Sigma 100-300 vs. Canon 300/f4 vs. Canon 100-400

L

lfjj

Messages
22
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm new to this forum and need help to complete my purchase of a lens I will use for wildlife, birds and motorsports.

I have come down to the three in the title, and I am afraid of not having a zoom lens but the 300/f4 seems like such a nice lens, with a TC as well. The Sigma have gotten great reviews and I've looked on both Flickr and 500px for pictures and I am impressed by how sharp it is. If they weren't sharp it might be user fault so can't really make a decision on that.

Then there's the 100-400 which is the most expensive one and it also have good reviews, but alot of people complain it's soft at 400 wide open and needs to be stopped down to around f/8. Could be bad copies, could be user fault or could be that it's actually soft on some batches, I've read after 2007 or 2008 Canon fixed something on this lens.

My camera is a Canon 60D.

What do you guys suggest? Please post upon your experiences, I don't want to read posts where people say "well the canon should be better than the sigma" when they haven't tried the Sigma.

Thanks.
 
The Sigma 100-300mm was the first 300mm lens i owned, bloody superb it was as well, only got rid because i needed f/2.8
 
If it's going to be for wildlife only, are you ever likely to be close enough for anything under 300mm? In my experience, 300mm seems the minimum requirement. I have the 300/f2.8 and often wish I had the 500/f4.
If this is the case, then I'd be looking at the primes only as the IQ is better. I've had a Canon 300/f4 and it was a superb lens, along with the 400/f5.6 for a similar price (still probably my sharpest lens I've owned).
 
I've had a Sigma 100-300 for several years and have hired/borrowed the 100-400.

Out of the two I found the Sigma to be superior between 100-300 although the Canon had better contrast, but a global contrast tweak was easily applied. It would take a teleconverter quite well as well.

I then bought a Canon 300mm prime and found I was using the 100-300 less frequently and regretfully sold it on to replace it with a 70-200 which would compliment the 300 better.
 
wippers said:
If it's going to be for wildlife only, are you ever likely to be close enough for anything under 300mm? In my experience, 300mm seems the minimum requirement. I have the 300/f2.8 and often wish I had the 500/f4.
If this is the case, then I'd be looking at the primes only as the IQ is better. I've had a Canon 300/f4 and it was a superb lens, along with the 400/f5.6 for a similar price (still probably my sharpest lens I've owned).
Click to expand...

I am not sure, wildlife is a wide category for me. It can be deer, moose and small mammals like squirrels (which I love). It also depends because with squirrels I can make them to come to me in a controlled area while other wildlife you never know, you need to go out in the woods and wait but there I can imagine a prime would work best.

But as I will do some motorsports and possibly outdoor sports sometimes, like a few times a month maybe a zoom would be nice. Maybe I should go 300/f4 + 1.4 TC and combine it with a 70-200/f4 L non-IS?
 
Last edited:
lfjj said:
But as I will do some motorsports and possibly outdoor sports sometimes, like a few times a month maybe a zoom would be nice. Maybe I should go 300/f4 + 1.4 TC and combine it with a 70-200/f4 L non-IS?
Click to expand...

Or the 70-200/f2.8 with x 1.4x to give you 280/f4. Decisions decisions! :D
 
I've had all three of the listed lenses.

The one which I could consistently get excellent results from was the 300mm F4 (and I had a 1.4x in my pocket too).

The 100-300mm F4 was a good lens, but I found the autofocus to be a bit slow and if you lost focus it would rarely lock back on in time.
100-400L was a bit soft wide open at 400mm, otherwise an excellent all rounder.

I could, however, totally rely on the 300mm F4 and any issues with the shots were never down to a weakness in the lens.
 
I had this choice at the beginning of the year but I mainly shoot motorsport and In the end I went for the versatility of the 100-400 and I am so glad I did as the amount of shots I would of missed if I had the 300 f4, I did not consider the 100-300 as I already have a 70-200 f4 and I did not see any benefit of me going for this combination.
Few Pics all taken with a 7D

400 1/200 f11 iso 100

IMG_7275 by Maximum Revs Photography, on Flickr

First attempt at Bird photography:
1/500 F5.6 iso 3200 340mm


IMG_10871024 by Maximum Revs Photography, on Flickr

One from a beach cross event
1/400 F6.3 ISO 100 400mm


IMG_9620 by Maximum Revs Photography, on Flickr

Dex
 
I've got the 300 F4 and really rate it, takes a 1.4 TC well. I went through a similar decision choice and opted for the prime over the zoom.
 
I had the Canon 300mm f/4 (non IS) and the Sigma 100-300mm for a while and ended up keeping the prime. It was better wide open, especially with a teleconverter, and seemed to focus more reliably. The Sigma also felt much heavier, even though there's not that much difference in the actual weight - I think its more front heavy. The 300mm prime is just a magical lens, and I'm hard pressed to explain why :)
 
RichardtheSane said:
I've had all three of the listed lenses.

The one which I could consistently get excellent results from was the 300mm F4 (and I had a 1.4x in my pocket too).

