Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS VS Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS

C

ClickClocks

Messages
327
Edit My Images
No
What are you experience?

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
vs
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS

Booths have Stabilization, and very similar specification, only diference is price canon is about double the price :)
Many Thanks
 
Can't speak for the 120-400 but I had the 135-400 Sigma. As a lens it was OK but the focus was slow and much nosier than other Canon lenses I had. In fact I got so fed up with the slowness of the focus I bought the Canon 100-400 and have not regretted it.
 
I've had the Canon 100-400 L lens for two months and its hardly been off my camera. Its brilliant - its so sharp and teamed with my 5D Mk II its awesome. Focus is quick and quiet.

I always believe you get what you pay for and that's certainly the case with the 100-400. I can't recommend it enough. (y)
 
Woah spooky! I just logged on to see if anyone had compared these 2 lenses.

I hired a Canon 100-400L for a trip to Kenya earlier this month and it was fantastic.
I'd love to have one but the price tag is a big worry, so I thought I'd look into the Sigma.
Will be following this thread with interest...
 
The U.S. based professionally oriented photo magazine Rangefinder, April 2009 issue, reviewed the 120-400mm and 150-500mm lenses.

http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0409_1stExpo_Sigma_Sholik.pdf

The reviews were positive but generally, the opinion could be summed up in this paragraph:

"Sigma produces some highly regarded zoom lenses in its EX series, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 120-300mm... I was pleasantly surprised at the optical quality (of the 120-400mm and 150-500mm lenses). While neither of these lenses will deliver the performance of an EX-series lens, or a top-of-the-line lens from any of the camera bosy manufacturers with which these lenses are compatible, you will likely need to spend 2-3 times the price of these lenses to improve your image quality by 20-25%.
 
rpcrowe said:
The U.S. based professionally oriented photo magazine Rangefinder, April 2009 issue, reviewed the 120-400mm and 150-500mm lenses.

http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0409_1stExpo_Sigma_Sholik.pdf

The reviews were positive but generally, the opinion could be summed up in this paragraph:

"Sigma produces some highly regarded zoom lenses in its EX series, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 120-300mm... I was pleasantly surprised at the optical quality (of the 120-400mm and 150-500mm lenses). While neither of these lenses will deliver the performance of an EX-series lens, or a top-of-the-line lens from any of the camera bosy manufacturers with which these lenses are compatible, you will likely need to spend 2-3 times the price of these lenses to improve your image quality by 20-25%.
Click to expand...

To be honest I would say it's closer than that. I have the Sigma 120-400mm lens, and it performs to about 90-95% of the level of the Canon 100-400. Now, the Canon lens is better overall (although it does have many drawbacks), but for the cash, I honestly don't think you can beat the Sigma lens in this class. It's half the price of the Canon lens, but gives you much more than half the performance. If you want some example shots have a look at my Flickr. There is plenty of motorsport and some wildlife stuff taken with this lens. It needs to be stopped down a little, especially at the long end to get the best out of it, but that can be said about nearly every long zoom lens.
 
thanks for the replies, what makes more sense is that cost the double but only give you at least 20% of performace. in the other hand if I buy used canon L lens today and wanted to sell it in a year for sure I will sell it a bit more expensive which I don't think is the case of the Sigma
 
rpcrowe said:
The U.S. based professionally oriented photo magazine Rangefinder, April 2009 issue, reviewed the 120-400mm and 150-500mm lenses.

http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0409_1stExpo_Sigma_Sholik.pdf

The reviews were positive but generally, the opinion could be summed up in this paragraph:

" ....................... you will likely need to spend 2-3 times the price of these lenses to improve your image quality by 20-25%.
Click to expand...

That principle holds true for almost all kit. A disproportionate amount of money has to be spent for a small increase in quality.

Pity the review pics on the website link were in a .pdf file. These never seem to show anything sharp - even text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top