DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4136 times:
i had the same decision to make. I went for the Ef100-400mm and damn man go for it! Awesome lens and you wont be disapointed. Also because quality is good you can crop in Adobe photo shot, making the shot more than 400mm!
and the IS is awesome!
cheers! let us know what you choose!
Ander From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4100 times:
I got my 100-400L just a few weeks ago.
It gives me nothing but great moments. Images
come clean and sharp, you almost need no USM.
A lens without IS is a NOGO for me.
If you can afford it, go for Canon.
INNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3782 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4092 times:
I had to make the same decision about 2 months ago!
After several weeks of reading tons of reviews for both lenses, asking & emailing other photographers, being at my local store and trying them both I finally decided the 100-400L is the better choice.
Probably you should visit your local store and try em both. To find out which one "feels better". I did not regret getting the Canon lens for one moment. Also with the 1.6x factor of digital cameras ( 1.3 if you use a 1Dseries ) the 100-400 becomes a 640mm at the high end... not too bad!
QANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5916 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 4060 times:
nothing wrong with the Bigma either, i've been using it for a while now and i'm very pleased with it, don't like the push-pull of the 100-400 and IS is for wimps too! but as mentioned, the best thing you can do is try for yourself.
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3965 times:
Never will be a Sigma lens better than a L Canon lens.
You made a very short turn here mate.
Some of the Sigma's(EX) are very close or even just as good as there rivals from Canon which is discussed quite a few times already so i am not gonna spend more words on it.
Another option might be the Sigma 80-400EX OS(with stabilizer), a little more range then the 100-400L, cheaper but probably heavier too.
From what i have heard quite good too.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Mygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3949 times:
Willem, of course this "never" was something colloquial. When using words like never, always etc you have the risk to be wrong..
Same thing for Leica lenses. Who says is better than Canons or Nikons? No doubt ALL the Leica's supporters will tell you that but I have to be convinced first with a good comparison..
ChrisM001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 73 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3868 times:
I would say that there is little to choose between the Canon 'L' series and their equivalent Sigma 'EX' lenses as I have lenses from both ranges. Canon's are generally slightly better (but only just) but are normally more expensive.
At the end of the day, its all down to personal choice.....