The 100-300mm F4 was a good lens, but I found the autofocus to be a bit slow and if you lost focus it would rarely lock back on in time.
100-400L was a bit soft wide open at 400mm, otherwise an excellent all rounder.

I could, however, totally rely on the 300mm F4 and any issues with the shots were never down to a weakness in the lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Maybe I am being a bit too picky about the sharpness and things like that, I'm just afraid my investment will be a dissapointment so I am doing as much research as I can.
 
D-pearce92 said:
I had this choice at the beginning of the year but I mainly shoot motorsport and In the end I went for the versatility of the 100-400 and I am so glad I did as the amount of shots I would of missed if I had the 300 f4, I did not consider the 100-300 as I already have a 70-200 f4 and I did not see any benefit of me going for this combination.
Few Pics all taken with a 7D
Click to expand...

How do you find the lens for motorsports? Is the autofocus fast enough for you?
 
andyred said:
I've got the 300 F4 and really rate it, takes a 1.4 TC well. I went through a similar decision choice and opted for the prime over the zoom.
Click to expand...

How come? Mostly I'm hesitant because I will never know if I will be "far" enough away from the objects im shooting, maybe I'm thinking 300mm is longer than it really is?
 
gcogger said:
I had the Canon 300mm f/4 (non IS) and the Sigma 100-300mm for a while and ended up keeping the prime. It was better wide open, especially with a teleconverter, and seemed to focus more reliably. The Sigma also felt much heavier, even though there's not that much difference in the actual weight - I think its more front heavy. The 300mm prime is just a magical lens, and I'm hard pressed to explain why :)
Click to expand...

Yes I've read about the weight of the Sigma, but 1500g is not an issue for me really.
 
300mm really isnt that long, even on a crop sensor.

I use a 300mm prime (on a crop sensor) shooting birds outside my window, I'm shooting from 14 ft away and I can still get 3 or 4 sparrows in the frame at the same time.
I'm using a manual focus nikkor 300mm f4.5 and even though a 55-200mm f4.8 is being released for my system I'll be sticking with the nikkor for the foreseeable future as I prefer the prime to the zoom.

I switched to all primes when I changed systems, I dont even own a zoom lens any more and dont regret it at all, the iQ on primes is much better.

As for your lens choices, I've had sigma's before but never had one I was happy with, canon primes though have all been good.
The 300mm is sharp even wide open, great iQ and fast autofocus, if I was buying another DSLR that would be the first lens I'd want, the only others being the 400mm f5.6 which again is razor sharp wide open and possibly the 200mm f2.8.
 
iancandler said:
300mm really isnt that long, even on a crop sensor.

I use a 300mm prime (on a crop sensor) shooting birds outside my window, I'm shooting from 14 ft away and I can still get 3 or 4 sparrows in the frame at the same time.
I'm using a manual focus nikkor 300mm f4.5 and even though a 55-200mm f4.8 is being released for my system I'll be sticking with the nikkor for the foreseeable future as I prefer the prime to the zoom.

I switched to all primes when I changed systems, I dont even own a zoom lens any more and dont regret it at all, the iQ on primes is much better.

As for your lens choices, I've had sigma's before but never had one I was happy with, canon primes though have all been good.
The 300mm is sharp even wide open, great iQ and fast autofocus, if I was buying another DSLR that would be the first lens I'd want, the only others being the 400mm f5.6 which again is razor sharp wide open and possibly the 200mm f2.8.
Click to expand...

I've gotten the recommendation of the 400/5.6 but have decided to not purchase it, mostly because I don't wanna be stuck at such a long FL and I think 300+1.4 would be a better and more versatile option. It also goes nicely together with the 70-200.
 
lfjj said:
How come? Mostly I'm hesitant because I will never know if I will be "far" enough away from the objects im shooting, maybe I'm thinking 300mm is longer than it really is?
Click to expand...

I spoke to a few people that had had both and they recommended the prime lens over the zoom for IQ etc.

I had a play with both - wasn't overly keen on the push / pull of the 100-400 (which is a personal thing and I suspect you get used to it) and just preferred the feel of the prime - It was my first prime and a significant purchase which I don't have any regrets buying.

I think the thing to remember is what 1 person loves another doesn't - if you can, I'd suggest trying to have a look at them and see which you prefer and want to use - reviews and recommendations are great, but you need to make sure it's what you want...
 
Felt like having a play so .... some shots taken on the 7D with the Canon 70-300mmL, Sigma 100-300mm F4, Sigma 100-300mm F4 and Sigma 1.4x, Canon 100-400mm and finally (for a bit of interest) the Sigma 50-500mm OS.

I stress this is totally unscientific as they are shot hand held, in AV mode, wide open, full length and auto ISO but it should give you an idea of sharpness.

First shot is uncropped and converted to Jpeg, second is cropped to just the label.

70-300mm L (IS On)





Sigma 100-300mm f4 (No IS)





Sigma 100-300mm F4 and Sigma 1.4x (No IS)



 
Last edited:
Canon 100-400mm (IS on)





Sigma 50-500mm OS (OS on)





Personally I think with a bit of sharpening any of these would be pretty good, I was rather impressed with how the 50-500mm OS performed though considering it's lack of speed.

