Canon 100-400L, Sigma Bigma (50-500), or something else?

[epiieq1]

Hey All - I'm looking at getting a lens that has a little more reach than my current set (16-28 Rokinon, 24-70 f2.8L, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f4L) and was considering the Canon 100-400L and the latest rev of the Sigma Bigma (50-500).  What are your thoughts?  Any others I should look at?  They're both around the $1600-1700 new range, and I'd like to keep it under $2k.  Thanks!

[bdunbar79]

I'd probably pick the 100-400L over the Sigma lens.  I have the 100-400L and it's really great in IQ all the way out to 400mm.  At 400 it's not the 400mm f/2.8L prime, but hey, it gets the job done. 

[Razor2012]

Hey All - I'm looking at getting a lens that has a little more reach than my current set (16-28 Rokinon, 24-70 f2.8L, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f4L) and was considering the Canon 100-400L and the latest rev of the Sigma Bigma (50-500).  What are your thoughts?  Any others I should look at?  They're both around the $1600-1700 new range, and I'd like to keep it under $2k.  Thanks!

A couple of others you could look at are the 300 F4L, and the 400 5.6L.  I'm looking at these also, they are sharp and inexpensive.  Considering using the 1.4x TC with the 300.

[bdunbar79]

Hey All - I'm looking at getting a lens that has a little more reach than my current set (16-28 Rokinon, 24-70 f2.8L, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f4L) and was considering the Canon 100-400L and the latest rev of the Sigma Bigma (50-500).  What are your thoughts?  Any others I should look at?  They're both around the $1600-1700 new range, and I'd like to keep it under $2k.  Thanks!

A couple of others you could look at are the 300 F4L, and the 400 5.6L.  I'm looking at these also, they are sharp and inexpensive.  Considering using the 1.4x TC with the 300.

I like the 300mm f/4L.  I use it on my 1D Mark IV for outdoor track.  Great color rendition and sharpness.  Cheaper than the f/2.8L, which I didn't need for outdoor sports, unless I cover high school football this year.

[vbi]

Depends on your camera. On FF the Bigma is a little soft on the edges and it needs more light than the 100-400. On APSC it is capable of very sharp images.

The 100-400 is my choice for sharpness, contrast and balance on the 7D or 5D2.

[wickidwombat]

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2-8-EX-DG-OS-APO-HSM-AF-Canon-1-Year-Warranty-/230769031793?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35bae7fa71

this is close enough to $2k that you would be mad not to consider it
i think with a 2x TC on it it would smash the 50-500 and still be 2/3rd of a stop faster

if its still to spendy i also vote for the 300 f4L IS

[Chewngum]

The Sigma 120-300 is an amazing lens. Mine is sharper at f2.8 than my 100-400L was at f5.6 . The AF tracks just about anything with relative ease but its a Monopod lens for longer periods. 100-400L Is great for its light weight and has focus limiter. The new OS version has better IS than the Canon and proper weather sealing and when you consider it can cheaply become a 240-600 f5.6 it is a much more versatile sport and wildelife lens than the 100-400L IMHO. The 100-400 can be gotten very cheaply second hand and is great for the price, but doesn't compare to the better, though more expensive, sigma.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

At 400mm, there is really nothing out there that can touch the 100-400mmL or the 400mm f/5.6L in the under $2,000 range.
 
I have owned the 100-400, 400 5.6, 300mmL, and a host of others.  I ended up keeping the 100-400L as being very good, and easy to carry in a bag because its short when telescoped in.  It also has good resale value, perhaps better than the other two.
 
I bought a D800 recently and am selling it.  There is no good low cost telephoto solution that comes close to my 100-400mmL.  The best of a bad lot may be the Bigma 50-500 OS, but I've seen few objective tests.  The NON OS version was not all that good.

[wickidwombat]

At 400mm, there is really nothing out there that can touch the 100-400mmL or the 400mm f/5.6L in the under $2,000 range.
 
I have owned the 100-400, 400 5.6, 300mmL, and a host of others.  I ended up keeping the 100-400L as being very good, and easy to carry in a bag because its short when telescoped in.  It also has good resale value, perhaps better than the other two.
 
I bought a D800 recently and am selling it.  There is no good low cost telephoto solution that comes close to my 100-400mmL.  The best of a bad lot may be the Bigma 50-500 OS, but I've seen few objective tests.  The NON OS version was not all that good.

you didnt try the siggy 120-300 on the D800? I think that would be a pretty kick arse combo

[Mt Spokane Photography]

At 400mm, there is really nothing out there that can touch the 100-400mmL or the 400mm f/5.6L in the under $2,000 range.
 
I have owned the 100-400, 400 5.6, 300mmL, and a host of others.  I ended up keeping the 100-400L as being very good, and easy to carry in a bag because its short when telescoped in.  It also has good resale value, perhaps better than the other two.
 
I bought a D800 recently and am selling it.  There is no good low cost telephoto solution that comes close to my 100-400mmL.  The best of a bad lot may be the Bigma 50-500 OS, but I've seen few objective tests.  The NON OS version was not all that good.

you didnt try the siggy 120-300 on the D800? I think that would be a pretty kick arse combo

As I said, "At 400mm, there is really nothing out there that can touch the 100-400mmL or the 400mm f/5.6L in the under $2,000 range."
 
The Sigma 120-300 at $3200 is neither 400mm nor is it under $2,000.
 
I've had 4 supposedly EOS compatible Sigma lenses and one Generic (Made by Sigma) that would not AF on my Canon DSLR's.  Only one could be upgraded, and I had to pay $100 for a new chip.  I avoid buying Sigma, knowing it could happen again.  They have reverse engineered Canon lens software, and may still not have it working such that a minor tweak by Canon to their bodies would cause all the Sigma's to stop working (as in the past).