What a decision! Sigma or Canon? and how about a new body?

[Markus D]

Well, I have owned the really great 100 - 400 (F4 L IS - the old faithfull) and the first version of the 70 - 200 L IS 2.8. Currently have the 70 - 300 L IS and am missing the 400 reach for birds with motion - hence the need for speed. I still have my old but true 40D. I was wondering whether to go for the Sigma 120 - 300 F 2.8 or the second version of the 100 - 400?
I know - it is not yet out. I could not get a grip on the push pull. The IQ tests (according to Digital Picture) show the sigma @ 400 (with extender Y 1.4 (is it as good as the Canon 1.4 version III)) is better than the old 100 - 400.
What does one do? (said with plaintiff, heart felt voice to Canon guru's hoping they will help me with a lens of my choice(a 100 - 400 not push pull with better performance than the first version hopefully constant F4)).

I like the "black" look of the sigma. Specs are good also (just like their specs on the new 18 - 35 (something F1.8 (Sigma are becoming even more of age)).
The new 70 - 200 2.8 L IS (version II) with a 2x converter according, to the Digital Picture, is still not as good as the sigma with a 1.4 x TC.

Cost?
Sigma 3.5K$.
Canon 100-400 (new version) have not seen a price nor a spec but I expect it will not be a dollar under $2.9k.

May have to go for the Sigma.

What are the considerations?

I have the gear to cover the wider world. I want something with longer reach and better IQ so when I cannot get too close to those very teeny weeny birds, I can still get a good image filling an A4 print.

And yes, if I were to change the old 40D for another!!! But why? 6.5 fps, solid body, reliable. I may get more resolution with another camera. But when is the next 7DII coming or even better, when is the 3D (yes 3D going to appear. Now that was a camera! Still have mine: and film. Remember that stuff. Acid, paper, dark rooms, magic appearing before your eyes.

Canon must be reserving the 3D name for something exceptionally good.

Cheers,

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

That 100-400mm MK II has been rumored to be coming soon for 10 years now. It would be interesting to see if it actually shows up. Would you pay $2700? That's what Nikon charges for their new 80-400

Canon has not been shy of recent to charge more than Nikon.

Get a body and don't wait for a lens that may or may not appear.

 

[macroman1]

Marcus, I empathise. Having moved to FF, I want a fast tele with better IQ than my Sigma 120-400. Like you, I'm torn between the Siggie 120-300 and waiting for the (eventual) 100-400. In the meantime, I'm renting a 120-400 (non-Sport) for an upcoming motor racing event at a circuit I've shot heaps of times, so know what I'm wanting.

If you (or anyone else here) has doubts about the Sigma (including with 1.4 and 2x), check out this guy's photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/damoblack/with/9498848308/

Cheers

 

[Markus D]

Thanks for the reply folk. I have been out bush for a week or three and have not had access to a PC.

Mr Spokane, yes I would pay the $2700 for a newer version of the 100-400 and a new body is on the agenda also. Surely, Canon can't wait too long to replace the good oldie - Nikon will steal the edge.

Hi Macroman, Didn't see the detail of Damoblocks lens. Saw it was a 7D. Was that the sigma 120 - 300 2.8? Great shots. Thks for the reply.

Cheers,

 

[macroman1]

Hi Markus

Yes, most of Damo's shots are with the 120-300. You can see it in the Tags most of the time, and can also click on Additional Info: Show more - he's good at completing that, which includes basic settings.

And a correction to my post: of course it's the 120-300 pre-Sport (+1.4x) that I'm renting. I already have the 120-400! Sorry for any confusion - Doh!

Cheers