Below are just a few sample images that I took after receiving the lens today. I will leave it to others to post their reviews on this lens.
The only comparison I will make with the Canon 100-400 II, is that the Canon costs $2,000, and the Sigma costs $800.
I was told by a reputable photo retailer that it would probably not AF with a Canon TC. That was incorrect, and it did AF with a Canon 1.4x II on my 7D2. I am sure the Sigma TC-1401 would AF better and with better IQ.
Cross-posted to N&W Forum in case anyone there is looking for a cheaper alternative to the Canon 100-400 II.
But is it better at 400mm than the 150-600C @ 400mm. Given you can often get the 600mm for around $800-900, IMO it's a much better buy unless you really can't handle the extra weight.
Nice photos all together. You very well on these.
The shots from the bare lens look definitely sharp and crisp while with the TC the IQ takes a hit. And would would say a more notable hit than the EF 100-400 II when using the 1.4x TC. For anyone just wanting to go to 400 mm with a well-priced lens this may really be the way to go.
Looks good, especially the rabbit shot at 400mm full open.
As good as the Canon 100-400II may be near infinity (and I don't doubt it has better IS and AF too), I don't like the results for closeups and it looks like the new Sigma is better there. Hoping to see more images at MFD and near wide open (below f/8); stopping down 1-2 stops is often not an option and the Canon is unusable for me near MFD and below f/8.
This might be a better alternative for me, with much lower weight and price too. I can accept that the Sigma might be a bit worse for infinity shots, atmospheric conditions in my area are usually such that you will almost never see the true quality of the lens.
jhg photo wrote:
Nice photos all together. You very well on these.
The shots from the bare lens look definitely sharp and crisp while with the TC the IQ takes a hit. And would would say a more notable hit than the EF 100-400 II when using the 1.4x TC. For anyone just wanting to go to 400 mm with a well-priced lens this may really be the way to go.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But is it better at 400mm than the 150-600C @ 400mm. Given you can often get the 600mm for around $800-900, IMO it's a much better buy unless you really can't handle the extra weight.
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.
jhg photo wrote:
Nice photos all together. You very well on these.
The shots from the bare lens look definitely sharp and crisp while with the TC the IQ takes a hit. And would would say a more notable hit than the EF 100-400 II when using the 1.4x TC. For anyone just wanting to go to 400 mm with a well-priced lens this may really be the way to go.
Thanks. As I said, I was using a Canon TC, not the Sigma, which should be better.
I don't think IQ would be a primary differentiating factor between the 100-400 and 150-600 Contemporary lenses. They're both good, but final use will likely be the determining factor for most when choosing between Canon's compact and consumer oriented 70-300 II and Sigma's longer Contemporary zooms.
[and somehow, Canon's lens at US$499 fits nicely into the pricing progression of these lenses!]
technic wrote:
This might be a better alternative for me, with much lower weight and price too. I can accept that the Sigma might be a bit worse for infinity shots, atmospheric conditions in my area are usually such that you will almost never see the true quality of the lens.
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.
shutterbug guy wrote:
No idea but the Canon's version does it for me. Very close in quality with my 500L mkI.
The original 100-400 is still a good choice, but having owned a few of them, and a few 500L's, they were not close at all in quality. The 500's were much better.
johnctharp wrote:
I don't think IQ would be a primary differentiating factor between the 100-400 and 150-600 Contemporary lenses. They're both good, but final use will likely be the determining factor for most when choosing between Canon's compact and consumer oriented 70-300 II and Sigma's longer Contemporary zooms.
[and somehow, Canon's lens at US$499 fits nicely into the pricing progression of these lenses!]
Nobody wanting 400mm or more is going to be looking at a 70-300 that gives them a 420mm f8 when they put a TC on it.
Perhaps it was the close focusing ability of the new 100-400 that does it for me. Sure the 500's are awesome imho but the MFD does it for me also sometimes. I had both and the 500 wouldn't focus because the bird was too close, the 100-400 mkII did. Maybe next time I'll try an extension tube on the 500 :-).
Imagemaster wrote:
Nobody wanting 400mm or more is going to be looking at a 70-300 that gives them a 420mm f8 when they put a TC on it.
Sure, I was more commenting on the progression of spend $500 get 70-300, spend $800 get 100-400, spend $1000 get 150-600 (retail pricing), and that quality isn't going to be a factor, just how much reach you need versus how much you're willing to spend .
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But is it better at 400mm than the 150-600C @ 400mm. Given you can often get the 600mm for around $800-900, IMO it's a much better buy unless you really can't handle the extra weight.
Agreed. I have the 150-600C and can't see someone owning both unless the 100-400 is superior optically. I purchased my 150-600 new for about $800 where the price on the 100-400 won't be coming down for a little while most likely. I would like to see how it compares at the same distance.
---------------------------------------------
johnctharp wrote:
Sure, I was more commenting on the progression of spend $500 get 70-300, spend $800 get 100-400, spend $1000 get 150-600 (retail pricing), and that quality isn't going to be a factor, just how much reach you need versus how much you're willing to spend .
The 150-600 has been out for long enough now that paying retail is quite foolish. You can get the 150-600 price for nearly the same cost as the new 100-400.
mikeinctown wrote:
The 150-600 has been out for long enough now that paying retail is quite foolish. You can get the 150-600 price for nearly the same cost as the new 100-400.
The Canon 100-400 II is superior in every way, even with a 1.4x TC on it. Not JMO.
.