Am I being a Snob??

[Meadster]

Given that I have gotten tired of rolling this idea around in my head, I thought I'd throw it out to all of you for your useful opinions!

I'm in the market for a high quality super telephoto lens. I already have a Canon 70-200 2.8L which I love. For this lens I'm looking for the 400 mm+ range to be able to shoot more birds & wildlife.

I've narrowed things down to the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L and the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3. Having read reviews and looked at opinions I am torn. I want the extra reach the 500mm would give me on my Canon 50D body, but I have never owned a Sigma lens and the fact that it's "not Canon" worries me with regard to quality issues.

What I need to hear from the DPS community is if I am being overly "snobbish" or do I have reason to be wary of the Sigma name.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I've heard a lot of people liking the "Bigma".

Frankly, I think you'd be more of a snob if you only had to have 2.8 lenses, like me

[Meadster]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

I've heard a lot of people liking the "Bigma".

Frankly, I think you'd be more of a snob if you only had to have 2.8 lenses, like me

Max, if I had the $$$ for go for a 400+ lens @ 2.8 I'd gobble it up! Until the lotto comes through, I'll have to toil in the darkness of 4.5!

[PowerPix]

I also hear that the "bigma" is very well liked.

Originally Posted by Meadster

Max, if I had the $$$ for go for a 400+ lens @ 2.8 I'd gobble it up! Until the lotto comes through, I'll have to toil in the darkness of 4.5!

AHHH!! Mr. Blindman!!

I'd personally save for the 2.8, but that's me. I've had too many instances of being let down by inferior lenses not being able to perform.

~Eric

[Niresangwa]

I've had a couple of Sigma lenses, and really liked them. Only reason I replaced them was I wanted the complete weather sealing by using DA* lenses.

Optics were great, build quality was really good.

Having said that, one of the reasons I think the Bigma has such a decent reputation is because for many people its the only option. I can easily see where such a great all-encompassing focal range would be really appealing though, especially for the things you shoot.

[Meadster]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

AHHH!! Mr. Blindman!!

I'd personally save for the 2.8, but that's me. I've had too many instances of being let down by inferior lenses not being able to perform.

~Eric

I agree with you in principle, but if I do that on a teachers salary in the current economy I'll be too old & frail to carry the damn thing when I finally get done saving the $$$..

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

AHHH!! Mr. Blindman!!

I'd personally save for the 2.8, but that's me. I've had too many instances of being let down by inferior lenses not being able to perform.

~Eric

Too bad a 600/2.8 is nowhere to be found

[faeriegodess612]

Hey, I know this is completely off topic, but I was wondering how much snow Dallas and upper TX got. We just got flurries and ice here in Killeen.

[dlambert]

I've heard that people really like the "bigma", but if I were going to lay out that kind of money on a lens, I think I'd rent one or both of them first to see for myself.