Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary Review | Dustin

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi everyone,

Today I went live with both my written and video reviews of the new Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary lens. It is a much better lens than I expected – pleasantly surprised!

Video Review: http://bit.ly/100400CDA
Text Review: http://bit.ly/100400CDLA
Image Gallery: http://bit.ly/100400CIG

I did a head to head comparison with the 100-400L II with surprising results: http://bit.ly/100400CIQ.

I'll release a short APS-C segment after reviewing it on an 80D next week.

 

[Don Haines]

Very surprising! The Sigma is one nice lens!

Thank you for the review....

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Very surprising! The Sigma is one nice lens!

Thank you for the review....

You bet!

 

[Don Haines]

Have you had a chance to try the Sigma 20F1.4 yet?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Have you had a chance to try the Sigma 20F1.4 yet?

I reviewed it last year: http://bit.ly/1q90Dsh

 

[drjlo]

Very surprising! The Sigma is one nice lens!

"Autofocus accuracy is a strength rather than weakness for this lens."

Hmm, and it's a nice price..

 

[BeenThere]

Dustin,
From the review, it sounds like you prefer this Sigma to the Canon 100-400 II. Are you swapping for the Sigma in your personal kit and pocketing some coin?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,
From the review, it sounds like you prefer this Sigma to the Canon 100-400 II. Are you swapping for the Sigma in your personal kit and pocketing some coin?

That's definitely not my conclusion, and I'm surprised you read that in. The Sigma does have a few optical advantages in certain situations, but the Canon has a much more robust AF system and build. It is more of a professional grade lens than the Sigma. That being said, for those on a budget (and that don't need premium AF tracking performance), the Sigma is a fantastic value.

 

[Cory]

With a 70-300L on my wish list might this be a consideration instead (on a 6D)?

8)

 

[BeenThere]

Dustin,
From the review, it sounds like you prefer this Sigma to the Canon 100-400 II. Are you swapping for the Sigma in your personal kit and pocketing some coin?

That's definitely not my conclusion, and I'm surprised you read that in. The Sigma does have a few optical advantages in certain situations, but the Canon has a much more robust AF system and build. It is more of a professional grade lens than the Sigma. That being said, for those on a budget (and that don't need premium AF tracking performance), the Sigma is a fantastic value.

I had only watched the direct comparison video when I made my comment. Went back now and watched the general review video and can see the issue with ai servo focus compared to the Canon. Still the Sigma is a great value in this FL range.
[/quote]

 

[AlanF]

This morning, the local store got in another two copies, and I was hoping to buy one after testing. On the 5DSR and using a tripod, one copy was so so and the other was superb optically, from centre to edges at 400mm. But even at very high shutter speeds of about 1/4000s, the image quality deteriorated a bit hand held. At speeds of 1/160s and 1/250s, there was significant camera shake in the standard OS mode, which improved somewhat on reprogramming with the Sigma dock to dynamic OS (which I find best for my 150-600mm C). It was still noticeable and unsatisfactory. Cameralabs had noted in its review: "Its biggest let-down is the missing tripod collar and most importantly the disappointing OS performance: it is not very effective around 1/100 sec and 1/50 sec which is a critical range of shutter speeds for such a lens."

I thought maybe it was because they had used a Nikon 810, which has problems with some Nikkor lenses. My 100-400mm II has no IS problems at those shutter speeds. So, disappointingly, I had to return both copies and will be travelling with the heavier Canon 100-400mm II tomorrow.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This morning, the local store got in another two copies, and I was hoping to buy one after testing. On the 5DSR and using a tripod, one copy was so so and the other was superb optically, from centre to edges at 400mm. But even at very high shutter speeds of about 1/4000s, the image quality deteriorated a bit hand held. At speeds of 1/160s and 1/250s, there was significant camera shake in the standard OS mode, which improved somewhat on reprogramming with the Sigma dock to dynamic OS (which I find best for my 150-600mm C). It was still noticeable and unsatisfactory. Cameralabs had noted in its review: "Its biggest let-down is the missing tripod collar and most importantly the disappointing OS performance: it is not very effective around 1/100 sec and 1/50 sec which is a critical range of shutter speeds for such a lens."

I thought maybe it was because they had used a Nikon 810, which has problems with some Nikkor lenses. My 100-400mm II has no IS problems at those shutter speeds. So, disappointingly, I had to return both copies and will be travelling with the heavier Canon 100-400mm II tomorrow.

That's interesting, and not something I really observed. I had concluded from field use that I liked the behavior of the Canon IS better, but when I did head to head testing I still felt the same but discovered the actual results weren't much different.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,
From the review, it sounds like you prefer this Sigma to the Canon 100-400 II. Are you swapping for the Sigma in your personal kit and pocketing some coin?

That's definitely not my conclusion, and I'm surprised you read that in. The Sigma does have a few optical advantages in certain situations, but the Canon has a much more robust AF system and build. It is more of a professional grade lens than the Sigma. That being said, for those on a budget (and that don't need premium AF tracking performance), the Sigma is a fantastic value.

I had only watched the direct comparison video when I made my comment. Went back now and watched the general review video and can see the issue with ai servo focus compared to the Canon. Still the Sigma is a great value in this FL range.

[/quote]

Ahh, that explains it. There's obviously a lot more to a lens than image quality, though the Sigma does very well there.

