My take: Very similar to the Nikon 70-300 VR in size. AF speed does not match the Nikon but I haven't customized the Sigma's AF or applied the firmware update yet. AF accuracy is very satisfactory. The Sigma's build quality is impressive and the IQ is excellent. All in all, a terrific value proposition provided you accept the lens for what it is - - a tremendously versatile, portable, and affordable 4X zoom for travel, kids' field sports, the zoo, an airshow, or the occasional bird or nature outing that delivers truly excellent results in decent light.
Specifically:
*Really good IQ wide open through the entire zoom range, including at 400. Nice colors, very smooth and pleasant (to my eyes) bokeh. Very nice, smooth transitions. Handles flare well. Very sharp at all focal lengths if you keep your shutter speed up.
*Well made - - feels really solid but not heavy (if that makes any sense). Extremely compact and a joy to carry around. I can see why some folks would want a tripod ring, but this lens was made for hand-holding.
Lens focused very accurately on the d750. AF speed did not equal the 70-300 VR. Supposedly, the firmware update will make the AF snappier and Sigma's AF customization function will help as well. Regardless, the lens is not slow and I found AF speed to be workable as is.
*The OS is not magic. The viewfinder does not truly stabilize. I was able to get a decent percentage (more than 70%) of consistent, acceptably sharp captures on stationary objects using 1/2 the normal focal length to shutter speed formula (e.g. 1/50 for 100mm, 1/200 for 400mm). However, the OS in this lens will not bail out bad technique.
*The lens seems engineered for wide-open use - - f/8 was no sharper than f/6.3 and by f/11 IQ begins to deteriorate a bit (diffraction?). But don't kid yourself, f/6.3 is really not optimal in low light.
*The zoom is smooth and well-dampened. The throw area is very nice between 100 and 300. After that, not so much - - there is basically no room whatever between the 300mm and 400mm settings.
On the whole, I found the Sigma far superior to the old 70-300 VR IMO. Having also used the Nikon 80-400 AF-S, I'd also opt for the Sigma over that lens. What you lose in AF speed (but not AF accuracy!) and range on the wide end you gain in IQ, portability, bokeh, and affordability.
My take: Very similar to the Nikon 70-300 VR in size. AF speed does not match the Nikon but I haven't customized the Sigma's AF or applied the firmware update yet. AF accuracy is very satisfactory. The Sigma's build quality is impressive and the IQ is excellent. All in all, a terrific value proposition provided you accept the lens for what it is - - a tremendously versatile, portable, and affordable 4X zoom for travel, kids' field sports, the zoo, an airshow, or the occasional bird or nature outing that delivers truly excellent results in decent light.
Specifically:
*Really good IQ wide open through the entire zoom range, including at 400. Nice colors, very smooth and pleasant (to my eyes) bokeh. Very nice, smooth transitions. Handles flare well. Very sharp at all focal lengths if you keep your shutter speed up.
*Well made - - feels really solid but not heavy (if that makes any sense). Extremely compact and a joy to carry around. I can see why some folks would want a tripod ring, but this lens was made for hand-holding.
Lens focused very accurately on the d750. AF speed did not equal the 70-300 VR. Supposedly, the firmware update will make the AF snappier and Sigma's AF customization function will help as well. Regardless, the lens is not slow and I found AF speed to be workable as is.
*The OS is not magic. The viewfinder does not truly stabilize. I was able to get a decent percentage (more than 70%) of consistent, acceptably sharp captures on stationary objects using 1/2 the normal focal length to shutter speed formula (e.g. 1/50 for 100mm, 1/200 for 400mm). However, the OS in this lens will not bail out bad technique.
*The lens seems engineered for wide-open use - - f/8 was no sharper than f/6.3 and by f/11 IQ begins to deteriorate a bit (diffraction?). But don't kid yourself, f/6.3 is really not optimal in low light.
*The zoom is smooth and well-dampened. The throw area is very nice between 100 and 300. After that, not so much - - there is basically no room whatever between the 300mm and 400mm settings.
On the whole, I found the Sigma far superior to the old 70-300 VR IMO. Having also used the Nikon 80-400 AF-S, I'd also opt for the Sigma over that lens. What you lose in AF speed (but not AF accuracy!) and range on the wide end you gain in IQ, portability, bokeh, and affordability.
Will try and post pics in the next day or so. ...Show more →
It would be difficult for me to believe this is an improvement over the 80-400G.
morrismike wrote:
It would be difficult for me to believe this is an improvement over the 80-400G.
There is one YouTube review that shows the Sigma to be sharper and better in the corners than the Canon 100-400II and the Canon has always tested to be better than the Nikon. Therefore I don't doubt this Sigma would best the 80-400 for IQ.
