith said:
My thanks to everyone for the advice. Interesting to note from "Modular" the Sigma loses AF with the 1.4 but Canon doesn't (wonder why this is ?)
Just to get it in my mind as I don't think it's been answered specifically-as I see it the sigma x 1.6 would give me 800mm whereas the Canon x 1.6 would give me 640mm. This (I think is a 20% difference). Therefor the Canon would have to be cropped 20% more than the sigma for the same photo. Would the Canon still show better results ? Tell me if I have this all wrong-it seems right on paper !

Dave,

I think this pin taping lark is more black magic than science. Its basically pushing the af limits of the lenses and the f6.3 aperture of the 170-500 compared to f5.6 of the 100-400 may mean not enough light is reaching the af sensors for them to work with any degree of reliability with the tc attached and the consequent further reduction in maximum aperture.

I've found the same as PostcardCV, that the IS is alarmingly unstable using a 400d body with the 100-400 & 1.4x tc, so its safer to assume this won't work. If it does its a bonus.

Your maths is right on the crop factor, so the 500 is considerably longer but with the better glass and MILES faster af I reckon you'll get far more shots you're pleased with out of the Canon setup.

Thought I'd post a wild bird as an example of the 400d & 100-400 instead of that dodgy captive stuff of Reeders 8-P 8-P .

Keith Reeder · Apr 30, 2007

paul goode said:
instead of that dodgy captive stuff of Reeders 8-P 8-P .

Harumph!

To be fair though, they do make for useful subjects when testing lenses, converters and whatnot - and none of these will appear in the gallery of course.

paul goode · Apr 30, 2007

Keith Reeder said:
Harumph!

To be fair though, they do make for useful subjects when testing lenses, converters and whatnot - and none of these will appear in the gallery of course.

Only jealous Keith, my Bearded Tit didn't come out anywhere near as good as yours! That shots stunning! Not for the gallery I agree but lose the ring and you could make some money out of that one! (With the right description of course)

David Smith · Apr 30, 2007

Paul-thank you for that.
Your not going to tell me Keith's birds are all stuffed & mounted I hope !!
Incidentally I noticed another, unrelated thread where someone was bemoaning the slow AF on his Canon 350 & 100-400mm. Any thoughts??

tjsimonsen · Apr 30, 2007

David Smith said:
Incidentally I noticed another, unrelated thread where someone was bemoaning the slow AF on his Canon 350 & 100-400mm. Any thoughts??

Hi,

I use that setup, and I wouldn't call the AF slow. It's not blazingly fast, though it gets considerably faster if you turn off the IS! But remember the 100-400 has FTM, and it always helps it you pre-focus a bit before pressing the shutter buttom.

Thomas

Keith Reeder · Apr 30, 2007

paul goode said:
That shots stunning!

In that case I'd better not say anything about the fact that - "tame" birds or not - I got about fifty "keeper" BT shots!

Dave, these birds live in a big free-flight aviary at Pensthorpe Wildfowl Park, near Fakenham in Norfolk.

If there'd been some light about when I took these I suspect they'd really look rather good, but even at 800 ISO (and with no NR) I'm happy enough with them.

macshark · Apr 30, 2007

If you choose to go with the K10D (which is a great camera), I would consider the Sigma 50-500 EX DG instead of the 170-500. IMHO, the Bigma PQ is comparable to the 100-400 IS though many in these forums will argue it is not as good. I have a small number of pictures taken with the 50-500 and a 350D in my galleries if you want to take a look. I eventually switched to 400 f/5.6L...

Of course, with a Pentax body, you won't have an option like the 400mm f/5.6L IS. If you are planning to upgrade at some point, I am not sure if Sigma makes a Pentax version of the 500mm f/4.5, but that would be a very interesting combo...

paul goode · Apr 30, 2007

David Smith said:
Your not going to tell me Keith's birds are all stuffed & mounted I hope !!

No, but there's a few on here wish he was :-O :-O

Those BT's look damn good as they are!

Keith Reeder · Apr 30, 2007

Aye, they're OK considering, Paul.

I'll have to do some proper PP on 'em and see how they turn out - and maybe have a proper look at the other 30-odd I haven't converted yet..!

Pentax K10 with Sigma 170-500 Vs Canon 400 with Sigma 100-400 (1 Viewer)

Warrington Lancs

Watch the birdie...

Attachments

Warrington Lancs

Warrington Lancs

Watch the birdie...

Quacked up Member

Warrington Lancs

I'll leave this space empty

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Warrington Lancs

Well-known member

Attachments

Watch the birdie...

Well-known member

Warrington Lancs

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Attachments

Electron Chaser

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread