Which Sigma? 100-300mm f4.0 or the 100-400 F5-6.3?

[Mach13]

Hi folks new here, and i'm loving taking photos of my garden birds here in the UK for now. But I have a lens question that I need help with

So I have a Nikon D7500
I currently use a Sigma 100-200 F2.8 with a 1.4 Sigma tele and get some nice shots of small birds but any thing further down the garden is a push to get decent quality. So I need some extra reach...

I'm currently looking at the:

Sigma 100-300mm F4 EX HSM which will still allow me to use me 1.4 tele and still get autofocus
or
Sigma 100-400 F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary - (It would need a different 1.4 tele I know)

Anyone have both that can offer pros n cons?

 

[Gold]

Using a teleconverter will always result in a loss of quality. I would also consider a Sigma or Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500 and ditch the teleconverter.

 

[Mintchocs]

Currently using the Sigma 100-400mm C on a Canon crop Dslr body. 400mm is about the minimum I would recommend unless you want to include the environment. It’s good for birds pigeon size and larger and whilst you can get smaller birds cropping in too much can result in mediocre image quality. In the woods the f6.3 aperture usually means shutter speeds of around 1/250th-1/500th and in bright light in open spaces realistically 1/1600th-1/2000th, depending of course how high an iso you want to go. I haven’t tried a teleconverter but I don’t think it would be useful especially on a lower end AF system, you need to check your camera as to the suitability to AF at f8. Personally I chose the 100-400mm due to weight considerations but if you don’t feel weight is an issue then a longer focal length gives you more options. The 100-300mm f4 seems an interesting option on paper and worth trying if you are able to return it if not suitable.

 

[Mach13]

Thanks for your replies..
@ Gold.. you made me have a rethink on what's important for me... and that opened up some 'more affordable' options as I you're right I didn't need anything to work with my Tele...

@ Mintchocs it was a close call for the 100-400mm C but I decided on the 120-400mm based on funds and I'm very happy with it


I had a look at suggestions for a 600mm and 500mm but still found it difficult to find a reasonably priced one..
So... eventually went for a very reasonable used Sigma 120-400mm OS DG APO F4.5-5.6 Which I have to say works wonders for me and I'm very pleased with it.. (see below) its in excellent condition and a wonderful addition to my kit. Just a little sharpening and cropping but not much else.. and the bonus is its the same filter size as my 70-200mm so no need to buy extras

NB: My 1.4x and 2x Sigma tele's do work with it on manual if i need it... I used the 2.0 tele on to see how it would perform and have to say with the OS it produced some surprisingly pleasing results... tho the camera does drop the aperture down to f11.. so only a bright day option really i suppose.. but i will keep the teles in my bag just in case there's an option to test them when out and about. I know I wont get anything like the detail below, but at least I will have options to play with...

Thanks again for all your input

 

[Mintchocs]

Glad to hear you found a lens you’re happy with.

 

[piper]

I use a sigma 100-400 on a Z6, D500 and a Nikon 1 V2/3.

It’s quite light ( relatively speaking ) resolution is good certainly in centre field even in high pixel density bodies like a V3. See lenstips review eg. Should work well on a 45mpx body.

It Will also take a tc1401 teleconverter which is still useable for AF in good light.

The cons are:
AFC can be jittery - probably not the best for BIF
No tripod mount: I have a third party that does 90 or 180 only

The version for mirrorless eg Sony FE is said to be better and does take a tripod foot ( not tried )

 

[Mach13]

NB: My 1.4x and 2x Sigma tele's do work with it on manual if i need it... I used the 2.0 tele on to see how it would perform and have to say with the OS it produced some surprisingly pleasing results...

So I decided to have a look at using the Tele with the 120-400mm see pics below which seem to me seems to show the value of the Tele at long range.

Both photos were taken on my D7500 on a bright day
Both are obviously cropped to the same size around the image to get a reasonable comparison
The third image is just taken on my phone to give an idea of distance.
The foxglove shown is about 40ft away for all shots
Both images have been treated to sharpening and denoising with minor other adjustments
Both images hand held
For what its worth the D7500 is a crop sensor so there's the additional 1.5x crop factor to add (if anyone feels its relevant), but i haven't included that on the photo text.
Apologies for some typos..


I'd like to think the Sigma 2.0x tele is worth keeping in my bag.. the image looks much clearer. Whether I get similar results on wildlife and manual focus remains to be seen but I thought the results were worth sharing

 

[piper]

So I decided to have a look at using the Tele with the 120-400mm see pics below which seem to me seems to show the value of the Tele at long range.

Both photos were taken on my D7500 on a bright day
Both are obviously cropped to the same size around the image to get a reasonable comparison
The third image is just taken on my phone to give an idea of distance.
The foxglove shown is about 40ft away for all shots
Both images have been treated to sharpening and denoising with minor other adjustments
Both images hand held
Apologies for some typos..


I'd like to think the Sigma 2.0x tele is worth keeping in my bag.. the image looks much clearer. Whether I get similar results on wildlife and manual focus remains to be seen but I thought the results were worth sharing

View attachment 425940View attachment 425941View attachment 425942

Very useful post - thanks!

Looks really good to my view- especially with a 2x TC

Will look up that lens just for interest.

Cheers

Richard