# Canon 400 f/2.8 II vs Sigma 200-500



## Jim Saunders (Apr 23, 2015)

So for a similar investment - Lens Authority has their Sigma for ~12k - it's either 400 and crop a bit or 500 natively. Given the difference in weight, is there any compelling reason to buy the Sigma? That the Sigma zooms may be disregarded for this question, I have that covered already.

Jim


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 23, 2015)

Can't speak for Sigma. 

Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II is SUPER, even with x1.4 and x2 TC III


----------



## candc (Apr 23, 2015)

You do realize the sigma is 35lbs? Lens rentals had one for sale a while ago. Seems it was only rented once or twice in a couple years. Its hard to imagine what scenario that lens would be useful in.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 23, 2015)

So for similar investments, both are equally bad investments if you are not a pro and plan on using these lenses to help generate cash.

If you are not a professional the biggest negative is that even those of us with a bad lens acquisition problem, and we own the big white lenses, would look at you carrying the huge sigma around and think you were crazy and had totally lost it.

But if you were a pro that actually needs the zoom abilities of the Sigma, I doubt you would even need anyones opinion to decide. You would know.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 23, 2015)

The question I have is this: Canon 400 f/2.8 and crop a bit, or the Sigma at 500 f/2.8 natively?

Jim


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 23, 2015)

Jim Saunders said:


> The question I have is this: Canon 400 f/2.8 and crop a bit, or the Sigma at 500 f/2.8 natively?
> 
> Jim


My 2cents: it will be hard to find Canon shooters owning $12K Sigma lenses :

These were cropped about 30ish% in RAWs - 400mm f2.8 IS II + x2 TC III


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 23, 2015)

Jim Saunders said:


> So for a similar investment - Lens Authority has their Sigma for ~12k - it's either 400 and crop a bit or 500 natively. Given the difference in weight, is there any compelling reason to buy the Sigma? That the Sigma zooms may be disregarded for this question, I have that covered already.



I see no reason to buy Sigma. Just crop the Canon.



Dylan777 said:


> My 2cents: it will be hard to find Canon shooters owning $12K Sigma lenses :



I agree.

With US$12K, you could also get the 200-400 1.4X and get change. Guess it all depends on what you want to do with it.

I have used both Mark III TCs on the 400 and they work great and can easily be cropped - even quite heavily. It is very hard to beat the Canon 400 f/2.8 mark II, it's an amazing lens. I never even bothered to look to see if there were other non-Canon lenses in this category.


----------



## charlesa (Apr 23, 2015)

I own and second the 400 f/2.8 II. Many people had issues with image softness on the 200-400, guy who edits Reuters sports was mentioning. And I usually prefer not to go with third party lenses.


----------



## dolina (Apr 23, 2015)

Buy a Sigma and keep the company afloat. ;D


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 24, 2015)

Thank you all for the input, no surprises; considering that a used 200-500 is half its original price now I expect I would face a similar loss reselling it.

I spent a weekend with my 200-400 (please don't tell me for having one I don't need the other) and considering the two lenses are about the same size and weight I wouldn't feel bad about having to drag either around. Employing the Sigma is possible but lacking an overwhelming reason to go with a battery-operated off-brand lens that heavy the choice seems pretty clear.

Now about that high-MP 1 series body...

Jim


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 24, 2015)

Jim Saunders said:


> Employing the Sigma is possible but lacking an overwhelming reason to go with a battery-operated off-brand lens that heavy the choice seems pretty clear.
> 
> 
> Jim



I think that a lot of users have come to a similar conclusion. In the rare event that one is needed, just rent one. Apparently, few are renting them.


----------

