Which Zoom lens? (Final Decision)

[stevez]

Final Decision


Hi all

I am considering in buying a new zoom lens. I mostly shoot aviation photography even though landscape, nature and other kinds are included as well.

I have a Canon 7D with an 18-135 lens, I am considering between the Canon 100-400 F-4.5-5.6L or the Sigma 50-500 DG OS HSM F 4.5-6.3.

In my considerations the Canon is of a better product, seen it and tested it as well most important is that it is lighter than the Sigma.
For the Sigma the higher range reduces the need of changing the lens when closer to the subject, better zoom.

Which one is the better choice?

[GrahamS]

They are totally different mechanically. The Canon is built to withstand harsh conditions and is weather sealed. The Sigma requires careful handling and is not totally sealed. It depends on the conditions in which you normally shoot and the environment. I wouldn't take the Sigma to a war zone but I wouldn't hesitate to take the Canon L.

[AB26]

I would go with the Canon.

[Manfred M]

Having been unhappy with the Sigma 150-500mm (in the shop twice before it was 6 months old), I would be very hesitant to recommend a lens from that supplier...

[Donald]

Stephen - As others have suggested, you are considering two very, very different products. If you have a budget that allows for it, then unarguably, the Canon is the much higher quality lens.

I note Manfred's point about the lens he had, but if Sigma didn't make good lenses (overall) they would not be in business. However, I think Sigma would concede that they are not in the market to compete with Canon L-quality lenses.

I previously did read some comments that argued that the 100-400 L was now getting rather dated. However, I have no basis for considering whether this is a reasonable argument or not.

[inkista]

+1. Every company makes some lemons--there are always outliers. But Sigma makes solid lenses. I've owned a fisheye lens of theirs that's built like a tank and has never let me down even after heavy use (I liked the first f/4 one I got so much that when they improved the lens's C/A and vignetting with an f/3.5 version, I bought that one, too).

The 150-500 and the 120-400 are known to have issues which notoriously got them included in Roger Cicala's lensrentals Hall of Shame in 2009, but he's also stated that Sigma may have silently fixed whatever the issue was, as people are saying newer copies don't seem to have as high a failure rate. And the 50-500 (aka "The Bigma") has never had that reputation in either the OS or non-OS versions and in fact lensrentals still carries it (unlike the 120-400 and 150-500).

However. As you want to shoot airshows, I'm with everyone else: the 100-400L. Having a lens that's more easy to handhold is an advantage when tracking flying objects. While you can use a monopod or tripod + gimbal head, it's just simpler and easier to handhold.

In terms of the "aging" design: there is the fact that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II has better optics, so there's thought that the 100-400 could be improved and its IS is 1st generation. But I think the performance and price make outstanding value right now. A MkII with upgraded optics and newer IS would probably double the price of the lens, the way things have been going with newer versions.

[rpcrowe]

Just an aside when it comes to photographing airshows... Image stabilization (since we are talking Canon) is quite nice to have because as opposed to shooting many sports venues when you can get by the lack of stabilization by using a high shutter speed, you cannot effectively do the same for airshows. High shutter speeds are fine for photographing jets but when shooting prop aircraft, you want to use a slower shutter speed to blur the propellers (rather than freezing them which appears awkward).

The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS does have IS but, it is an old type of stabilization; not the best but better than nothing.

Some photographers use the handy Bushawk camera bracket to help stabilize their camera/lens. Others use different types of stabilization devices. I even fabricated one of my own out of about ten U.S. Dollars worth of material.
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Photograp...-For-Long-Lens

I have a 400mm f/5.6L which is great for most single aircraft shots but, I would sorely miss a shorter focal length for groups of aircraft. lately, I have been using two cameras with my 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses. I have a 1.4x TC which I can add to either lens...

Although the 300-400mm end of the 100-400L lens is very nice, if I were in the market for a telephoto zoom, I might consider the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens which would be super for for a general purpose tele-zoom and which can be used for many airshows and some nature...

[Colin Southern]

They are totally different mechanically. The Canon is built to withstand harsh conditions and is weather sealed.

Unfortunately, the EF100-400mm F4.5-5.6L USM isn't fully weather sealed. A lot of folks seem to think that all L-Series are, but it just ain't so

A good reference list is ...

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_weathersealed.html

[jcuknz]

Just for airshows you could well search this site and read how the guy does it and wih what ... say no more in view of recent discussions
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52448
His approach works for him without question, it might for you.
He describes his OS after the photos some way down the blog.

[stevez]

Thanks to all for helping comments posted, I will go for the canon 100-400 , as suggested a better lense for sure

[chauncey]

Ya might want to check this guys site, my "go to guy" for aircraft stuff http://crosswindimages.com/f844677569

[HaseebM]

Thanks to all for helping comments posted, I will go for the canon 100-400 , as suggested a better lense for sure

Have you had a chance to test their DO lens? To answer your original question and as already implied, no comparison really. As as aside, I do own 10-20mm Sigma and I think the lens is outstanding for the price.