Decision time (Sig 100-300, Canon 100-400)

pete s

pete s

Messages
813
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
My deliberations continue, but are now a little more focused and it seems to boil down to a decision between the Sigma 100-300 F4 and the Canon 100-400 L. I've pretty much ruled out the Sigma 500's now.

I like the sound of siggy and the constant F4 appeals. Lack of OS is a small minus for me and not totally sure if I'll wish I'd gone for something with a little more reach (although a x1.4 TC is an option).

The Canon is obviously a cracking lens, but it is a bit more cash and I (probably on my own here) find the white finish of the L's a bit conspicuous. The cash issue is a problem and I guess the £1k mark is a psychological barrier to me, being only a keen amatuer/hobbyist and not a pro.

I've read a few opinions on these two on here over the last week or two. What would you do?
 
Canon 100-400 all the way if you can afford it, the extra reach and IS will be invaluable and give you a much more versatile lens.
 
If £1000 is too much for you to bare, there is another option, the sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 OS @ £600. This lens has had some good press in the camera mags......

Personally, for versatility, I disagree with alex, I would rather have a faster lens than an extra 100mm, but it does depends what you challenging the lens to take and the conditions you taking the subject in. Airshows/low fly photography/motorsport create some challenging situation where faster glass reigns because of the varying light conditions, especially photographing 600mph + aircraft shooting from the valley's.

The sigma 100-300mm f4 would still be working and obtaining reasonable shutter/aperture settings when the 100-400mm has given up the ghost if the light conditions were the best which happens quite abit in the UK
 
What about having a look at the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM?
I think it retails for around the £600 mark.

I was trying to decide between the Canon 100-400L and the Sigma 150-500. I'm more than pleased with the 150-500mm
 
I normally use a 100-300 Sigma and tried a 100-400 L on hire for a fortnight.

For 100-300 the two offer very similar image quality, with the obvious half a stop to full stop advantage with the Sigma. I thought the 100-400 produced slightly more contrasty images than the Sigma but that can easily be fixed in post processing.

From 300-400 the Canon wins. You can fit the 1.4TC but quality isn't as good as the Canon and neither is focussing speed.

I'd call it a draw. I've not felt the need to sell my Sigma, and buy the Canon, and in lower light conditions I've preferred to have the aperture advantage.

The IS on the Canon is a 1st generation IS and not as good as later IS.

The Sigma 120-400 OS has a reliability issue according to lens rentals, but this may be less of a concern to a private individual. Sigma 120-300 f2.8 would be worth considering if you can find a good one within budget, but they are a heavy lens.
 
andrewc said:
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 would be worth considering if you can find a good one within budget, but they are a heavy lens.
Click to expand...

was gonna say i picked mine up 2nd hand for a shade under a grand. cosmetically it has seen better days but optically it is wonderful. it has just come back from sigma to repair a drop by the previous owner and a service at the cost of £154. so 1154 quid aint bad concidering the new price.

its not light but then thats depending on what you call heavy. personally i can just about get away with hand holding it all day.
 
Just been offered a mint secondhand 100-300 for £550 and am feeling rather tempted to give it a whirl.
 
I don't think you will be dissapointed at that price.
 
ozanan said:
I was trying to decide between the Canon 100-400L and the Sigma 150-500. I'm more than pleased with the 150-500mm
Click to expand...

I faced the same existential conundrum myself a few months back. Like you, I went for the Sigma since I needed the extra reach and I couldn't justify the extra cost of the Canon. The Sigma also has four stop image stabilisation against the Canon's two stops which is very important for me although clearly not for others.
 
i just sold my sigma 100-300 last month and bought a used canon 100-400 and find it to be a much better lens.
 
Hmm, trouble is I'd be paying double what I can get that 2nd hand siggy for and I don't think at this stage I can justify that.

If I spend £500 and quid and find that I don't get that much use out of it, then it is a lot less painful than doing the same having spent £1k.
 
Try the Sigma, if you use enough it get something better later.

Either way at the offer price you won't loose much by trying.
 
Took the plunge with the Sigma 100-300 F4. Should have it by the weekend so I can give it a trial run then. Will report back.
 
pete s said:
...the white finish of the L's a bit conspicuous
Click to expand...

This is 'one' of the issues I have with Canon- look like liquorice allsorts when you stick a hood on; asthetics are important too- join the darkside:D

Given the price, I think you made a good call. Be interesting to hear how you get on.
 
Well, stick up some shots so we can see how you are doing :D
 
I've owned both the Sigma 100-300 f4 and the Canon 100-400 and would take the Canon everytime. The AF was faster and more accurate, the colour rendition is truer and the images are sharper... If you shop about you'll get a 100-400 for well under a grand, a friend recently picked one up for ~£700 (in excellent condition) and I paid just over £500 for one last autumn (body work is a bit marked, but optically it is spot on).

EDIT: opps just read the rest of the thread and seen you've gone for the Sigma...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top