Sigma vs Canon

[Jeremiah Rosson]

I will be graduating in May and my parents have told me that they would buy me a new lens... NICE of them right ! Well I want to be nice to their wallet as much as possible but i want to hear from you guys.....

I like the canon 100-400 mm L lens and its $1400 or better.

I have recently ran across the sigma 150-500mm DG OS HSM APO

Would it be a good investment? Are Sigma lenses good? Is Sigma a good, reputable company?

I have done all my research but I am curious as how you guys and gals like it!

Feel free to post pictures showing the lens capability if possible. Thanks

 

[Darren Addy]

I'll let others who may have the lenses in question comment specifically about them, but neither of them is going to be used much in chasing/storm photography. The Sigma is not what I would call a fast lens (F/5-6.3). Unless you have a full-frame digital camera you'd be getting a 35mm equiv of approx 225mm-750mm range from the Sigma and a 150mm-600mm range out of the Canon. The Canon is a f/4.5-5.6 lens and the extra speed (along with the famous "L" lens quality probably account for the higher price on the Canon).

Hands down, I'd be taking the Canon of the two lenses you specify. But I'm not sure I'd be expecting to use it a lot in storm chasing (as opposed to shooting wildlife or birding).

 

[Dave Marshall]

I have to agree with Darren here. When I bought my Olympus E-510 a couple years ago I shelled out for a number of lenses, and I have to say I can't recall ever breaking out a lens longer than about 120mm equivalent in a chase situation. The wide angle lenses see far far more use, especially for lightning shots.

That's partly because the low light performance of longer lenses is poor unless you're paying a year's chase budget for it. It's also because when you zoom in that tight on an object as panoramic as a tornado or thunderstorm, you tend to lose a lot of drama and context from the photo. In those situations, the devil is in the details, and you can lose that in many chasing situations with a very tight composition.

Maybe consider a good wide angle (not fisheye!) lens, or a medium length, fast lens that has good image stabilization.

If you're set on the long lens for other purposes, whatever they might be, I also agree with Darren's recommendation. I'd take a slightly shorter, faster lens than a longer, slower one. You can always crop and tweak your image on the computer a little to get a tighter composition. If the image is underexposed, you're up a creek.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

I know the Sigma 150-500 and the Sigma 50-500 were compared side by side repeatedly when I was researching the 50-500 and the 50-500 won every time and now that I have that lens I can tell you it is certainly not a fast lens.

Many chose the Sigma over the Canon you speak of though based on cost, the limitations were of course light and shooting conditions.

For storm chasing I would recommend a good wide angle that gets you back at 10mm ish. Sigma has a 10-20mm that is good (if you get a good copy) but again speed is a factor with F:4 minimum.

A good wide angle and a 18-250 range type lens is your best bet for chasing IMO.

 

[Jeremiah Rosson]

Thanks guys for the help, I already have a wide angle I was more interested in the brand and quality there of, but your advice did help ...

Thanks again!

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I have the 100-400L and I'm just not sure I'd buy it again. When using it I rarely have it backed out from 400mm. Seems whenever there is a use for telephoto it's that I want more not less than 400mm. It can just be a real pain to try and get sharp images with when viewing them full size. If I had it to do over again I might consider the 400mm prime of Canon's....think it is a F5.6 though...talking the cheaper(around $1000) 400mm not the big one. The background blur is pretty nasty looking on the 100-400L too imo. Yeah it's at F5.6 but still. For a zoom I guess it's considered one of if not the best in that range(not like there's a ton of options though around 100-400 that I know of). I just think if I could do it over I'd lean towards the 400mm prime. But of course, the second I'd do that, I'd regret not having the zoom ability.

Edit: Naw, now that I think it over I probably could use the zoom more than the added bit of sharpness. The one thing I really wondered about not long after buying the thing was why I didn't just get one of the uber sharp 70-200L's and a 2x converter. Then at least one would have something really sharp from 70-200. For some reason I don't think the 100-400 is going to be much sharper at 400mm than a 70-200L with a 2x converter on it anyway. Think if I had it to do over I'd certainly try that route of a 70-200 and 2x converter(and yes I realize the 2x can destroy sharpness).

