Sigma 500 4.5 non DG vs Canon 100-400II + 1.4 TC

[Winddoc]

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking here for awhile now but have been unable to make up my mind on the choice between the two lenses listed above, or other close alternatives. I've spent 2 days with the Canon (loved the lens bare but only had a 2 x TC with me so no AF). I spent only 15 min with a used but mint Sigma 500 f4.5 and was impressed with most aspects of it as well. I currently shoot a Canon 70-200 2.8 II with the occasional (and often disappointing) 2 x TC III for surfing/windsurfing/kiteboarding on a 1DX and 7D (v1). I need more reach and image quality/focus speed, but the Canon 500 F4 is out of budget for now. I tend to shoot mostly at the long end, so wonder a bit if the 100-400 FL range is necessary for me even if it adds flexibility. The price of the older, used Sigma 500 is a few hundred more than the Canon 100-400 II. Weather sealing of the 100-400 is a huge plus, but not a complete deal breaker if a lens doesn't have it.

I'm also considering the 400 5.6 with a 1.4 TC, but have read the new 100-400 sharpness is superior, unless my recollection is mistaken Am I silly to consider the older Sigma when I can go for a 100-400 II with a 1.4 Tele with newer tech? Or do I wait until my budget creeps up into the 500 L v1 territory? The jump to the 1DX and longer focal lengths has been a recent one for me and I'm still fine tuning my needs. Thanks for any insights!

 

[Chisox2335]

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking here for awhile now but have been unable to make up my mind on the choice between the two lenses listed above, or other close alternatives. I've spent 2 days with the Canon (loved the lens bare but only had a 2 x TC with me so no AF). I spent only 15 min with a used but mint Sigma 500 f4.5 and was impressed with most aspects of it as well. I currently shoot a Canon 70-200 2.8 II with the occasional (and often disappointing) 2 x TC III for surfing/windsurfing/kiteboarding on a 1DX and 7D (v1). I need more reach and image quality/focus speed, but the Canon 500 F4 is out of budget for now. I tend to shoot mostly at the long end, so wonder a bit if the 100-400 FL range is necessary for me even if it adds flexibility. The price of the older, used Sigma 500 is a few hundred more than the Canon 100-400 II. Weather sealing of the 100-400 is a huge plus, but not a complete deal breaker if a lens doesn't have it.

I'm also considering the 400 5.6 with a 1.4 TC, but have read the new 100-400 sharpness is superior, unless my recollection is mistaken Am I silly to consider the older Sigma when I can go for a 100-400 II with a 1.4 Tele with newer tech? Or do I wait until my budget creeps up into the 500 L v1 territory? The jump to the 1DX and longer focal lengths has been a recent one for me and I'm still fine tuning my needs. Thanks for any insights!

I used the 500mm mki in October for 4 days on safari. I just recently bought the 500mm mkii. It is amazing. I'm getting clear shots handheld on a crop at 1/160. I presume I could do even better on my 6D if I tried.

With the lighter weight and amazing image stabilization I'd recommend saving up for the mkii

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The two lenses fit in a totally different category. A Handheld Zoom versus a huge and heavy super telephoto that costs over twice the price($5,000). Don't forget to add in the cost of a good gimbal head and heavy tripod for the Sigma, this can add another $700 - $1500 or even more to the cost.

Both are going to be sharp and excellent for their intended use. You might be better off comparing the Sigma with a used Canon 500mm f/4 IS from about the same time period. The Canon will cost a lot more, but since the Sigma will have dropped in value a lot, it probably will hold its value.


If you can get the latest version of the Sigma for a good price and it works well for you, its going to be a excellent lens. I gave up on long and heavy lenses due to the difficulty in moving them around and setting up, versus a lens that I can carry easily and can be handheld for reasonable periods of time.

 

[Winddoc]

Thanks so much for the replies. The Sigma I was able to hand hold without too much effort (I think it is a fair bit lighter than the Canon 500), so this is partly why I'm comparing it to the 100-400. I plan to pick up a better tripod and gimbal set up anyway. I haven't had the opportunity to view any of the used market first gen 500 Canons for comparison as they don't seem to come up for sale in my area. Like I mentioned, the 500 II is out of my price range. Is there a reason to avoid the mint, but older Sigma if it seems to be reasonably good with AF and image quality for the $3000 CAN price? It includes a 2 x TC for added value, but I can't imagine it will AF with it.

 

[Apop]

If you consider a 400 5.6 with 1.4 converter ,
Have you thought about the sigma 150-600S(ports)

It should be comparable to the 300 2.8ISII with 2xIII converter(which is brilliant),
It bests the nikon 300 2.8 VRII with 2xIII ( in both IQ and af speed according to some reports)

It is weather sealed and has IS, I would personally pick this over the sigma 500 4.5 ,


If you want a fast prime and don't need IS, a canon 500 4.5L could be something to consider?, they can be had used for around 2500$ if I'm not mistaking.


Some quick indications
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[Winddoc]

Thanks, Apop,

I pulled the trigger on a 100-400II afterall. I only have a 2xTC, but plan to pick up the 1.4 soon. I considered the Canon 500 4.5, but was spooked by the chance of it failing and becoming an expensive rolling pin due to Canon's lack of servicing this lens anymore. The Sigma Sport and Tamron 150-600 were my next serious look, but I decided to spring on the Canon. I tried the Tamron but it felt a bit fragile and plasticky for my liking. The Canon's build just feels right and more importantly, I'm stoked with the IQ coming out of it.

So far so great! Thanks again for the input.

 

[NancyP]

If I were starting out, I would go for the 100-400L IS II. As it is, I have the 400 f/5.6L no-IS, so the next big jump up would be the 400f/4 DO IS II or the 500 f/4 L IS I or II.