Photography by Mario Severi

Home - Gallery - Reviews - Links - Recent - Contact -

Canon 100-400 vs. Canon 400 L vs Bigma

One of most frequently asked questions in photography must be "which affordable tele lens should I buy". If you are shooting Canon gear, the options often mentioned, are the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM (Canon 100-400),  Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L (Canon 400) and Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM (Bigma). So, when I was in the market for a tele lens for birding, I had to make  the same choice and at the end, I got all three lenses because I couldn't choose and kept wondering which one was best.

Having all three lenses however was an excellent opportunety to compare them to each-other to see which lens suited best my type of photography.  So I set up a small, simpel test to compare these 3 lenses (+ the canons with a 1.4x convertor with the pins taped).  As with all tests, some people will say my test is flawed, badly executed, biased, too simple, too complicated or whathever and I'm not going to argue with them; instead I invite them to set up their own - better -  test and put it on the internet. I don't have the intention to make the ultimate test, I just want to test these lenses for my type of photography.  So it's good to keep in mind I'm using a Canon 20D (prehistorical if you read the forums) and that I mainly shoot jpg (raw only very occasionally).  But then again, test conditions are the same for all three lenses.

As a test object, I selected the jeans-trousered yellow kangaroo, a very common species in my neck of the woods ;-).

The distance to the subject was 5 meters, simply because that's the distance I try to have when in a hide. I shot from a tripod, using ISO100, AWB, one shot AF, a remote control and mirror lock-up.  Test pictures were taken with the aperture wide open (F5.6 for the Canons and the Bigma at 400 mm, F6.3 for the Bigma at 500 mm and F8 for the Canons with 1.4x convertor) and at F8 (F11 for the Canons with 1.4x convertor).

I seldom print my pictures, most of the time I look at them on a LCD screen.  So in this test, I only looked at pictures on my screen and did no printing at all. Analysis of the pictures was done with my mkI eyeball.

First, let's take a look at the complete pictures (in fact the most sensible thing to do) taken with the aperture wide open. Photo's are resized to 900x600 pixels since I use this format (and even smaller) often when showing pictures to other people. If you want to see full resolution pictures, there is a link at the end of this article.

Results wide open (click on the picture for 900x600 image)

At the size of the thumbnails above, all pictures look good.  However, looking at the 900x600 format, it is clear that the Bigma produces much softer images at 400 and 500 mm with the aperture wide open than the Canons.  Both Canons give a much crisper picture and even with the 1.4x convertor, they still produce very useable pictures. The Canon 100-400 gets a little bit softer with the convertor but is still beating the Bigma by a fair margin. The image quality of the Canon 400 prime with convertor remains on a high level with no hint of softness in the picture. I would not hesitate to use both Canons with a 1.4x convertor with the aperture wide open if needed. 

Did you notice the jeans-trousered yellow kangaroo looks smaller on the Canon 100-400 picture than on the Canon 400 picture ?  I'll come back to this further in this article.

Let's see what happens if we close the aperture by 1 stop (or 2/3 stop for the Bigma at 500 mm).

Results at F8 or F11 (with 1.4x) (click on the picture for 900x600 image)

Canon 100-400, F8		Canon 400, F8		Bigma 400 mm (417 mm), F8
Canon 100-400 , 1.4x (560 mm), F11		Canon 400, 1.4x (560 mm), F11		Bigma 500 mm, F8

The effect of closing the aperture by about 1 stop is spectacular with the Bigma.  The softness of the pictures disappears completely at both 400 mm and 500 mm.  All pictures are now sharp and crisp having all a similar image quality. There's not much difference left.

Now, let's do some pixel peeping !

100 % crops of the center of the image, aperture wide open

Looking at 100 % crops of the center of the pictures taken with the aperture wide open, we come to the same conclusion as before.  The Bigma produces a much softer picture than both Canons.  Comparing the Canons at 100 %, we can now see that the 100-400 is slighly softer than the 400 prime, but this will hardly be noticeble when looking at the whole picture. We now also see that the pictures taken with the 1.4x convertor are getting softer, more so for the 100-400 zoom.

Let's do the same exercise with the aperture closed by 1 stop (or 2/3 stop for the Bigma at 500 mm).

