I think it really depends on what your main target species are. If it's birds for instance, then a 500mm with at least a 1.4X convertor would be an excellent choice.
I've been using the 100-400mm lens for years and have often contemplated the same decision as yourself, i.e. whether to compliment or replace it with a 500mm. In the end I prefer to keep the 100-400mm for several reasons, it's sheer versatility to be used for a whole host of subjects, from birds (that are within reach), mammals (large and small), flowers, telephoto landscapes, travelling, hiking fair distances, hand-holdability, it's light weight,etc. etc.
Sure it would be nice to have the slight increase in image quality (particularly with a 1.4X extender attached), the faster focusing speed and the extra reach of the 500mm but it all comes down to your main subject choice and photographic priorities. For me, the benefits of the 100-400mm far outweigh those of the 500mm's (at this moment in time).
Buying a Canon 24-105mm and a Sigma 150mm or 180mm macro lens is an excellent choice, they're both superb lenses. The Canon 17-40mm lens is great too and it's focal range particularly comes into it's own on a full frame camera.
I'm not sure how often Canon 24-105mm's and the current Sigma macro lenses come on to the second hand market. I'd suspect they're quite few and far between.
Posted by Andy Astbury on February 29, 2008 at 5:16 AM
Both the Sig macro lenses you mention and the 500 are cracking lenses and well worth having.
The Sig 1.4 is an okay converter but don't bother with the 2x as it's rubbish. But before I bought the 1.4 I'd try one against the Canon 1.4.
You'll loose AF on the 500 the minute you attach a 1.4 - unless you do the pin-tapping trick.
Whilst the 24-105mm is a excellent walk around lense, the macro on it is poor. I have had 2 of these lenses and finally the last one for a 17-40mm - the extra wide is commercially different if used well.
Posted by Paul Everett on February 29, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I have all the lenses you mention, except the Sig macros, and use them and can recommend them all for different uses. Personally I really like the 100-400 (despite all the detractors and note that several of the winning shots in the WPOTY were taken with this lens) and would not part with it. So if you like flexibility keep it, otherwise the 24-105 and the 500 are both cracking and practical lenses.
Cheers
Paul
ps - my canon t/c's are also recommended
Posted by Guy Rogers on February 29, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Hello Ian.
Heres my thoughts. I have the 100-400 and im lucky I have a very sharp lens. For me this is a must for nature photographers and there is no way I would sell it. Its a must have peice of kit. The 24-105 is a beautiful lens and when used on the 5D for landscape work the images just amaze me all the time. I use the Sigma 180 for macro and I only have one thing to say about this lens and thats buy one the quality this lens can produce is amazing. I all so have Sigma 1.4 converter which works beautifully with the Sigma 180mm. I dont have the 500 I went for the Sigmonster instead. I also have the 70-200 and this is also a super lens but it is used very little these days as my 100-400 is just so good. It really depends on what you want to do, but if I was in your shoes I would go for the 24-105 and the Sigma macro. And with the 100-400 which you already have gives you a very good range of subjects to go at while you save for the 500. Its never easy and I hope you make the right choice for you.
Hi Ian, don't sell a sharp 100-400 or you'll really regret it. Not instantly, but gradually you'll miss the versatility of this lens. Mine wasn't sharp and I miss it If you can afford not to sell, I'd keep it. Sorry can't help with the lens choices but I own a 17-40 and canon 500 and still miss the 100-400
Though i was an able photographer with my 80-400 and 50-500's etc, i must admit my images have become greatly improved since i moved to the Sig 500mm. Its partly the extra 100mm but also the f4.5 and the great optics i think.
Discussion
8 repliesAt present I have a 100 - 400 LIS that seams to be sharp and that I like however I need a shorter lens, 17-40 or 24-105, and a big lens say 500.
Would a good option be to sell the 100 400 and get second hand
24-105
Sigma 150 or 180
Sigma 500
1.4 and 2 converters
This would allow macro, cover the standard range and get me the big lens but would be a bit of a pain and involve using lots of TCs
One day I could add the 70-200
Thanks
Ian Hay
PS I do like my 100 - 400
I've been using the 100-400mm lens for years and have often contemplated the same decision as yourself, i.e. whether to compliment or replace it with a 500mm. In the end I prefer to keep the 100-400mm for several reasons, it's sheer versatility to be used for a whole host of subjects, from birds (that are within reach), mammals (large and small), flowers, telephoto landscapes, travelling, hiking fair distances, hand-holdability, it's light weight,etc. etc.
Sure it would be nice to have the slight increase in image quality (particularly with a 1.4X extender attached), the faster focusing speed and the extra reach of the 500mm but it all comes down to your main subject choice and photographic priorities. For me, the benefits of the 100-400mm far outweigh those of the 500mm's (at this moment in time).
Buying a Canon 24-105mm and a Sigma 150mm or 180mm macro lens is an excellent choice, they're both superb lenses. The Canon 17-40mm lens is great too and it's focal range particularly comes into it's own on a full frame camera.
I'm not sure how often Canon 24-105mm's and the current Sigma macro lenses come on to the second hand market. I'd suspect they're quite few and far between.
The Sig 1.4 is an okay converter but don't bother with the 2x as it's rubbish. But before I bought the 1.4 I'd try one against the Canon 1.4.
You'll loose AF on the 500 the minute you attach a 1.4 - unless you do the pin-tapping trick.
Cheers
Paul
ps - my canon t/c's are also recommended
Heres my thoughts. I have the 100-400 and im lucky I have a very sharp lens. For me this is a must for nature photographers and there is no way I would sell it. Its a must have peice of kit. The 24-105 is a beautiful lens and when used on the 5D for landscape work the images just amaze me all the time. I use the Sigma 180 for macro and I only have one thing to say about this lens and thats buy one the quality this lens can produce is amazing. I all so have Sigma 1.4 converter which works beautifully with the Sigma 180mm. I dont have the 500 I went for the Sigmonster instead. I also have the 70-200 and this is also a super lens but it is used very little these days as my 100-400 is just so good. It really depends on what you want to do, but if I was in your shoes I would go for the 24-105 and the Sigma macro. And with the 100-400 which you already have gives you a very good range of subjects to go at while you save for the 500. Its never easy and I hope you make the right choice for you.
cheers
Thanks for the help
Ian
Though i was an able photographer with my 80-400 and 50-500's etc, i must admit my images have become greatly improved since i moved to the Sig 500mm. Its partly the extra 100mm but also the f4.5 and the great optics i think.