Lens Questions Part Two

[Jeff D. Welker]

I'm down with the flu today and my fevered mind is wandering 

I'm going back and forth between the Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM as my long stick. I will have a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM as my medium range lens. I don't have the money at this time to get one of the better/faster telephotos so these are my primary choices. I've also thought about the EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM; however, I wasn't sure if it would have enough reach. To me the most important issue is image quality and precision AF. What is your opinion of these lenses and their respective IQ? One or the other will ride a 7D body and occasionally be mated with a 1.4x.

Your comments, thoughts and suggestions would sincerely be appreciated.

Thanks;

Jeff

[Lynn Evans]

Jeff, I hope you get well fast. I have had it for six days, today I feel a bit better. I have a 300 f4 IS, and no experience with the other two. All make quality images. If IS is important, the 400 5.6 does not have it. Hopefully someone who has used the 100-400 and 400 can help you. I have seen excellent work from all three.

[Chris V]

I rented both before buying the 400 f/5.6, its sharper than the 100-400 @ 400. Don't get me wrong the 100-400 is nice, in a perfect world having both would be awesome. I have a 1.4x but really don't use it much, it does take away some IQ and seems to slow the AF also with some hunting at times.

[Jay Beckman]

The one advantage the 100-400 holds over any of the 400 primes is the "Whoops Factor."

"Whoops, missed them at 400mm but I can zoom out and try again..."

Can't do that with a prime.

[Joe Copalman]

Jay nailed it on the head.  Zooms give you great flexibility, while primes restrict you to a single focal length.  Zooms give you more chances to get the shots you WANT as opposed to the ones your gear restricts you to because you can't zoom out.  Most of the shots on the forum and on A.net were shot with zooms.  I wouldn't worry too much about the sharpness.  

[Jeff D. Welker]

OK; I've pushed away from the Nyquil bar for a moment and will try to type lucidly.

At first blush, it looks like the two primary options in this zoom range would be the aforementioned Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO (I'm not sure what all those Sigma initials mean). I've seen a bunch of great images taken with both these lenses on this site and POTN. Clearly the Sigma gives another 100mm of reach compared to the Canon. On the other hand, the Canon looks to be a full f-stop faster than the Sigma. I am assuming (please correct me if I'm off base) that both of these zooms lose a little IQ at their maximums.

It seems that more than a few AzAP snipers have experience using one of these two zooms with crop sensor bodies.

Forgetting price for a moment, what are your thoughts, experiences and comments (pros/cons) regarding these two zoom lens options?

[Jay Beckman]

I can tell you the 100-400 is usable throughout the entire zoom range.

[jslugman]

My 100-400 gets a little squishy at 400mm when its wide-open. But I know this and avoid that combination when I can, usually shooting a stop up from there solves it. Knowing what your lens/camera combo are capable of is a big part of the battle. The 400mm 5.6 is a non-IS lens which may be a factor for your shooting style, then again it might not. I'm a grumpy old man and need the IS on more than a couple of occasions. 

At Barry Goldwater I had a 300mm f4 IS with a 1.4x TC and it worked very well. I also had a 500mm f4 IS as well. Post-shoot I realized I would have been better taking the 100-400mm but which lens to give up.... haven't gotten there yet. Not having the zoom capability like I normally have was very frustrating.

I don't have the Bigma but have heard Joe mention its a great lens as long as he's not at a particular combination of f-stop and perhaps focal length (correct me here Joe if I need it). Probably found this out by repeated excursions and looking and the tosser-shots to see what they had in common.

My $0.02 and worth half that due to inflation.

[Jay Beckman]

James (as usual) brings up a very good point and that's the notion of "shooting to a particular f/stop."

If you can keep to f/6.3 or even f/8 (which may mean an ISO bump in some instances), the 100-400 will sharpen up considerably.

[Joe Copalman]

My experience with the Sigma is very similar to James and his 100-400 with regard to mushiness all the way out to 500mm, so if I need the reach, I'll extend it out to 500mm and then dial it back just a smidge (usually gives me around 430-460mm) and the results are much better.  I've gotten a few solid shots at 500mm, and I've seen other guys do it pretty consistently - with some heavy cropping as well.  

