# Long zooms



## justawriter (Apr 15, 2013)

I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2013)

You'll want the Canon 100-400L, partly for the better IQ but mostly for the much faster AF.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 15, 2013)

justawriter said:


> I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).



You can find some of those compared to the Canon 100-400 here:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

He also has another article which compares the Sigma 50-500 OS with the Canon 100-400, where he finds the Sigma a bit sharper at one end, the Canon at the other, and the OS of the Sigma to be far worse than the IS of the Canon. He may have had a bad copy of the Sigma; the OS on mine is excellent, probably better than the Canon's (I've read reviews to the same effect). I rented the Canon and the Sigma and ended up buying the Sigma because I preferred the bokeh from the Sigma. Both struck me as being much the same otherwise (they cost about the same, too). I had no problem with slow focusing on the Sigma, but then I don't photograph fast moving things and thus didn't really test it in that way. I have no experience at all with the others on your list.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 15, 2013)

Here is a review that fits your lens choices. http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

But I have to say if I was in you shoes, I would be looking to get the best 70-200mm Canon I could and then a 1.4X or 2X teleconvrter. The Looooong zooms are just not fast enough to capture action. (fast as in f2.8 vs 5.6)


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 15, 2013)

justawriter said:


> I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).



When you print at 150 dpi halftoned IQ becomes a very secondary matter.

I'd buy the Sigma 120-400 OS HSM. Doesn't match the Canon 100-400 L, but for you intended use you'll hardly see the difference - and it costs considerably less.


----------



## yogi (Apr 15, 2013)

just a note about the juzaphoto comparisons: the sigma 50-500 is the old version without os. there is a newer version with os, and it cost more than than the 150-500.


----------

