sigma 70-200 2.8 Vs canon 100-400 IS

[Andy77]

Hey guys, so i was virtually about to make my mind up and go for the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 + 1.4 tc for birding/sports/ aviation ect, and now ive been offered a canon 100-400 4-5.6 IS, What do i do, how do they compare. yes the canon has more reach, but the siggy is faster and still with the 1.4tc attached will only be f4

Andy

 

[paul_g]

I'd go with the 100-400. For birding 200mm is too short and 280mm isn't much better. Most airshows need a lot more than 200mm as well if you want decently frame filling shots.
The 100-400 af isn't the fastest but I've taken decent flight shots of puffins and typhoons with one

 

[Richard.T]

Canon L glass all the way to be honest..
I've never owned any(too expensive, But after comparing shots from my Sigma 70-200 and a Canon) but even just the sharpness of the L glass is enough to make me want some!

 

[webbEvents]

Andy,
I've just gone from Sigma 70-200 2.8 to the 100-400.The Sigma is good, but was struggling to keep up with the resolution on my 5d Mk2. Got the new Canon on Tuesday, went out with it yesterday and the difference is very noticable. The difference so impressed me I started a new THREAD about it.
The 2x Sigma converter made the image even softer. I would definately say go for the 100-400. You also have the IS which works brilliantly as well.
Webby

 

[Andy77]

Thanks webby, ive been offered a 100-400, virtually brand new, still with warranty from a friend.

 

[trencheel303]

Providing the 100-400 isn't going to break the bank and have them trying to sell your limbs, it's a no brainer. I know I recommended the Sigma to you but I didn't consider you needed more length. It makes sense to get the 100-400. I wouldn't like to bolt a 2x converter onto the Sigma.