 

[Chris Gullikson]

I have been very happy with Sigmas EX line of lenses, owning the 70-200 2.8 APO, the 18-55 2.8 and the 2.8 15mm Fisheye.

I did a lot of research on these lenses before purchasing and feel I have quality approaching the L glass at a cheaper price.

 

[Jeremiah Rosson]

Thanks

I appreciate all the opinions and advice. I like that i am beginning to hear good news about sigma lenses because obviously the price is much better than the L lenses from canon.

When mom said she would buy me a lens i had to first answer the question do i want a macro lens or a good telephoto to get birds and other objects that might be far away! I obviously choose the telephoto route but my interest in photography is growing and eventually will probably get a macro lens as well....

Thanks for the advice on the 2X converter as well i didn't realize it worked like that, but knowing your background and some of the photos you have taken that adds another option into the mix.

Thanks guys and good luck with the rest of the already active storm season.

 

[Brian Barnes]

I've never used Canon products, and I don't know much about them from experience (although many swear by them). I shoot with a Nikon and I have always used and love Sigma lenses. I've only owned 2 Nikon lenses (one was a kit lens) I didn't like either of them. The glass is high quality and the auto focus on my EX lenses is very fast. I've read some reports about people who have disassembled their Sigma EX lenses and said they were "built cheap" - but I have never experienced any issues with any of mine. I've owned 14 of them over the years and still have the first one that I ever purchased and still use it on my Nikon F3.

I think that if I owned a Canon body, that I would probably use Canon lenses. It seems to me that Canon makes a better "Body+Lens" solution with their stabilization technology than Nikon. But for my needs a Nikon body and Sigma lens works perfectly.

 

[Gene Moore]

As for Brian's comment that some people say Sigma lenses are "built cheap," I have to agree. I owned a 28-85 zoom that physically fell apart. That said, the new EX line is much better. I currently have one Sigma EX lens that I use quite a bit and I like its sharpness and the color matches my Canon lenses, the build is solid (no focus play etc).

The main issue with Sigma was the ability to correctly autofocus on a subject, back or front focus. The new Canon cameras now have the micro-adjustment feature that corrects for this problem and it works with my Sigma lens. My personal opinion is this feature alone is worth the price of a new camera body. No more sending lenses back to Canon for focus adjustment, unless they are really screwed up. On the adjustment scale my Sigma is a +4. Without that adjustment it would be somewhat fuzzy at infinity, where most of my images are shot, now it's very sharp. Other features about Sigma that are good, free lens hood, Canon charges from $20 to $50 for hoods, also the warranty is much better. I believe Canon EF lenses are the best choice for Canon autofocus cameras, but in some cases considerable money can be saved with Sigma, Tokina etc.

 

[Darren Addy]

The one thing I really wondered about not long after buying the thing was why I didn't just get one of the uber sharp 70-200L's and a 2x converter. Then at least one would have something really sharp from 70-200. For some reason I don't think the 100-400 is going to be much sharper at 400mm than a 70-200L with a 2x converter on it anyway. Think if I had it to do over I'd certainly try that route of a 70-200 and 2x converter(and yes I realize the 2x can destroy sharpness).

Ignoring sharpness issues, you're going to lose two stops of light with a 2x teleconverter (1 stop with a 1.4x teleconverter). That might work if you are starting with the 70-200mm f/2.8 USM Canon lens, but I don't think I'd advise putting it on a lens any slower. (put a 2x on a f/4 lens and you have a max. aperture of f/8... boo!)

 

[Nathan Choate]

I personally have two Sigma lenses, and have been very happy with them. I will say that I have used (rented and borrowed) some of the longer focal length Canon L series lenses, and they are sweet lenses. A tad sharper and definitly built sturdier than the Sigma lenses. But I would say that for the money, you can't beat the Sigma lenses. A good resource for lens reviews (and cameras too) is http://www.dpreview.com. The bottom line, if you get the Sigma lens, and you don't like it, you can always sell it and go with the Canon. But for the price of the Canon lens, you can have two Sigma lenses, or the lens you are looking at and some other gear. =)