Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Sigma 100-400
  
 
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sigma 100-400


Great shots there Tony!

Brettmatthews wrote:
From a budget point of view, what about the Sigma 100-400 vs the Canon 100-400 V1?

That's something I'd like to know as well, since the Canon second version is way out of my league financially (unless I go deep into debt).



May 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM
technic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sigma 100-400


Imagemaster wrote:
Another option for you could be the Olympus EM1 Mk II with the Panasonic/Leica 100-400. An awesome camera and lens in a mirrorless micro-four-thirds format. Gives you a 35mm equivalent 200-800mm in an easy to carry package.


Those are very convincing images indeed; I have seen many great images from the Olympus 300mm from other posters, but that's a bit of a niche lens for me. Reports on the Leica lens were not always as great, but apparently in the right hands it can do the job. Still, most m43 gear looks a bit expensive compared to APS-C alternatives.

I'm also considering Nikon D500 or D7500 with the 4/300PF, but I will keep the OMD cameras in mind. I was a huge Olympus fan until the early 2000's when I switched to Canon. I know Olympus has excellent optics (especially for macro) ...



May 18, 2017 at 10:11 PM
Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sigma 100-400


Imagemaster wrote:
At 400mm, they are probably very close. Not for me to say.

For those that want new, the 150-600 is $200 more. As far as weight and size, the 100-400 is 2.55 lbs. & 3.40" x 7.18", while the 150-600 is 4.1 lbs. & 4.1" x 10.2". Depends on your priorities.


Well as I said if weight is an issue then sure the 100-400 will be more attractive, but the 150-600C is regularly on sale and has been as little as $799 making it a ridiculously good buy IMO. I know my 150-600C is very sharp through to around 550mm and sharp at 600mm wide open. That extra 50% FL put's 225% more epixels on the subject and for biridng every mm counts and the extra weight is a small price to pay considering how much it'll cost you to go to a supertele 600mm.



May 19, 2017 at 05:15 AM
mikeinctown
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sigma 100-400


Imagemaster wrote:
The Canon 100-400 II is superior in every way, even with a 1.4x TC on it. Not JMO.


I'm sure the Canon version is superior and it better be given more than double the cost, but we're talking about the 100-400 Sigma vs the 150-600 Sigma.

I've shot some motorsports with the Sigma 150-600C and have been pleased. Would love to try it with the 150-600S as well.



May 19, 2017 at 12:31 PM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sigma 100-400


But what about the comparison with the Canon non-II?


May 19, 2017 at 12:33 PM
juststeve
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sigma 100-400


I would find it interesting if Sigma were to make a version of the new 100-400 targeted at mirrorless cameras, even m4/3.

Perhaps a design for mirrorless cameras could be even a bit smaller with most of those cameras having mount openings in the 47-48 mm range and m4/3 smaller still. The Panny 100-400 is nicely sized but only available for m4/3 and a bit pricey. The Fuji 100-400 is quite large and seems not to be of the highest optical quality. Canon M5 and M6 users can adapt the 100-400 Mark II and have a great performing lens but it is pricey unless you already own one and is bulky in comparison to the camera. I imagine a compact version available for Sony would go over well too.



May 19, 2017 at 03:20 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



technic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sigma 100-400


juststeve wrote:
I would find it interesting if Sigma were to make a version of the new 100-400 targeted at mirrorless cameras, even m4/3.

Perhaps a design for mirrorless cameras could be even a bit smaller with most of those cameras having mount openings in the 47-48 mm range and m4/3 smaller still. The Panny 100-400 is nicely sized but only available for m4/3 and a bit pricey. The Fuji 100-400 is quite large and seems not to be of the highest optical quality. Canon M5 and M6 users can adapt the 100-400 Mark II and have a great performing lens but
...Show more

I would expect a 'mirrorless version' to be longer and a bit heavier assuming the same specs as a DSLR version, because it needs more 'tubing' because of the flangeback difference. There is nothing to gain for tele lenses when going mirrorless, they are only small if different trade-offs are made like slower aperture, slower AF, less solid mechanics etc.

