Canon or Sigma, that is the question! I am helping Santa in making a choice. I have read reviews on many sites and UHH about the benefits of one over the other, so, I understand the...

Tradscot Loc: Cairns, Australia

I am helping Santa in making a choice. I have read reviews on many sites and UHH about the benefits of one over the other, so,
I understand the price difference, both lenses seem to have their faults but I am still very much the novice in these matters.
I want to use the lens for wildlife and panoramas etc.
I have a Canon 60d camera, 70-300 canon, 100mm 2.8 Macro,18-270 tamron, 30mm 1.4 Sigma.
I understand that I will need a heavier duty Tripod regardless of choice.
any thoughts would be appreciated! thanks. Bill.

Sorry, old age has really kicked in, lenses under consideration are Canon 100-400mm and Sigma 150-500mm. Bill the Forgetful!!!!

amehta Loc: Boston

Which specific Canon and Sigma lenses?

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I don't know much about the lenses you mentioned because I don't shoot Canon. I bought a Sigma 150-500 VR zoom for birds and sports and such. I think the lens is very sharp and does a very good job. It is never going to be as good as, say, a 400mm prime; but then we are in a completely different price point with the zoom. You might want to give it some thought.

amehta Loc: Boston

BTW, Bill, I was just looking at some underwater pictures from the reef off Cairns, it was awesome!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tradscot, you already have a pretty good range covered, and with some overlap. By nature, do you mean birds? For birds you are never going to be long enough. Panos actually are pretty different.
If your doing only birds, look at the Canon 400 prime.
If a combo of birds and bigger animals, I would look at the Canon 100-400.
The zoom will also take a 1.4x well if you tape the pins.
Look at a site called JuzaPhoto. He does a lot of comparisons between Sigmas and Canons.
For versatality, the 100-400 is the best choice, but also the most money.
Personally I've never used a Sigma, and of the tons I've read about them, not likely I ever will. Do your research. "The-digital-picture" also does VERY indepth testing and has a comparison feature. Look closely at the empirical data. Better than taking my word for it.
Good luck
SS

Tradscot Loc: Cairns, Australia

ebrunner wrote:

I don't know much about the lenses you mentioned because I don't shoot Canon. I bought a Sigma 150-500 VR zoom for birds and sports and such. I think the lens is very sharp and does a very good job. It is never going to be as good as, say, a 400mm prime; but then we are in a completely different price point with the zoom. You might want to give it some thought.

Thanks for your thoughts, seems more one looks at these considerations, the uncertain one gets!!!
Bill

Tradscot Loc: Cairns, Australia

SharpShooter wrote:

Tradscot, you already have a pretty good range cov... (show quote)

Thanks for the links, JuzaPhoto spells it out very well! Not much between any of them really. I hope to get to the Badlands Rendevous next year and the Sigma may just leave me enough for gas money!! Appreciate your input.
Bill

Tradscot Loc: Cairns, Australia

amehta wrote:

BTW, Bill, I was just looking at some underwater pictures from the reef off Cairns, it was awesome!

Thanks for your input, yes our reefs and the Coral sea are spectacular, just too many bities swimming around for my liking. Made for tourists maybe!!!!
Regards, Bill

ASR666 Loc: Singapore

the 100-400 is lighter and fast focusing. the push - pull zoom takes a bit of getting used to. Versatile and can be used for sports, birding. can be used hand held if you crank up the ISO a bit. Sharp, wide open.

the 150-500 is more a tripod lens, stopped down to f8 its sharp and produces good results. heavier and slower focusing than the 100-400 but you get an extra 100mm.

amehta Loc: Boston

ASR666 wrote:

the 100-400 is lighter and fast focusing. the push - pull zoom takes a bit of getting used to. Versatile and can be used for sports, birding. can be used hand held if you crank up the ISO a bit. Sharp, wide open.

the 150-500 is more a tripod lens, stopped down to f8 its sharp and produces good results. heavier and slower focusing than the 100-400 but you get an extra 100mm.

While maximum aperture is a very important consideration, so is the "best fast aperture" balance: almost the best optical quality at almost the largest aperture. Given the choice between an extra stop and 25% longer focal length, I'll take the stop of light pretty much any day. Maybe I need to find more situations where I can shoot at f/8, 1/500th, ISO 800, but until that happens, I want the fastest optimum aperture lens I can get, and I'll probably give up 50% of focal length to get it. Other people would make different trade-offs based on what they're typically shooting and what matters to them.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I only use L lenses, so my answer would be the 100-400.
Canon cameras are calibrated for Canon lenses and third party lenses don't necessarily make the cut as Canon doesn't share the algorithm with them.

The 100-400 is my wife's primary lens and she loves it.

ASR666 Loc: Singapore

BigBear wrote:

I only use L lenses, so my answer would be the 100-400.
Canon cameras are calibrated for Canon lenses and third party lenses don't necessarily make the cut as Canon doesn't share the algorithm with them.

The 100-400 is my wife's primary lens and she loves it.

At the risk of going off-topic, here's my POV on Canon versus the rest :-)

I own the Tamron f2.8 70-200 and made a conscious choice over the similarly priced EF f4 70-200. As compared to the EF f4 the IQ is better and I can hand hold it due to IS. As compared to the much more expensive EF f2.8, the focus is slower and less accurate. Also, I can't use the in-camera lens aberration correction. However, from a price-value POV, I've no regrets.

jimbrown3 Loc: Naples, FL

I have the 150-500 Sigma. I recently purchased the 100-400L. I made a comparison with both at 400mm f11. I am returning the Canon L. The Sigma lens was sharper. I shoot birds so the longer the better. I found both lenses equally difficult to hand hold. I use a Canon 5D III and find a monopod with gimbal head gives me stability and more flexibility than a tripod.

amehta Loc: Boston

ASR666 wrote:

At the risk of going off-topic, here's my POV on Canon versus the rest :-)

I own the Tamron f2.8 70-200 and made a conscious choice over the similarly priced EF f4 70-200. As compared to the EF f4 the IQ is better and I can hand hold it due to IS. As compared to the much more expensive EF f2.8, the focus is slower and less accurate. Also, I can't use the in-camera lens aberration correction. However, from a price-value POV, I've no regrets.

Third advantage of the Tamron f/2.8 over the Canon f/4: better autofocus, especially if more Canon bodies start coming with some double-cross type sensors which only work with f/2.8 or faster lenses.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Tradscot wrote:

I am helping Santa in making a choice. I have read... (show quote)

For wildlife I think I'd go with the Sigma, highly spoken of, Bob.