View Full Version : Sigma 100-300 f/4 or 50-500 f/4-6.3 for wildlife?
Caleb Royer October 7th, 2009, 09:45 PM I'm looking to get a longer lens for my XL2 because the 20x lens is not long enough. I like the Sigma | 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF HSM Autofocus Lens | 134101 | B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/390170-REG/Sigma_134101_100_300mm_f_4_EX_DG.html) for it's fast and constant aperture, sharp optics, good focal length, and the price isn't to bad. On the other hand there is the Sigma | 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM AF Lens for Canon EOS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/380686-USA/Sigma_736101_50_500mm_f_4_6_3_EX_DG.html) with no constant aperture so you have to readjust it and listen to it click when you zoom, optics aren't to sharp, focal length is amazing but can I control the shake?, and the price is really good especially on eBay (around $500 to $800). So which one would you recommend?
Thanks,
Caleb
Annie Haycock October 8th, 2009, 02:57 AM Haven't you answered your own question? The 50-500 has only one thing going for it, while the 100-300 has everything (at least - you haven't pointed out any drawbacks) unless price is a major factor.
I used to use the Sigma 170-500 for stills, great lens - so long as you had lots of light at f8 you would get a sharp image. But then, you are not looking for the same magnification in the final product, or a still image, when doing video.
Tony Davies-Patrick October 8th, 2009, 03:07 AM The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is the one to go for. It is by far the best optic - one of the best zooms ever made in that range, and perfect for the XL2.
Kin Lau October 8th, 2009, 06:50 AM I have two 50-500's. They're both very sharp when handled correctly - most people I see using this or complaining don't handle long lenses well. But for video use, I would suggest the 100-300/4 as well. With the XL2, isn't the crop/mulitplier factor something like 6x? A 3000mm equiv lens would indeed be very hard to keep steady as the 50-500 extends as it zooms but the 100-300 is internal zooming (constant length). I have the big brother to the 100-300/4, the 120-300/2.8 and zooming is much smoother than the 50-500.
Another factor in favor of the 100-300/4 is weight. The 50-500 is about twice the weight of the 100-300.
Caleb Royer October 8th, 2009, 08:37 AM .....With the XL2, isn't the crop/mulitplier factor something like 6x?.....
Kin, The crop factor is 7.2x.
Thank you everyone for your help.
Caleb
Brendan Marnell October 9th, 2009, 06:13 AM The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is the one to go for. It is by far the best optic - one of the best zooms ever made in that range, and perfect for the XL2.
May I ask, apart from its versatility on XL2, would the Sigma 100-300 f/4 be anything like as good as the Canon 400 for stills using 40D?
Caleb Royer October 9th, 2009, 07:02 AM May I ask, apart from its versatility on XL2, would the Sigma 100-300 f/4 be anything like as good as the Canon 400 for stills using 40D?
Which Canon 400 lens you are talking about. Is it the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 400 f/5.6, 400 f/4 DO IS, or 400 f/2.8 IS?
Brendan Marnell October 9th, 2009, 07:17 AM Thank you Caleb; I was thinking of the fixed f/5.6 but thanks to your intervention, what I really need is comparison of the Sigma 100-300 f/4 with ...
the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS
The difference in focal length is obvious; it's the quality of glass and AF speed and BIF image holding I'm interested in learning about?
Tony Davies-Patrick October 9th, 2009, 10:21 AM The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 actually has better image quality than the Canon 100-400mm, although the Sigma doesn't need to stretch the design limits as much as the Canon does in it's telephoto reach and IS.
Regarding the Canon prime 400mm f/5.6, the Sigma matches it again for image quality, although the 400mm f/2.8 would pip it at the post. In real-world image terms, all three would be hard to tell apart.
Steve Phillipps April 17th, 2010, 04:19 AM Tony, what sort of comparison test did you do with these lenses?
Steve
Mat Thompson April 17th, 2010, 07:09 AM I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I had a sigma 100-300 F4 and while its good I don't rate it as great (my copy at least). However I recently got a 100-300 F5.6 Nikon (Manual ai) lens which is probably 25+ yrs old. - I think its as sharp or sharper than the sigma although it can pick up some ca in out of focus hightlights (not bad though). I also have the 80-200 F2.8 ED lens and I'd say the 100-300 isn't far off this from an IQ pov. - I bought it as a punt really and was quite surprised, the best point however is it only cost £100 !
(I use them on a JVC GY HD110)
|
|