An example of this is the Olympus m43 4/300mm 'Pro' lens which despite its optimization for smaller sensors is heavier than the Canon 4/300IS full frame lens... Of course, many Olympus users will claim it really is a '4/600mm lens' and should be compared with the Canon 4/600L, but this is nonsense. Of course, this Olympus lens is optically very high quality, and mechanically (IS performance, weather sealing etc.) also superior to the Canon 4/300IS. But they are both 4/300mm lenses and the Canon covers a much bigger sensor for far less money ...The same applies for many other mirrorless tele/zoom lenses; mirrorless lenses only have size/weight advantage in a relatively small focal length range.

As to the Canon 100-400, it would make sense that if they are getting serious about mirrorless that they make a 100-400 or 200-600 lens that is more optimized for size and weight than the 100-400II. But this means some compromises in aperture, build quality, AF speed, optical quality etc. (and probably much lower price, depending on what price level the new FF mirrorless body will be).


Edited on May 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM · View previous versions



May 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM
mogul
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sigma 100-400


I hate to say this but with your skill, any lens looks great.


May 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM
juststeve
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sigma 100-400


Technic wrote:

I would expect a 'mirrorless version' to be longer and a bit heavier assuming the same specs as a DSLR version, because it needs more 'tubing' because of the flangeback difference. There is nothing to gain for tele lenses when going mirrorless, they are only small if different trade-offs are made like slower aperture, slower AF, less solid mechanics etc.

My thinking was that with the smaller mount diameter of the current smaller frame sized (and full frame and small frame Sony) perhaps an over-all smaller and especially lighter lens could be produced if max aperture stays at the 6.3 figure.

For example, the Panny Leica 100-400 is an inch and a quarter and nearly a pound lighter than the yet unavailable Sony 100-400/ 4.5-5.6. Now a 100-400 capable over covering APC format would likely be a bit larger and heavier, but does not that describe the new Siggy lens and could not a clever bit of redesign reduce the amount of extension needed to cover the difference in flange depth and could not the diameter be made a bit less with the mount diameter being reduced over the very large Canon EF mount?

I think it possible some clever people could figure out how to make this new Siggy 100-400 even a bit smaller and maybe even better performing on current mirrorless cameras. I also think Sigma has proven it has some very clever and dedicated people working there. If the mirrorless market keeps growing the folks at Sigma may find a way a tapping into that growth.

And by the way, my greatly loved, spectacular Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 Lii is a bit shorter than the new Sony but nearly a half pound heavier and almost a pound and a half heavier than the Panny-Leica. The Siggy is about a third of an inch shorter than the Canon but nearly an inch shorter than the Sony. It is also a pound lighter than the Canon and a bit over a half pound lighter than the Sony.




May 20, 2017 at 03:04 AM
rickboden
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sigma 100-400


juststeve wrote:
My thinking was that with the smaller mount diameter of the current smaller frame sized (and full frame and small frame Sony) perhaps an over-all smaller and especially lighter lens could be produced if max aperture stays at the 6.3 figure.

For example, the Panny Leica 100-400 is an inch and a quarter and nearly a pound lighter than the yet unavailable Sony 100-400/ 4.5-5.6. Now a 100-400 capable over covering APC format would likely be a bit larger and heavier, but does not that describe the new Siggy lens and could not a clever bit of redesign reduce the
...Show more

I was trying to understand the reason for the Panasonic's lighter weight (compared to Canon and Sony) and also the smaller filter diameter then realized it is a bit slower (f/6.3 vs. f/5.6) at the tele end...though faster at the wide end.




May 20, 2017 at 07:24 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sigma 100-400


Is there any data on the IQ yet?

EBH



May 20, 2017 at 07:55 PM
ChrisAttebery
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sigma 100-400


To my eye it looks pretty good even compared to the Canon 100-400II

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1120&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



May 22, 2017 at 11:24 PM
1      
2
       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password