100 % crops of the center of the image, aperture F8 or F11 (with 1.4x)

Canon 100-400, F8		Canon 400, F8		Bigma 400 mm (417 mm), F8
Canon 100-400 , 1.4x (560 mm), F11		Canon 400, 1.4x (560 mm), F11		Bigma 500 mm, F8

Again, we see the confirmation that the Bigma benifits dramatically from closing the aperture a bit. Also the Canon 100-400 benefits a bit from stopping down one stop and loses the hint of softness present in the picture at F5.6.  The Canon 400 prime was already crisp at F5.6 so there's hardly any improvement when closing the aperture. It is clear that all three lenses are capable of producing similar pictures when stopped down a little bit.

During all this testing, I noticed that despite the fact that I took pictures at 400 mm, not all pictures were showing the subject equally big. So 400 mm doesn't seem to equal 400 mm ;-). If I take the 400 mm of the Canon 400 as the reference, than the 400 mm of the Canon 100-400 is only about 375 mm.  The same goes for the Bigma were 400 mm (exif says 417 mm) is also about 375 mm and 500 mm is about 460 mm.  Suprisingly, I also had a Canon 70-300 IS some time ago, and compared to the 400 mm of the Canon 400 prime,  the 300 mm of the 70-300 was even slighly more  than 300 mm (about 315 mm).

My conclusions

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L

The image quality of the Canon 400 prime is the best of the 3 lenses tested. The lens produces sharp pictures, even with the aperture wide open, and takes a 1.4x convertor without much consequences on the image quality.

It's relatively small and lightweight for a telelens and has a build in sunshade which is very convenient.

The lens has no IS so unless there's a lot of light, I use a monopod to avoid motion blur.

Ofcourse it lacks the flexibility of a zoom and IS would make it complete but it's hard to beat its image quality. So if you don't want any compromise regarding image quality, this is the lens to get (out of the 3 lenses tested).

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

The image quality of the Canon 100-400 is very close to the Canon 400 prime and if you don't pixel peep or print big, you'll be challenged to see much difference  between both. Allthough the penalty of using a 1.4x convertor is bigger than with the prime (no suprise), it still delivers a decent picture with the convertor.

The push/pull design of the zoom is said to be inconvenient but I don't find that a problem at all. It even makes the lens rather compact when zoomed in.

The zoom range gives it much more flexibility than the prime and the IS is a major advantage.  Even if the pictures of the Canon 100-400 have a hint of softness when shot wide open, the IS compensates for this small shortcoming when light is less than ideal and even might give you sharp pictures when the other 2 lenses would only give you blurry pictures.  I have got sharp pictures of static objects when shooting offhand at 1/100 s and 400 mm which I would never be able to get with both non-IS lenses in this test unless using a tripod.

My major gripe with this lens is that it doesn't seem to be 400 mm but rather 375 mm at the distance I tested.

However, the combination of image quality, zoom range and IS makes this lens a very desirable package. If you looking for an allround telezoom lens without any significant weaknesses, give this lens a closer look.

Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM

The Bigma produces softer images than both Canons wide open but once stopped down, image quality is very comparable with the Canons. 

It's biggest plus is its 10x zoom range starting at 50 mm up to 500 mm.  Even if the 500 mm isn't really 500 mm but rather 460 mm, it still has a reach advantage over the Canons. Ofcourse it would also benefit from IS which would make the lens far more useable in less than ideal light. 

It's also cheaper than the Canons, and more so on the secondhand market, so you can get a lot of lens for your money.

Having all three lenses is definately overkill.  However, I do see the benefit of having the prime together with a zoom.  In my case I will keep both the Canon 400 prime and the Canon 100-400 zoom to have best of both worlds.  The Bigma, while being a more than useable lens, will probably be sold.

So far for this test.  Please note that the conclusions I made are based on my type of photography and that they only apply to the 3 particular  lenses I tested. Your lenses might be better (or worse) than mine as quality can vary, even in L-lenses.

November 20, 2009 by Mario Severi

Links to full resolution pictures:

Canon 100-400, F5.6

Canon 400, F5.6

Bigma 400 mm (417 mm), F5.6

Canon 100-400 , 1.4x (560 mm), F8

Canon 400, 1.4x (560 mm), F8

Bigma 500 mm, F6.3

Canon 100-400, F8

Canon 400, F8

Bigma 400 mm (417 mm), F8

Canon 100-400 , 1.4x (560 mm), F11

Canon 400, 1.4x (560 mm), F11

Bigma 500 mm, F8