My take: Very similar to the Nikon 70-300 VR in size. AF speed does not match the Nikon but I haven't customized the Sigma's AF or applied the firmware update yet. AF accuracy is very satisfactory. The Sigma's build quality is impressive and the IQ is excellent. All in all, a terrific value proposition provided you accept the lens for what it is - - a tremendously versatile, portable, and affordable 4X zoom for travel, kids' field sports, the zoo, an airshow, or the occasional bird or nature outing that delivers truly excellent results in decent light.
Specifically:
*Really good IQ wide open through the entire zoom range, including at 400. Nice colors, very smooth and pleasant (to my eyes) bokeh. Very nice, smooth transitions. Handles flare well. Very sharp at all focal lengths if you keep your shutter speed up.
*Well made - - feels really solid but not heavy (if that makes any sense). Extremely compact and a joy to carry around. I can see why some folks would want a tripod ring, but this lens was made for hand-holding.
Lens focused very accurately on the d750. AF speed did not equal the 70-300 VR. Supposedly, the firmware update will make the AF snappier and Sigma's AF customization function will help as well. Regardless, the lens is not slow and I found AF speed to be workable as is.
*The OS is not magic. The viewfinder does not truly stabilize. I was able to get a decent percentage (more than 70%) of consistent, acceptably sharp captures on stationary objects using 1/2 the normal focal length to shutter speed formula (e.g. 1/50 for 100mm, 1/200 for 400mm). However, the OS in this lens will not bail out bad technique.
*The lens seems engineered for wide-open use - - f/8 was no sharper than f/6.3 and by f/11 IQ begins to deteriorate a bit (diffraction?). But don't kid yourself, f/6.3 is really not optimal in low light.
*The zoom is smooth and well-dampened. The throw area is very nice between 100 and 300. After that, not so much - - there is basically no room whatever between the 300mm and 400mm settings.
On the whole, I found the Sigma far superior to the old 70-300 VR IMO. Having also used the Nikon 80-400 AF-S, I'd also opt for the Sigma over that lens. What you lose in AF speed (but not AF accuracy!) and range on the wide end you gain in IQ, portability, bokeh, and affordability.
Will try and post pics in the next day or so. ...Show more → morrismike wrote:
It would be difficult for me to believe this is an improvement over the 80-400G.
Sigma makes some very good optics now. The 80-400G was an improvement over the old shaft drive model, but it is showing some age and could be improved for the future high-res sensors.
The lack of an option for a tripod mount is rather limiting on any xx-400 mm lens. I suppose Sigma is only made for handheld action. The 80-400 is a more versatile lens.
arbitrage wrote:
There is one YouTube review that shows the Sigma to be sharper and better in the corners than the Canon 100-400II and the Canon has always tested to be better than the Nikon. Therefore I don't doubt this Sigma would best the 80-400 for IQ.
DXO testing a single sample of each lens is one thing. Roger testing multiple copies of each lens is another.... https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
The MTFs are show an obvious difference between the two lenses when averaged over the multiple copies Roger tested.
From that article: "Commonly called the 80-400 VR II, this lens has been the Nikon 400mm zoom for some time now. It’s, well, it’s better up to about 300mm, but it’s just not that good when you stretch it out to 400mm. Not a great performance for a lens that demands a premium price.". Roger concludes that the Nikon is the worst performer at 400mm even compared to the Sigma zooms.
Of course Roger is specifically looking at the long end. Even DXO's field maps show the Canon better at the long end especially in the corners and that is where the Sigma was shown to be even better in one online test. The Nikon lens is much better at the shorter focal lengths as Roger points out. So if one is after performance at the shorter lengths than the Nikon may be best. The Sigma was shown to best or equal the Canon at all focal lengths so again my only conclusion was that this Sigma could challenge the Canon and Nikon versions from an IQ perspective.
The OP points out that OS and maybe AF aren't up to Nikon levels. I would guess they aren't up to Canon levels either. When I owned the Sigma 150-600C it compared well in IQ but faltered in OS and AF vs my 100-400II so that is why I sold it. Still for a super compact 100-400, the Sigma could be a great choice for many.
So let's be clear, the 80-400 VR is far better in terms of AF speed and VR performance. As in much better. But a used 80-400 is about twice the price of the Sigma, a new 80-400 is three times the price. Best short summary (quoting above): Still for a super compact 100-400, the Sigma could be a great choice for many.
If I had to bet, I'd say "something else" -- most likely user error. The in-camera focus points were generally pretty sharp. Here's another aggressive crop of the dove - - on this one I managed to get the focus point somewhere other than the bush, and the capture is a bit better.
arbitrage wrote:
DXO testing a single sample of each lens is one thing. Roger testing multiple copies of each lens is another.... https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
The MTFs are show an obvious difference between the two lenses when averaged over the multiple copies Roger tested.
From that article: "Commonly called the 80-400 VR II, this lens has been the Nikon 400mm zoom for some time now. It’s, well, it’s better up to about 300mm, but it’s just not that good when you stretch it out to 400mm. Not a great performance for a lens that demands a premium price.". Roger concludes that the Nikon is the worst performer at 400mm even compared to the Sigma zooms.
