Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary Review | Dustin

[SecureGSM]

my 120-300 Sports OS module still goes strong . so far so good. Interesting though.. I am looking at the second hand Sigma 150-600 Sports lens listed with a bonus Sigma 105mm UV WR filter and Sigma USB dock at A$1,300.00 (US$1,050) for the lot. The owner is struggling to sell the lens for 2+ months. I looked at the lens and was very satisfied with the IQ, AF and OS performance but decided against the purchase as I do not shoot wildlife or air shows at all.
I belive that F6.3 is too slow for sports. What else such a lens can be useful for?

I did run FoCal with OS off.
I looked at the OS in both standard mode and Dynamic. The Dynamic definitely improved the stability of the image in the viewfinder but lowered it for the image. The OS on my 150-500mm C is much better. Mind you, the OS failed after two months and had to be replaced by Sigma.

When it comes to choosing a lens, IQ is not necessarily the most important feature, but AF and IS can be more important.

 

[AlanF]

The 150-600mm lenses are excellent for wildlife and birds, which are not moving very fast. But, if you are at a distance away where 600mm is needed, fast movement is less of a problem. There are lost of comparisons of the Sports and Contemporary - here an in-depth one https://improvephotography.com/36962/sigma-150-600mm-sport-vs-contemporary-lens-review/

Optically they are on a par, give or take sample variation, which can be great. The only real advantage of the Sports is its weather sealing. But, it is very heavy and difficult to hand hold, especially as the heaviest part is the front lens. I'd buy a new C in preference to a used S at a similar price.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The 150-600mm lenses are excellent for wildlife and birds, which are not moving very fast. But, if you are at a distance away where 600mm is needed, fast movement is less of a problem. There are lost of comparisons of the Sports and Contemporary - here an in-depth one https://improvephotography.com/36962/sigma-150-600mm-sport-vs-contemporary-lens-review/

Optically they are on a par, give or take sample variation, which can be great. The only real advantage of the Sports is its weather sealing. But, it is very heavy and difficult to hand hold, especially as the heaviest part is the front lens. I'd buy a new C in preference to a used S at a similar price.

The Sport is the better lens in terms of build and focus, but you are right about the handholding. It isn't just the weight; it is the balance. WAY too much weight too far from your body, and that makes it really tiring to use for any length of time...and I'm very fit.

 

[AlanF]

Dustin
I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWWT1e5rRkg - you are spot on with this review. It agrees with everything I have read and what I have seen first hand with 4 copies of the lens. Optically, the lens is excellent. The OS isn't that good. As you say, the image is erratic in the viewfinder and doesn't improve much with the Sigma dock. I found for one copy I tested in depth that the OS was at least one stop worse than the Canon 100-400mm II and maybe 2 stops. The AF is also slow compared with the Canon.

To me, the strengths of your reviews are how well the lenses handle in practice, their construction AF, OS etc. What I don't take seriously from any site (apart from lenrentals) is comparative optical qualities of a single copy of the lens vs a single copy of another make. You have to test the copy of the lens on sale yourself for that because of copy variation. Keep up the reviewing!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin
I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWWT1e5rRkg - you are spot on with this review. It agrees with everything I have read and what I have seen first hand with 4 copies of the lens. Optically, the lens is excellent. The OS isn't that good. As you say, the image is erratic in the viewfinder and doesn't improve much with the Sigma dock. I found for one copy I tested in depth that the OS was at least one stop worse than the Canon 100-400mm II and maybe 2 stops. The AF is also slow compared with the Canon.

To me, the strengths of your reviews are how well the lenses handle in practice, their construction AF, OS etc. What I don't take seriously from any site (apart from lenrentals) is comparative optical qualities of a single copy of the lens vs a single copy of another make. You have to test the copy of the lens on sale yourself for that because of copy variation. Keep up the reviewing!

I get what you are saying. That's a challenge that every reviewer faces, as even though I sometimes get a couple copies of a lens in it still doesn't provide a definitive view of the copy another person might get...but that's true of any review of any thing. What the Lens Rentals results don't tell you, however, is field results. Shooting 2 dimensional objects (charts) don't always give the full story of how sharp field results will be. That's one reason why many Zeiss lenses do so well in real world shooting;' they handle 3 dimensional objects really, really well.

 

[AlanF]

I like combining your reviews on how the lens handles in the field with the sum total of all the reports on sharpness etc, then if the lens looks good, try out a copy or two in the local store and choose a good one. I have been very tempted to add the Sigma 100-400mm to my kit, but in the end the sheer overall quality, speed of AF, IS etc of the Canon 100-400mm II make it too good not to take with me when travelling light for the sake of a pound in weight.

Also, I agree with you that the omission of the tripod ring is quite serious because in addition to tripod mounting I like anchoring camera and lens to a Blackrapid strap by two connectors (for safety, if one comes loose, and to spread the load). Sigma could have used a simple foot like on the EF to M adaptor that just screws on to the bottom.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I like combining your reviews on how the lens handles in the field with the sum total of all the reports on sharpness etc, then if the lens looks good, try out a copy or two in the local store and choose a good one. I have been very tempted to add the Sigma 100-400mm to my kit, but in the end the sheer overall quality, speed of AF, IS etc of the Canon 100-400mm II make it too good not to take with me when travelling light for the sake of a pound in weight.

Also, I agree with you that the omission of the tripod ring is quite serious because in addition to tripod mounting I like anchoring camera and lens to a Blackrapid strap by two connectors (for safety, if one comes loose, and to spread the load). Sigma could have used a simple foot like on the EF to M adaptor that just screws on to the bottom.

Exactly. I've had one viewer who reports successfully adding a tripod collar, but that was a DIY job that few will imitate.

