sigma 100-300+1.4 or 100-400 IS? (1 Viewer)

[JeroenW]

I'm about to take my photography to a new lever and update to DSLR from a panasonic FZ50. I'm thinking about buying the 30d for it's build and 5fps cuntinious shooting (40d is a little obove my budget I'm afraid). Since wildlife photography is my main thing I was looking about my options on the "lensmarket". I've been searching for lenses and combo's in the € 1000,- category. And found the following to be used most frequently:

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


If I've been reading the reviews correctly in terms of sharpness the prime wins hands down while the 100-400 zoom has IS to offer for better performance shooting at low light conditions without a tri/monopod.

It's hard for me to choose between the two of them since I like my new combo to be top sharp and a love a little flexibility (zooming) as well.

I was browsing the sigma lenses to just to see what options they could offer and I found the 100-300 F4. Reviews at fred and miranda where very very optimistic about this lens. People claimed this sigma was competing with their primes for sharpness! Even with the 1.4 extender quality is great! Best zoom ever made by sigma...

To me the sigma+1.4 extender sounds lake a great combo. Being a regular poster on the pany-forum my hopes where good on finding some spectacular pics posted on the canon section made by this combo... I wasn't able to find a lot though. So finally my question to you guys. What's the catch about the Sigma 100-300 F4? Sharp as a prime, good and fast focus and pretty good build! What am I not seeing?

Hope to see some pics from birders from the different lenses.

Gr Jeroen

 

[postcardcv]

I am lucky enough to have own the Sigma 100-300 f4 and both the Canon 100-400 IS and the Canon 400 f5.6 prime.

In theory the Sigma with the constant f4 and the HSM should be very fast focusing and in good light it is, however as the light starts to go the AF slows somewhat and it is prone to hunting. When you add a 1.4x tc the focusing is noticely slower and it hunts a lot more. In my experience the 100-400 focuses a bit slower than the Sigma in really good conditions, but in low light the Canon has the edge. I also found that the 100-400 hunts a lot less and tends to snap into focus even in very low light. Then there's the prime... this is defintely the fastest focusing of the three options.

As for image quality, the Sigma is a very good lens, but it falls a fair way short of either of the Canons. The Sigma can deliver good results, but (as with the focusing) it needs really good light to perform at it's best. I have found that in real situations the Canon's give sharper images with much punchier colours. Both Canon's perform very well, but (with my copies) the prime has a definite edge, to be honest it is as sharp as my 500 f4.

 

[GYRob]

Sigma are about to release some new lenses with OS one is a 150 to 500 zoom it might be worth waiting for the reviews on them .
Agree the 400f5.6 is a super sharp lens.
Rob.

 

[JSD]

I'm about to take my photography to a new lever and update to DSLR from a panasonic FZ50. I'm thinking about buying the 30d for it's build and 5fps cuntinious shooting (40d is a little obove my budget I'm afraid). Since wildlife photography is my main thing I was looking about my options on the "lensmarket". I've been searching for lenses and combo's in the € 1000,- category. And found the following to be used most frequently:

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


If I've been reading the reviews correctly in terms of sharpness the prime wins hands down while the 100-400 zoom has IS to offer for better performance shooting at low light conditions without a tri/monopod.

It's hard for me to choose between the two of them since I like my new combo to be top sharp and a love a little flexibility (zooming) as well.

I was browsing the sigma lenses to just to see what options they could offer and I found the 100-300 F4. Reviews at fred and miranda where very very optimistic about this lens. People claimed this sigma was competing with their primes for sharpness! Even with the 1.4 extender quality is great! Best zoom ever made by sigma...

To me the sigma+1.4 extender sounds lake a great combo. Being a regular poster on the pany-forum my hopes where good on finding some spectacular pics posted on the canon section made by this combo... I wasn't able to find a lot though. So finally my question to you guys. What's the catch about the Sigma 100-300 F4? Sharp as a prime, good and fast focus and pretty good build! What am I not seeing?

Hope to see some pics from birders from the different lenses.

Gr Jeroen

Hi Jeroen, I have the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG APO lens with 1.4tc and find it to be very good. I firmly believe when compared to the Canon 100-400 it is every bit a good if not better. One of the main advantages of the Sigma 100-300mm lens is it is at a constant length throughout its operation, unlike the Canon 100-400 (sometimes known as the pump due to its 'in out action'). This construction/operation helps againt the ingress of dust.
I have had the Sigma lens for around 18 months and have no hesitation in recommending it.
Search JSD for examples of shots taken.
JSD

 

[Roy C]

As Rob has indicated, it could be well worth waiting to see how well the new sigma 150-500 OS turns out. BTW I have the 400mm 5.6 prime and it is super sharp with very quick AF.

 

[websurfer]

As Rob has indicated, it could be well worth waiting to see how well the new sigma 150-500 OS turns out. BTW I have the 400mm 5.6 prime and it is super sharp with very quick AF.

Do you miss the IS function on the EF 400mm f/5.6? or I can put it another way - how important do you think OS is on the new Sigmas comming up soon? at 200mm my experience is that IS doesn´t make any BIG difference..

 

[Roy C]

Do you miss the IS function on the EF 400mm f/5.6? or I can put it another way - how important do you think OS is on the new Sigmas comming up soon? at 200mm my experience is that IS doesn´t make any BIG difference..

I certainly have no problems hand holding my 400mm f5.6 and getting sharp shots (see my Gallery, almost all hand held) I use ISO 400 as standard and do 99% of my shooting in and around my local estuary which means that I can almost always get 1/500s or faster which I find is enough for my technique to get sharp shots. I shoot a lot of flyers and the shutter speeds can be around 1/2000 sec when shooting against the sky.
I could be interested in the new Sigma purely for the extra reach, I doubt if I would ever use it at less then 500mm so it is the long end IQ which I will be judging it. Not sure if I would be able to hand hold as it is a fair bit heavier than the 400mm f5.6 but if I could then OS would be useful I am sure. My thoughts at the moment is that I would use it with a monopod.
I must say at this stage that I am not that optimistic that the IQ will be that good compared with the Canon tele's but you never know I might be pleasantly suprised.
My ideal lens for reach and weight (a big factor for me) would be a 500mm f5.6 but there ain't any around.

 

[websurfer]

yes, it certainly will be exciting to hear the first user reports of these new Sigma lenses.