 

[AlanF]

I did a more in-depth review at 400mm of a copy of the Sigma 100-400mm from the local store as I really want to buy a good copy. This time with a 5DIV, but again disappointment.

I did a comparison of the optical stabilization compared with a Canon 100-400mm II - at a pixel-peeping level that I need for heavy crops for bird photography. The Canon gave 100% no detectable vibration down to 1/160s. The Sigma had vertical shake. At 1/160s, 3/5 slightly blurred, 2 bad. 1/320s, 1 was completely sharp, 4 slight vertical blurring. At 1/640s there was still a slight vertical shape in 4/9 with 5/9 perfect. The image in the viewfinder was very unsteady, unlike the Canon.

I did 4 rounds of AFMA with FoCal to get the best AFMA for testing resolution and read the lens characteristics. The Sigma was as sharp as the Canon for resolving lines on a chart. On the FoCal quality of focus score, which measures acutance (sharp edges, low frequence MTFs), the Sigma scored 1750 versus 2150 for the Canon. The Canon visibly has better contrast.

The copy of the Sigma may not be good as FoCal consistently found very high astigmatism of -10 to -14%, compared with -1% for the Canon.

The search for a good copy continues. I'll use FoCal to start with next time.

 

[SecureGSM]

1750 score: very low number, unless tested at close to MFD. at infinity you should be at around 2000-ish.
Astigmatism: 10-14% . wow, definitely abnormal.
OS /AF performance: was the lens firmware up to date?

http://www.canonrumors.com/firmware-sigma-100-400-f5-6-3-os-c-for-canon-update/

I did a more in-depth review at 400mm of a copy of the Sigma 100-400mm from the local store as I really want the Sigma scored 1750 versus 2150 for the Canon. The Canon visibly has better contrast.

The copy of the Sigma may not be good as FoCal consistently found very high astigmatism of -10 to -14%, compared with -1% for the Canon.

The search for a good copy continues. I'll use FoCal to start with next time.

 

[AlanF]

1750 score: very low number, unless tested at close to MFD. at infinity you should be at around 2000-ish.
Astigmatism: 10-14% . wow, definitely abnormal.
OS /AF performance: was the lens firmware up to date?

http://www.canonrumors.com/firmware-sigma-100-400-f5-6-3-os-c-for-canon-update/

I did a more in-depth review at 400mm of a copy of the Sigma 100-400mm from the local store as I really want the Sigma scored 1750 versus 2150 for the Canon. The Canon visibly has better contrast.

The copy of the Sigma may not be good as FoCal consistently found very high astigmatism of -10 to -14%, compared with -1% for the Canon.

The search for a good copy continues. I'll use FoCal to start with next time.

I tested at 10.5m and 19.7m. The same AFMA at both distances (+4) and identical QoF. I checked the firmware using the Sigma dock. This time, I found customizing the OS to "Dynamic" improved the stability of the image in the viewfinder but made it worse in the image.

What was very odd was that FoCal consistently gave +4 for AFMA for four independent runs yet using charts I found best resolution and astigmatism at -5. According to FoCal, the astigmatism was even worse at -5. Now FoCal has IS turned off and my resolution and OS testing were done with IS on. I wonder if the Sigma OS is interacting with the 5DSR and 5DIV? Anyway, the lens has gone back and I am not wasting any more time on it.

 

[SecureGSM]

testing with OS enabled may produce unpredictable results (tripod mounted camera plus Focal uses proprietary focusing algos). I would not read to much into these numbers then.

p.s. dynamic OS mode, acording to Sigma, does not provide in viewfinder stabilisation, but rather optimised for the maximum level of stabilisation applied to the image, so not sure we are talking the same mode?

1750 score: very low number, unless tested at close to MFD. at infinity you should be at around 2000-ish.
Astigmatism: 10-14% . wow, definitely abnormal.
OS /AF performance: was the lens firmware up to date?

http://www.canonrumors.com/firmware-sigma-100-400-f5-6-3-os-c-for-canon-update/

I did a more in-depth review at 400mm of a copy of the Sigma 100-400mm from the local store as I really want the Sigma scored 1750 versus 2150 for the Canon. The Canon visibly has better contrast.

The copy of the Sigma may not be good as FoCal consistently found very high astigmatism of -10 to -14%, compared with -1% for the Canon.

The search for a good copy continues. I'll use FoCal to start with next time.

I tested at 10.5m and 19.7m. The same AFMA at both distances (+4) and identical QoF. I checked the firmware using the Sigma dock. This time, I found customizing the OS to "Dynamic" improved the stability of the image in the viewfinder but made it worse in the image.

What was very odd was that FoCal consistently gave +4 for AFMA for four independent runs yet using charts I found best resolution and astigmatism at -5. According to FoCal, the astigmatism was even worse at -5. Now FoCal has IS turned off and my resolution and OS testing were done with IS on. I wonder if the Sigma OS is interacting with the 5DSR and 5DIV? Anyway, the lens has gone back and I am not wasting any more time on it.

 

[AlanF]

Sigma manual for customizing OS

Dynamic View Mode
This mode offers a recognizable OS effect to the image in the viewfinder. This helps to ensure the composition of images quickly.

 

[SecureGSM]

I stand corrected, Alan. you are correct. But if I were you , I would re-run the test with OS switched off anyway.

Sigma manual for customizing OS

Dynamic View Mode
This mode offers a recognizable OS effect to the image in the viewfinder. This helps to ensure the composition of images quickly.

 

[AlanF]

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.