skibum5 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
CanonShooter88 wrote:
Well I'm going to need some convincing here. I've had the Canon 100-400 for a long time, and it's been a nice flexible lens to carry around. Recently (i.e. past few years) it has seen extremely little use. I shoot sports, and it's my only lens slower than f/2.8. When in daylight and when traveling, I do like the 100-400mm range it offers and the fact that it isn't very heavy.
However, I have an opportunity to snag a used Sigma 120-300mm (non DG), and am considering selling the 100-400mm to put money toward it. I do realize it's a lot heavier (I used to work with the Canon 300mm f/2.8), and so weight is not the issue. I'm more concerned with sharpness, contrast, AF, etc. between these two lenses.
All in all, would you keep the 100-400, or sell it and get the 120-300? I could see myself using the Sigma more because of its low-light capabilities, but AF speed & accuracy is not something I'm willing to sacrifice.
Thanks!
-Mark
**Also, if there have been any past posts on this topic that I missed, feel free to post the link...I don't expect you to write some long post when the work has been done for you already ...Show more →
well I've never used the 100-400L so I can't compare against that I can say that my 300 2.8 IS PLUS 1.4x TC and my bare 300 f/4 non-IS produced a somewhat better image quality than the bare sigma 120-300. The sigma seemed to be more like 280-285mm and f/2.9-3 to me. The AF wasn't the most precise in the world. It didn't focus as quickly as the 300 2.8 IS.
That said the image quality wasn't bad and the focus speed was pretty good, there are plenty of lenses worse on either or both accounts, it doesn't have poor IQ just not canon tele great and the AF isn't slow just not insanely canon super-tele fast. The AF precision did seem a bit poor though by any standards.
The copy I used was a heavily used pool copy though.
Everyone who used the pool lenses always went for the 300 2.8 IS first, despite losing zoom ability. Everyone agree the 300 2.8 IS produced a lot more keepers.
The 100-400L doesn't, from what I read, have prime-like IQ or AF speed so you probably won't notice any less (other than maybe in AF precision and of course the weight, the 120-300 is way bulkier and the zooming it hand-held was pretty awkward, not that you can't use it hand-held as I often did the 300 2.8 IS for sports, but it does get tiresome and it's a major pain on a vacation and I don't even bother on hikes or all day vacation run-around).
|