 

[AlanF]

I have just tested a fifth copy of the 100-400, with a view to buying. The results on all 5 are consistent, and I'll briefly compare with my Canon 100-400mm II and Sigma 150-600mm C at 400mm.
From FoCal, the quality of focus (QoF) of copy copy 5 is the same as copy 4 at 1750, compared with 2150 for my Canon and 2050 for the big Sigma. The astigmatism was -7%, compared with -1 (or closer to 0) for the Canon and big Sigma and the very large -10-17% for the previous Sigma 100-400. For fine detail from charts, the Sigma 100-400 was nearly as sharp as the others in the centre and less contrasty but better than them in the extreme edges.

The real bummer that has finally persuaded me not to buy now and give up searching further is the OS. On a tripod the lens is fine, as for all the other copies I have looked at. But, hand held it is too wobbly for me. I am not looking at the gross shake as reported on most sites but the blurring of fine detail on charts, which mimics feather detail for birds. At 12m distance, 1/250s was not clean and I had to go to faster than 1/320s. At 20m from the same target, there was blurring at 1/1000s. This is similar behaviour to the other 4 copies so it looks like the OS is generally poor. The Sigma 150-600mm C and Canon 100-400mm, as I have reported earlier, have excellent 1S/OS at 1/100s.

The Sigma 100-400mm is a nice lens for general use and its flat field excellent for landscapes, but for those who need to crop and want fine detail, the OS is a serious drawback (as well the slow AF for action).

 

[SecureGSM]

Alan,

Thanks for your insides. Amen to that.. This lens was designed with non-advanced enthusiasts in mind. It is not what you are looking for obviously.

 

[AlanF]

Alan,

Thanks for your insides. Amen to that.. This lens was designed with non-advanced enthusiasts in mind. It is not what you are looking for obviously.

If it had as good IS (OS or VC) as the 150-600mms from Sigma and Tamron, I would have snapped it up. Sigma has done a really good job on the optics, but I think there is a design fault in the OS of the 100-400 that doesn't dampen low amplitude vertical vibrations.

 

[Talys]

Thanks, Dustin for the excellent review, and Alan for your comments.

I am in the market for a 100-400, and was waiting for the next time there's a great price on them. I currently own the 150-600 Sigma C, which I think is a great lens, but it's too heavy to conveniently take handheld shots for an extended time, and too cumbersome for BIF. Plus, the MFD is pretty far (about 10ft or so, I think).

After watching the first half of Dustin's review, I was definitely intrigued but a few things stopped me from seriously considering it. However, being primarily interested in a handheld lens for BIF, I have decided to pass and stay the course for a Canon L.

To me, the $800 price point for a lens is a difficult one. On one hand, it's too expensive to just buy for the heck of it, if I'm only going to very rarely use it -- unlike the litany of EFS lenses that I've purchased just because they were cool. On the other, if I'm going to really use it, how far does it fall short of the best solution out there, and at what price difference? Realistically, the 100-400L is about 2.5x the price, which sounds like a lot, but I think it's worth it for the AF purposes that I want and the wider aperture.

The 1.4x TC on it also puts it over the top.

There's also resalability -- the Canon lenses are just way, way easier to get rid of if I decide to move on or upgrade to something else (not that there's much to upgrade to, from 100-400L).

 

[Talys]

Well, I pulled the trigger on a 100-400 today.

I tried the Sigma 100-400 today in the store, and after a couple of hours and much agonizing, I ended up buying the Canon 100-400.

It wasn't easy, mostly because the Sigma is SO much cheaper. Comparing photos between this and the Canon, and then looking at the results on a PC, I couldn't tell which camera took which photo, even magnified to 200%.
I thought the Sigma photos were very sharp, and the lens felt really nice in my hands. Ultimately, however, I bought the Canon because of many non-top-line factors. The first two were the most important non-top-line considerations:

* The minimum focus distance on the Sigma is 6.3ft; on the Canon it's 3.5ft. That's a huge difference on subjects like hummingbirds. Also, it opens up a lot more opportunities to blur out the background (400mm @ 5.6 @ close range).

* AF compatibility with 1.4xTC

- The canon locking collar is really excellent. You can lock the zoom at any level, instead of just at minimum zoom. It's also a collar, instead of a switch like the Sigma.

- At least on the copies I was testing, the AF on the Canon felt quicker and more confident.

- Tripod mount is a thing. I want to handhold this lens, but the option, if not critical, is certainly a consideration. Plus, the 100-400 has a really nice tripod collar/mount, with the detachable foot.

- IS mode 3 - this is where IS doesn't kick in until the moment the sensor is going to capture the image. I have no idea how well this works in practice, but it sounds like a lovely idea.

- The Canon 100-400L really does feel awesomely engineered. It's the difference between premium and ultra-premium.

- The Canon comes with a really nice lens hood. with a little door that lets you slide open and adjust polarizers. Ok, I will probably use this.. never... but it's still cool.

- Resale: should I decide to sell it, the Canon will barely depreciate.

And of course, there were top-line features; the wider aperture being by far the most important. I tried the AF thing with the subject moving towards me, and I didn't have a problem with either, but I will take the review at its word that when it's a fast moving object (like a dog), this becomes an issue. Not a big deal for me.

At the end of the day, I don't think I would have gone wrong with either, but the 100-400L is definitely a more premium lens (with the accompanying price tag). I don't think I would have been unhappy with the Sigma, but I knew I would always wonder if I would have loved the Canon more.

On the subject of price, and not that it was relevant to my decision, I was kind of stunned at the price difference between Sony and Canon lenses. With a little store discount for being a regular, the Canon came out to about $1,950 USD (about $100 less than Amazon US price). The Sony was like, $2,500!