Sigma 120-400 Upgrade?? Canon Mount

mfarrell

mfarrell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
67
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,

Looking to upgrade my Sigma 120-400 for something bit better, starting to notice the difference between this and my other lenses now, so here comes the issue.....

Was looking at a straight upgrade to the Canon 100-400 L IS. Then thought about the 300 F4 L IS, and maybe a 1.4x extender. Then other day had a look at the new 70-300 L IS, and wow, beautiful. I know there a lot of comments about it being an L but a slow lens in comparison, but the build quality, IQ, IS, AF was superb, and so compact for it's type...not to say its not bulky, but compared to a 100-400 L IS or my 70-200 F2.8 L IS, it is compact.

This is what causes the problem.....the easy of a zoom with 100-400, the quality of the prime 300 but added size and extra cost of an extender, or the also more expensive 70-300 but compact, faster AF and better IS, but loss of 100mm.

What are people's thoughts??
 
I used to have the 300f4 L IS with a 1.4 TC.Fast ,sharp and good IQ both with and without the extender.I also have the 70/200 and always seemed to have the wrong lens on my camera it was either too long or too short,so I sold the 300 and bought the 100/400 and dont regret it.BTW the 70/300 L seems a bit expensive but it does have 4 stop IS,dont know if that compensates for the loss of 100mm
Hope this helps
 
Along what i was thinking, 70-300 is very pricey, considering can pick up a 100-400 secondhand for around £900 these days, but yes, the 4 stop IS is one of the things swaying me off the 100-400 a little. There are good points and bad about them all, i think it is a toss up between the 100-400 and 70-300....which boils down to the 100-400 being cheaper and longer, but the 70-300 being much more compact, better AF and IS system, but losing 100mm......decisions decisions
 
I have a 100-400L and I'm so far very satisfied with it.
Not sure how much of an upgrade it would seem from your 120-400 though. No question, the canon is sharper at all focal lengths, but I'm not sure that if I already had the sigma, I would spend the money upgrading to the canon.
Have a look at this:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm

The difference is quite obvious at 150 and 300mm, but becomes less obvious at 400mm. The canon wide open is about as sharp as the sigma at f/8.

The IS on the canon might not be quite as effective as it is on the sigma (the sigma has a newer implementation).
 
Interesting test.....think i need to see them properly to know just how much that extra sharpness means, a little can be a lot, if you compare my Sigma 50 F1.4 to my Canon 35 F1,4 L, it's only a little difference, but can make huge difference. I am starting to see that the IS could be the issue with the Canon though, but the other thing I do not like about the Sigma is the AF, very twitchy and not the speed of an L, and very hit and miss. Maybe a bit of Micro Adjustment is needed??
 
People tend to say the 100-400 is more snappy than the 120-400, though I can't really comment on that myself.

I don't mind the IS on the 100-400, at 400mm I can get reliably sharp shots at 1/250, and a fair percentage sharp at 1/160 or 1/100sec. Any slower then that, and subject movement would be more of a problem than camera shake me thinks. How often do you shoot with your 120-400 at 400mm at shutter speeds lower than 1/200sec handheld?
 
I try not to!!!

Got this weird condition where my hands shake constant, which i do fear for the future for taking photos, may end everything.

Really depends on the light, at 400 i really try not to have anything below 1/300sec, but i can do slower with the IS, think gone much much lower, but yes if the subject is moving, no point.

had a look at that test again, if I had had the 150-500 like my uncle, it wouldn't be in question, but looking at the results, is quite a big difference to the Canon, the Sigma is very soft wide open, which i do have to shoot due to my hands, don't always have the luxury of F8 and above
 
One point: Have you tried a 100-400? Some people can't get along with the push-pull zoom. I quite like it personally, it has it's advantages: It is very fast and intuitive to operate when you're tracking stuff (like a bird in flight getting closer), and it can be locked at any length for zero zoom creep. You can adjust the tension so that it doesn't creep, but with just a little force you can zoom in and out. To be honest, I think if I had the choice, I'd make it a twist zoom (but with a lock function that worked at any focal length), but I'm perfectly happy with it as it is.
You might be different though.
 
Yeah something I will need to try, I have used it on old lenses, old Nikon's for example, but not on lens that size. Like the idea of being able to lock it any length, didn't realise had that feature, but i will be sure to give it a test if i can find one around
 
mfarrell said:
Yeah something I will need to try, I have used it on old lenses, old Nikon's for example, but not on lens that size. Like the idea of being able to lock it any length, didn't realise had that feature, but i will be sure to give it a test if i can find one around
Click to expand...

The tension ring lets you set the zoom as loose or tight as you want. Anything from super smooth easy zoom to completely locked.

Am I starting to sound like a canon brochure? :D
 
Nothing wrong with that, I've slowly replaced all my Sigma's for Canon L's, can't beat them, can get close, and for the money they are fantastic some of them, but even the older Canon's still show the quality.

I'm still not sure as to where to go, why didn't Canon just make another 100-400 L instead of the 70-300 L ????

Only thing putting me off it is the age

Down to how much i can get for my sigma really
 
I had a sigma 100-300mm F/4 and upgraded to the Canon 100-400mm L. The Sigma was a good lens, but the Canon imo is better image quality wise.

You don't say what your going to be shooting with this lens ?

I was looking to buy a 400mm f/5.6 prime but I love the focal length or the 100-400. I can only get the 400mm prime when I can afford the 70-200mm.

The push-pull zoom takes about 2 days to get fully used to...and like stated it is intuitive
 
mfarrell said:
I'm still not sure as to where to go, why didn't Canon just make another 100-400 L instead of the 70-300 L ????
Click to expand...

Ye, a new 100-400 with 4stop IS and improved sharpness wide open at 400mm would sell very very well. Depending on the price of course (knowing canon, it would be £2k for the first two months of sale, the £1.5k after that).
 
That being the other factor...how quickly the 70-300 L drops in price.....cant remain at that price for too long.

To answer other question, will not need a 400 prime due to not shooting at that length all the time, want the extra length it gives, wildlife, and such, but I don't exclusively shoot wildlife, even just going to the Zoo the 400mm length is needed imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top