Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 first (?) review

[andrei1989]

i found maybe the first review of this lens, which i'm considering buying

http://www.diyphotography.net/sigmas-new-100-400mm-f5-6-3-dg-hsm-os-contemporary-lens-small-fast-strong-sharp/

unfortunately...nothing about tracking moving subjects or focus consistency...only that focus is fast and, from the sample images, the lens seems very sharp

 

[AlanF]

There was an earlier and better review by cameralabs
https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-os-review/

His copy is as sharp in the centre as his Nikon 80-400 (which doesn't have a very good reputation for IQ).

and lenstip has sample photos with birds at 400mm which show good, but not outstanding sharpness of their copy
http://www.lenstip.com/2232-news-Sigma_C_100-400_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_-_sample_gallery.html

I am going to test one when the local shop gets one in as I like the idea of a light lens. But, there is a really big no no in the absence of tripod ring and it looks like no space to fit one. I think it essential for strap users to have two anchor points for carrying the camera in case one fails and not to put all the wait on the camera body.

 

[andrei1989]

thanks for the links

considering the nikon is 3 times the price of the sigma and only a 3rd stop faster, having the same sharpness is a great achievment from sigma

i would have liked to see some samples on a crop sensor camera...7d2 or 80d or d500..

 

[9VIII]

Sigma needs to make a 500f5.6 Prime.

Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.
After looking at another five or six reviews of the Tamron 150-600 G2 (the most appealing lens from an overall design perspective, as well as being noticeably better than the G1), and various shootouts, the best conclusion that I can come to is still that everything in this price range is still practically equivalent, and even a small improvement in distance to target will outweigh all the benefits of bigger/longer/newer lenses.

The only way any manufacturer is going to make significant progress is if they go back to basics and do what we all know works. Get rid of the zoom and make something designed from the ground up to do one thing.

 

[andrei1989]

Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.

seriously? ???
first is at f6.3, second is at f8...cropped to ~100%
are we not looking at the same photos?
do you have some kind of 100" 8k screen you're viewing these on and they're soft?

 

[9VIII]

Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.

seriously? ???
first is at f6.3, second is at f8...cropped to ~100%
are we not looking at the same photos?
do you have some kind of 100" 8k screen you're viewing these on and they're soft?

We have no idea what range those images were taken from, at MFD everything looks good.

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/can100-400II/can100-400_fot18.JPG

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig100-400C/sig100-400_fot27.JPG

I was looking at stuff like this, but then I realised that not everyone automatically shoots everything at 400mm on a zoom lens.

If it's soft at 100mm that's mostly fine as far as I'm concerned.
I haven't found a good comparison at maximum zoom yet.

 

[AlanF]

Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.

seriously? ???
first is at f6.3, second is at f8...cropped to ~100%
are we not looking at the same photos?
do you have some kind of 100" 8k screen you're viewing these on and they're soft?

We have no idea what range those images were taken from, at MFD everything looks good.

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/can100-400II/can100-400_fot18.JPG

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig100-400C/sig100-400_fot27.JPG

I was looking at stuff like this, but then I realised that not everyone automatically shoots everything at 400mm on a zoom lens.

If it's soft at 100mm that's mostly fine as far as I'm concerned.
I haven't found a good comparison at maximum zoom yet.

Those are huge crops. At that close distance they should be tack sharp, and they are not. It's the type of sharpness I get at 25-50% of that size. I had a chance this morning to check out the Sigma. See next.

 

[AlanF]

GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING - SHOTS FROM ONLY ONE COPY OF A LENS

The Sigma rep visited the local store this morning and I was able to use the Sigma 100-400mm for a few minutes and took some shots of a target I usually use for testing lens - a flagpole on a roof. The lens wasn't AFMAed, but the target has 3D aspects and you can tell if it is out of focus. I took 20 shots, and then compared them with the Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm, the Canon 400mm DO II, and the Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm, 500mm and 600mm. All were on the 5DSR, wide open at 1/4000s or faster.

First, the target:

 

[AlanF]

Centre crops, RAW converted with DxO and USM of 0.9px 100% applied (to all).
Sigma 100-400 400mm top.
Canon 100-400mm next
Canon DO 400mm next
Sigma 150-600 C at 388mm bottom.

 

[AlanF]

For comparison, the Sigma 150-600mm at 500mm top, and 600mm bottom.
All have to be downloaded to compare.

 

[andrei1989]

nice comparison
thanks for posting.
to me it seems the sigma is only very slightly less sharp than the canon 100-400, but i think i also notice a slight change in lighting: the canon shot had more direct sunlight, am i right?

curious..but the sigma 150-600 is the worst at 388mm...

 

[AlanF]

nice comparison
thanks for posting.
to me it seems the sigma is only very slightly less sharp than the canon 100-400, but i think i also notice a slight change in lighting: the canon shot had more direct sunlight, am i right?

curious..but the sigma 150-600 is the worst at 388mm...

The Sigma 100-400 is the worst. Both the Canon 100-400mm and Sigma 150-600mm at 400mm (or close) are sharper. Look, for example, in the downloaded images at the vertical ropes by the pole. More of the detail is lost by the small Sigma. There are some changes in lighting but I have chosen the best image for the Sigma, irrespective of the lighting.

The big Sigma at 600mm gives much fine detail.

 

[AlanF]

Just checked the extreme left of the Sigma 100-400mm. It's very impressively sharp, possibly better than the other lenses.

 

[unfocused]

Thanks AlanF.

I have a feeling I'll be watching the Black Friday/Pre-Christmas sales for this lens. It would be nice to have a slightly lighter 100-400 zoom and would also make for better domestic relations to have two 100-400 options in the household.

 

[AlanF]

Looking back over the photos of birds posted from the lenstip/optoczyne site, I feel that they either were poorly taken or they had a poor copy. I look forward to more reviews.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Sigma needs to make a 500f5.6 Prime.

Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.
After looking at another five or six reviews of the Tamron 150-600 G2 (the most appealing lens from an overall design perspective, as well as being noticeably better than the G1), and various shootouts, the best conclusion that I can come to is still that everything in this price range is still practically equivalent, and even a small improvement in distance to target will outweigh all the benefits of bigger/longer/newer lenses.

The only way any manufacturer is going to make significant progress is if they go back to basics and do what we all know works. Get rid of the zoom and make something designed from the ground up to do one thing.

This - absolutely!

 

[Cochese]

Though I haven't used this yet, I feel like it's not any sharper than Canon's 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. And with that lens, I get a bit more light all the way through. And you can usually find them used for about the same price.

 

[AlanF]

TDP has published the IQ of its copy. Slightly less sharp and more CA throughout the range than the Canon 100-400mm II. Here is the comparison at f/6.3 for both so diffraction is the same.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1120&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

It's a pretty good lens.

 

[andrei1989]

that's pretty impressive...
i was expecting the sigma to be somewhere near canon's first version..

 

[chrysoberyl]

that's pretty impressive...
i was expecting the sigma to be somewhere near canon's first version..

My resolution expectations were higher than these results. But I may rent it at some point, just to see whether Sigma has resolved its AF inconsistency problems.