I'm looking at renting a lens-- either the Canon 100-400 or the Sigma 50-500 -- for a safari in South Africa.
I saw an earlier thread discussing this comparison, which apparently was before the Sigma lens with stabilization came out. The consensus seemed to be that the Canon was better, primarily because it had image stabilization and the Sigma did not.
Now that they both do, which do you think would be better?
Bennett,
Consider what Safari tour you are taking and how close the wild life will be. In some places, one goes pretty close, other times lions might be on the other side of a river bank. What body will you have. If it's a
1DII or higher, then you have extra reach as if you had X 1.3 so the 100-400 is like 130 to 520mm, a nice range.
The Canon 100-400 f4.5-f32 is a very good lens and you will be happy with the result. You can use a x1.4 extender (and lose a stop of light and rely on just the central autofocus point only)
Note from B&H
"When [the x1.4 extender]attached to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens, the Image Stabilizer (IS) will not work with the following EOS cameras: 650, 630, 620, 600, RT, 700, 750, 850, 1, A2, A3, 10S, Elan, Rebel, Rebel II, Rebel S and Rebel SII."
I've heard great things about the "Bigma" and also the teleconverters that go with it. It does weigh in at 4.34 lb, v. just 3lb for the Canon 100-400.
I think you might need two cameras anyway, since you will want to get the scene when there are a pride of lions right by you or a herd of wilderbeast!
You can't do as well with the long heavy lenses. A 24-105 or a 24-70 would make more sense
but again, what camera body will you have?
A G11 or a Ricoh with the 50mm lens unit is a great idea for your pocket.
So in summary, what bodies do you have and what will you do with the pictures?
Asher
