Would this be an upgrade?

[eagles03]

I own a 7D, Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS, and a 300mm f/4L non-IS.

I like the lenses, but I've been considering something with more reach for birding.

I've read some about the Sigma 50-500mm, and am wondering if people would consider that an upgrade, or if there are other options. I'm fine with prime lenses, but would have a $1500 price ceiling.

Thoughts?

 

[Loswr]

I'd get the Canon 100-400L over the Bigma. The extra 100mm can come in handy over the 300/4, as would the IS for perched birds. At 400 or 500mm, the Sigma 50-150 has pretty poor IQ compared to the Canon 100-400L at 400mm (link).

I've seen used copies of the 100-400L for $1K or just under.

 

[eagles03]

Thanks, Neuro. I haven't been able to find much out about the 300 f/4l non-is, as far as it compares to any other lenses' IQ. any resources that you know of that could help with this?

 

[Loswr]

Photozone tested the 300/4L non-IS on APS-C. The comparisons aren't as useful as they would be on more recent bodies or FF, but on 8 MP APS-C they tested the 300/4L IS, 100-400L, and many other lenses so you can at least get some idea.

Left column here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

 

[alexturton]

If you're used to the canon 70 200 you'll find the sigma extremely soft beyond 350mm. Plus the AF is very slow and in lower light will hunt considerably.

In good light, stopped down to f8-f11 it can produce good shots, but you'll need good light and a slow moving subject