sigma 500mm vs 100-400 mark 2?

[paulbrogden10]

Sigma 150-600mm F6.3 Sport-(at 320mm your F stop is at 5.6)

Sigma 150-600mm F6.3 C (at 387mm your F stop is at 5.6)

Sigma Prime 500mm F4.5 none OS APO DG HSM

Canon 500mm is/mark2 (too expensive for me)

Tamron 150-600mm F6.3 (380mm your F stop 5.6)

Canon Prime 400mm non is (very sharp)

Canon 300mm F4 (good lens close to the 400mm)

Canon 100-400 mark 1 (don’t like the idea of dust getting in)

Canon 100-400 mark 2 (seems very good quality closer to 370mm)

So as you can see the list is large and the costs of each lens vary the sigma contemporary is the cheapest option and considered sharper than the Tamron. I think the sigma sport will be slightly better quality but it is a lot heaver and according to a lot of reviews its only a little sharper. The other lens I have been looking at is the sigma prime apo hsm dg non OS lens. It is considered to be tack sharp at f8 and at 5.6 very sharp. I am really torn between them as the sigma prime can be picked up for around £1500 second hand but it has no image stabilisation. The next sharpest would be between the sigma sport and the canon 400mm and 100-400 mark 2. The 400mm prime being a lot cheaper please see the list above what should i get? for wild life the 500mm is tempting as i have always wanted a 500mm f4 prime can not aford a canon prime.

[ScottyP]

Considering all of your potential uses, not just the longest shots or the bird shots, what would you miss more:

1.). All shots you can't take because the subject is too close or has moved too close, or

2.). The long shots you have to crop 20% more if you were shooting 400mm instead of 500mm. 

[ebiggs1]

Didn't you just ask this same or nearly same question? Well anyway here is the correct answer.

The best lens in your list is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF.

It is a tiny bit better than the others on your list.  It is not Earth shatteringly better IQ, so get over that.  But it has other obvious advantages.  It has one big disadvantage.  It is heavy.

The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF and the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon are so close, no one can say which is better.  This is a "your choice" situation.  You can't go wrong with either.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens is better than both of them and nearly equal to the big  Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF.  Except it does not have 600mm.  If strictly IQ and IS is your desire, than it is the lens to get.  Beside it is a Canon "L" and purposely designed for Canon cameras.  A big plus in anybodies book.

The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens is the sleeper and the 'best buy' in the list.  Although it does not have IS or 600mm.

It is as sharp as any lens in your list.  Maybe sharper!

If you are considering the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens, you know it is around $5000.  If you can get one for under $2500 that is not beat to death, I would be surprised.  Of course the gold standard is the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens but for me anyway, it is a rental only proposition. Besides it and the  Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens, I own or have used every lens on your list.

I believe that gives me good credentials for saying, everything considered, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF is what I would choose.  I use this lens extensively.  It has become my go to super tele. Not wanting to handle such a beast than your choice, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF or the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon.  Neither is better than the other.

If you want to stay Canon, which I endeavor to do when there is a choice, get the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens.  However, it does not have 600mm.  The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens being a "dust pump" is baloney.  Pure baloney, if you want one don't worry about it.

Stop reading so many reviews!

[ebiggs1]

"1.). All shots you can't take because the subject is too close ..."

I wouldn't worry about a subject being too close.  The close focus on the  Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF is about 8 feet.  On the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens about 6 feet.  Even a small bird at those distances is impressive.  Even with just 400mm.

[ScottyP]

Hi Ernie.

i didn't mean too close to focus, I meant too close to fit the subject into the frame.  So like getting a well focused picture of a soccer play close to he sideline you are shooting from, but only getting a picture of one elbow or something because your angle of view is too narrow.

[ebiggs1]

"I meant too close to fit the subject into the frame."

Excellent point.  One I ran into yesterday. It may sound funny but Scott is right on.  You may think a super tele will always bring a subject in.  After all you can always back up. Right?  Wrong, there are times when you can't.  One place where a zoom lens comes in to its own.

Below is a photo that displays that situation.  I was at a learning center where several birds of prey were being discussed. There was a wall at my back!  This shot didn't get the entire hawk and I was at 300mm.

It was very dark.  Focusing was manual, so please excuse.  ID Mk IV, 300mm, f2.8, 1/25, ISO 1600.  BTW, there was no IS (image stabilaziton)

[ebiggs1]

Scott said,

"i didn't mean too close to focus, I meant too close to fit the subject into the frame.  So like getting a well focused picture of a soccer play close to he sideline you are shooting from, but only getting a picture of one elbow or something because your angle of view is too narrow."

Here is another point to demonstrate the pitfalls of a super tele being too close.  It is much more difficult to track BIF.

They all don't come out great!  Do they?  

[ebiggs1]

Oh well, there is another day................another shot.

[paulbrogden10]

Hi

well my question which would you choose a 500mm f4 canon prime or a 100-400 mark 2 zoom if you had the choice?

[ebiggs1]

That specific question is difficult to answer because they are so very different in so many ways.

Canon vs Sigma

Ultimate use?

Prime vs zoom?

500mm vs 400mm?

Weight a factor?

Cost?

f ratio f4 vs f5.6

IS vs non-IS

etc...........

Fill in the blanks and I will give you my choice.  But my first, basic,  choice is to always go with the real deal Canon when it will do the job. Look else where when Canon does not have or will not do what you want or need.