Here are some of the advantages/disadvantages of the Sigma 150-500:

+Reach.  Getting consistently sharp shots in the 450mm range is something the 100-400 cannot do.  Period.
+Build quality.  The thing is a damned tank.
+Optical stabilization.  Not sure how it stacks up against the IS on Canon's newest lenses, but it's a generation ahead of the 100-400.  
+Autofocus. Solid and fast.  I borrowed James' 70-200 (forget which model, sorry) at TIA a few months back and was surprised that it seemed a bit slower and "dumber" than the Sigma. The difference wasn't all that great, but it was noticeable.  Only time the Sigma "hunts" is when the lens is at one end of the focus spectrum from a previous shot, and the next shot I want to take is at the other extreme, but it's an easy fix as you can "assist" the focus ring manually to get you in the neighborhood without grinding gears or any crap like that.  That's actually a feature I use quite a bit.
+Image quality.  While I will certainly concede that L-series primes outshoot the Sigma in terms of sharpness, color fidelity, and so on, I'm not convinced that the 100-400L is worth the extra $500-$600.  I really have not seen a consistent edge held by either lens, at least in terms of image quality.  Most of the lab tests I've seen have all pointed to the Canon holding a slight edge through most focal lengths, but lab tests don't involve shooting chunks of metal flying through the air at 400mph.  A lot of it is finding the "sweet spot" aperture, which on this lens for me has been f/8, though I do well between 6.3 and 10.  
+Dust/Weather(?) The Sigma does not have the "dust sucker" reputation of the 100-400L's push-pull zoom system.  I haven't owned a 100-400, only rented, so I don't know if this reputation is well-deserved or just bluster from guys on the internet.    

-Focal length on the wide end.  I've learned to deal with it through being more solid with my panning/tracking, anticpating what an aircraft is going to do and where it is going to go, and being more deliberate in framing close-up shots once a subject has gotten too close.  Still, I sometimes think about trading up to the new 50-500 OS for more flexibility on the wide end.  The edge definitely goes to the 100-400 here, especially if you're a one-body shooter.
-Weight.  A penalty of the tank-like build quality.  You get used to it, of course.
-Finish.  I know it doesn't impact the image quality, but doesn't look as good as the Canon L finish.  It also looks more "sinister" in black, and the huge carry handle makes it look even more like a weapon.  I've actually considered Duracoating my carry handle and lens hood in some non-threatening color.
-Long-term durability(?).  My OS system is starting to go a bit screwy.  I must temper this by stating that I pretty much ALWAYS have the OS engaged and that I have used this lens on a near-daily basis for over two years before this happened.  If it were a manufacturing defect, with as much as I shoot, I'm sure it would have flared up much, much earlier.  Pretty sure it's just wear and tear because I use the hell out of this lens.  Luckily, one of the four Sigma service centers in the US is in Chandler, so getting it repaired won't involve mailing my lens elsewhere.  I've also heard they have a pretty quick turnaround time.  Will keep everyone posted on this.
Low-light performance Not sure how the 100-400L got a reputation as the faster lens here, as it's maximum aperture at 100mm is f/4.5 while the Sigma's at 150mm is f/5, and the maximum for the Canon is f/5.6 at 400mm while the Sigma is f/6.3 at 500mm.  If that's not near-identical performance, it's got to be damned close.  Either way, the OS and a steady hand will let you get some night shots in the okay-to-good range, but if you're going to be shooting lots of dusk/night stuff, you shouldn't be looking at either of these lenses in the first place. 

Those are really the main things that come to mind.  

Hopefully Kaspar will weigh in on the differences, as he actually owns and shoots with both.  

[Jeff D. Welker]

Hey Triple J's (James, Jay & Joe):

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments - you've given me some serious issues to consider and contemplate before I pull the trigger. I plan on shooting two bodies. Generally, I anticipate having either the 24-70 or 70-200 (depending on situation) on one body and my long zoom on the other. Accordingly, wide shots will not cause me too much grief.

I have spent considerable time on this forum and POTN looking at various photos taken by both lenses. I recognize that this method of comparison has certain challenges (i.e. web images posted via various hosting sources); however, it is the best way I had to look at a lot of images (mostly aviation related). Frankly, both seem to produce some very high IQ captures and I can't see any stark differences that I attribute to a particular lens. I also can't know the ratio of keepers to throwaways for each lens; no matter, that is as much and indian issue as it is the the arrow.

Obviously, someone with experience using both would be able to comment more intelligently than myself. I agree with Joe and hope Kaspar will chime-in on this thread.

The analysis continues..............

[Joe Copalman]

The bottom line is that you'll be happy with either one and that it ultimately comes down to a Chevy/Ford-type comparison.  Regardless of what you get, the proverbial greenness of the grass on the other side is more or less the same.  The only time I regret not going with the 100-400L is when something is just a smidge too big to be framed by the Sigma at 150mm.

[jslugman]

The issue Joe brings up re: 70-200 acting "dumber" is particular to my lens which is currently in Cali because of this.

[Bubak]

I have a  EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and I sold my EF 400mm f/5.6L USM  (i was sorry next day)  and I have a 70-200mm 2.8.  And I have a Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 and A,m sorry.  Canon is 100% better and faster.  (my experience and opinion)  You can't compare Pinto and Lexus. 

[Joe Copalman]

Wow, that different?  What were the problems with your Sigma compared to the 100-400L?