Opinions: Sigma 50-500 or Canon 100-400L

[DamienB]

atco I assume when someone says blur they mean from camera shake so apologies for that but the image I offered was no more 'blurred' than the one you have so I really didn't understand the point you were making.

I'm surprised your example is at f/8 (mine are at f/6.3), if I got shots that soft at that aperture I'd delete them and assume it was the 10D misfocusing as it occasionally does. However it's been rescued nicely with sharpening and resizing so for jp.net purposes it's clearly still a keeper.

[JeffinDEN]

I offered the samples to help, not to get involved in an argument ...

I just wanted to see the exif with each picture that's all. No need to get you panties in a wad over it. There are just a few things based on the images in your original post that don't seem right, and I just wanted to compare the images to the exif to confirm what I thought.

But, for some reason, you won't so, no biggie.

Jeff

[atco]

Hey, hey calm down.

I said the nose gear lettering looks soft and out of focus, there is very visible blur on the lettering.

I never mentioned camera shake so wind your neck in and try reading what is written. I based my opinion on my experience.
I also never said your pic was soft, so I'm afraid your first paragraph is a little mystifying.

I have already said in this thread I have used both lenses, I didn't need the 50-500 so I parted with it. It's an outstanding lens and great value but I considered the 100-400 L IS an upgrade and so I did.

I don't have a problem with your comparison, but apparently you have a problem............I'm not sure what your gripe is with me.

Next time try reading what people have written and appreciate that people are allowed to express opinions and their own experiences here.

[DamienB]

atco - so my 400mm example is soft because it is blurred by camera shake (odd when I was using a tripod and cable release ) but yours is soft because it was on a 10D? Well guess which camera I used for my shot... 10D!

I would appear to be the only person here with both lenses and I would suggest that if you have a problem with the comparison you go and buy the lens you are missing and find out for yourself because I offered the samples to help, not to get involved in an argument with people who presumably just want to defend the choice they've already made. If you're happy with whatever lens you have, then just be happy! They are both fine bits of kit. I happen to prefer the 100-400 but my eyes are open to the fact that its optical qualities are better at 300mm than at 400mm, which is hardly a surprise as just about every zoom on the market performs less well at the extremes of its range.

[JeffinDEN]

Nice shot Gary! Have you tried any in camera sharpening? I use normal or sometimes the next step up at times, and find it helps prevent the "halos" from around the lettering (when sharpening after the fact) as in that last picture without over-doing the rest of the image. Usually it is just set at normal.

Jeff

[atco]

That pic actually turns into this with a little post processing:

[photoid=189381]

[atco]

I have to say that the nose of the ATR pic looks a touch out of focus, the lettering on the nose gear door shows signs of blur.

My experience of the 100-400 has shown it performs superbly at 400mm.

This shot was taken at 400mm in ISO400 on a 10D.
The image looks slightly soft, but that is the 10D rather than the lens (I also do no in-camera sharpening).



Exif Info:
1/500, f8, ISO400, Partial Metering

Hope this has been useful

[philip]

thanks!

[DamienB]

philip - if you search on my shots by added date, everything prior to May 31 2003 (with the exception of the Comet) are 50-500 shots.

[Spotter]

thanx man. I don't see much difirence between the 2 lenses, and the nose shot of the ATR I think the sigma is better

[philip]

Damien, do you have any 50-500 shots in your collection here or on A.net? Would love to see some

thanks

[GrantT]

Grant agrees so it is a done deal...!

You know it Jeff.

[JeffinDEN]

Agreed, Damien is an excellent photographer who knows what hes talking about whether you want to believe him or not Jeff.

Well, I guess that settles that huh? Grant agrees so it is a done deal...!

Don't misquote me. I never question his photography. I just wanted to see the exif data. It really is easy to do. But, I think I have my answer, so I'll leave it to you experts.


Jeff

[GrantT]

Looking at his photos I reckon Damien is a photographer who knows what he does

Agreed, Damien is an excellent photographer who knows what hes talking about whether you want to believe him or not Jeff.

[GrantT]

When did Jeff call you a liar?

Those comparisons look a little fishy.....

Right there.