Finally ... a real world shot with the Sigma 100-300mm f4 on one of my Pentax cameras. (Inbody SR on)

 
Last edited:
I decided to not go for zoom at all now, don't know why but my plan is to combine a prime with a 70-200/f4 with 1.4 tc later.

In terms of static birds, general wildlife like maybe deer, moose, squirrels and so on. Would you get the 300/f4 IS+1.4 or 400/5.6? It's between those two now..
 
lfjj said:
I decided to not go for zoom at all now, don't know why but my plan is to combine a prime with a 70-200/f4 with 1.4 tc later.

In terms of static birds, general wildlife like maybe deer, moose, squirrels and so on. Would you get the 300/f4 IS+1.4 or 400/5.6? It's between those two now..
Click to expand...

You'd said earlier in the thread, you had ruled out the 400 as you didn't want to be stuck with a long lens - the 400 get used well and is liked with the bird community, but it is a 400mm lens and if you feel that it maybe too long for other occasions, I'd opt for the 300 F4 and a 1.4 TC. I opted for this route and don't have any regrets, I think the only time I'd upgrade my 300 is if I was lucky enough to be able to get the 300 F2.8 ...
 
andyred said:
You'd said earlier in the thread, you had ruled out the 400 as you didn't want to be stuck with a long lens - the 400 get used well and is liked with the bird community, but it is a 400mm lens and if you feel that it maybe too long for other occasions, I'd opt for the 300 F4 and a 1.4 TC. I opted for this route and don't have any regrets, I think the only time I'd upgrade my 300 is if I was lucky enough to be able to get the 300 F2.8 ...
Click to expand...

Yes I realise that but now when I think about it, getting a 70-200 together with the 400 might not be such a bad idea. And with a TC I have a good range covered. Mostly I'm worried that 400 will be enough reach but will require a tripod because of no IS.

Considering I will be outside in daylight (around 7am to 5pm) I should be able to get well above 1/500 shutter speed so handholding shouldn't be an issue right?

I keep on reading that a TC on the 300/f4 will slow down AF alot but I've read that the Kenko 1.4 DGX or whatever it's called does not slow down AF at all. The Canon 1.4x slows down by 25% or something and I would get the Kenko if I went the 300+1.4 route.
 
lfjj said:
I keep on reading that a TC on the 300/f4 will slow down AF alot but I've read that the Kenko 1.4 DGX or whatever it's called does not slow down AF at all. The Canon 1.4x slows down by 25% or something and I would get the Kenko if I went the 300+1.4 route.
Click to expand...

Don't know how much it slows it down, but I used the canon TC and 300 last year at the SuperBikes and managed to track and shoot the SuperBikes and 125's no problem. Not really sure I noticed much of a difference
 
Last edited:
I was having the same thoughts the other week and went for the 300f4 L IS and 1.4 TC.

I was out yesterday trying it on the wildlife and caught a few birds of prey, waders, etc and I was very impressed with the set up.

As for the AF slowing, I felt that it did but that could be down to me not using a long prime before although I did catch a few swallows in flight.

My camera is the 40d by the way.

I also have the 70-200f4 non IS that the TC will fit so that did sway me a little.
 
cowboy said:
I was having the same thoughts the other week and went for the 300f4 L IS and 1.4 TC.

I was out yesterday trying it on the wildlife and caught a few birds of prey, waders, etc and I was very impressed with the set up.

As for the AF slowing, I felt that it did but that could be down to me not using a long prime before although I did catch a few swallows in flight.

My camera is the 40d by the way.

I also have the 70-200f4 non IS that the TC will fit so that did sway me a little.
Click to expand...

What TC did you use, the Kenko?
 
lfjj said:
Okay, but the AF should not be noticeable slow at all considering I won't do BIF right?
Click to expand...

I didn't notice a problem with the bikes, can't comment on the birds.

Might be worth having a good look through the bird section on here (not the nudes and glamour :D ) and looking for those shot with the 300 + 1.4 TC and asking the photographer if they'd had any AF issues ...
 
lfjj said:
Okay, but the AF should not be noticeable slow at all considering I won't do BIF right?
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest I don't notice if it is slow at all, it takes a bit of getting used to but that probably me not used to the equipment.

I used it for the first time at the weekend shooting birds and seals and it was a case of frame and shoot, not frame wait for focus and then shoot.

I did lose focus on a few flying birds but I think that was down to technique rather than slow AF.
 
I've used my 300mm with a (Kenko) teleconverter a lot. It is noticeably slower to acquire focus, but it's certainly not a big deal. It's still fairly quick. I don't know if the same would be true with birds, though, as that's a tougher proposition and not something I shoot.
 
Hey guys. I decided on the 300/f4 together with a converter. Mostly because of IS, the versatility to have 2 focal lengths and it combines nicely together with a 70-200.
 
lfjj said:
Hey guys. I decided on the 300/f4 together with a converter. Mostly because of IS, the versatility to have 2 focal lengths and it combines nicely together with a 70-200.
Click to expand...

That's good news - look forward to your review of it when you get them and seeing some shots :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top