Of course Roger is specifically looking at the long end. Even DXO's field maps show the Canon better at the long end especially in the corners and that is where the Sigma was shown to be even better in one online test. The Nikon lens is much better at the shorter focal lengths as Roger points out. So if one is after performance at the shorter lengths than the Nikon may be best. The Sigma was shown to best or equal the Canon at all focal lengths so again my only conclusion was that this Sigma could challenge the Canon and Nikon versions from an IQ perspective.
The OP points out that OS and maybe AF aren't up to Nikon levels. I would guess they aren't up to Canon levels either. When I owned the Sigma 150-600C it compared well in IQ but faltered in OS and AF vs my 100-400II so that is why I sold it. Still for a super compact 100-400, the Sigma could be a great choice for many....Show more →
Well, you did say, "...the Canon has always tested to be better than the Nikon". So, that assertion is not right . However, the thing you need to remember is that I am pretty sure Roger tests at infinity and from memory DXO at 40x or 50x focal length(?). Do you shoot at infinity or less most of the time? I never shoot at infinity. Lenscore has the Canon slightly ahead in resolution but only slightly to the point that it would possibly be not that evident in real world scenarios and that is an average resolution number across all tested focal lengths, all tested apertures and all 5 camera to subject distances.
I know from my use that the 80-400 is very sharp right up to 400mm. The point I am making and have always said, you cannot take any tests from any one tester as gospel, but a whole range of tests to get a good feeling for the lens and how it behaves. Ephotozine gives the new 80-400 a "Highly Recommended" and 4.5 stars out of 5 falling down mainly on the value score: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii-review-22065
Lance B wrote:
Well, you did say, "...the Canon has always tested to be better than the Nikon". So, that assertion is not right . However, the thing you need to remember is that I am pretty sure Roger tests at infinity and from memory DXO at 40x or 50x focal length(?). Do you shoot at infinity or less most of the time? I never shoot at infinity. Lenscore has the Canon slightly ahead in resolution but only slightly to the point that it would possibly be not that evident in real world scenarios and that is an average resolution number across all tested focal lengths, all tested apertures and all 5 camera to subject distances.
I know from my use that the 80-400 is very sharp right up to 400mm. The point I am making and have always said, you cannot take any tests from any one tester as gospel, but a whole range of tests to get a good feeling for the lens and how it behaves. Ephotozine gives the new 80-400 a "Highly Recommended" and 4.5 stars out of 5 falling down mainly on the value score: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii-review-22065
So, I don't think you can make blanket statements like the Canon always tests better than the Nikon. ...Show more →
You have a point, not every test shows it better. Just a lot of reviews place it as the top 80/100-400 lens out there. Roger doesn't test at infinity. He actually tests fairly short distance. The exact distance is listed in the reviews.
I'm not sure why this has to be turned into a Canon/Nikon debate. My point was that the Sigma has tested to best the Canon in some areas as far as IQ and therefore I don't see why it couldn't have better IQ than the Nikon as the second poster seemed to have a hard time believing.
I'll leave it at that, I have no need to get into an argument whether the Canon or Nikon or Sigma is better. I have no interest in the Sigma 100-400 but from my experience with the lenses in question I have no problem believing it may best the Nikon and Canon in IQ tests.
To finish this off - - after playing with the lens a bit more, here's my take (FWIW):
*IQ is at least comparable to the 80-400 AF-S, but AF speed and OS/VR are not nearly on the same level.
*AF accuracy is very good once the lens acquires a subject. But the lack of AF speed can be annoying.
*If you're primary intended use for this lens is birding or fast-moving events then save your money for the 80-400 or one of the 200-500/150-600 products. HOWEVER, if you're looking for a zoom lens to take on a cruise or overseas trip, or to throw in a bag for an outing to the beach or zoo or air show or little league game on a Saturday afternoon, then this lens may be just perfect for you. The Sigma's IQ is great, it is a very easy carry for a lens with such a wide range and reach, it is relatively affordable, and, because it is so compact and versatile, it is quite fun to use.
*AF accuracy is very good once the lens acquires a subject. But the lack of AF speed can be annoying. *If you're primary intended use for this lens is birding or fast-moving events then save your money for the 80-400 or one of the 200-500/150-600 products.
Yet just about everything in your "testing" is sitting still.
As far as reviews go (no offense) don't quit your day job.
I thought this was a pretty good review - been thinking about buying this with a Sigma MC-11 adapter for my Sony A7R II or save up for the native Sony 100-400mm (absurdly expensive) so appreciate the op for shedding light on his experiences. Thanks for doing this!
It would be great if you can post some sample bird in flight shots - would be interested in seeing what can be achieved even if it's not ideal.
The sigma has a very slight advantage at 400 over the Canon wide open, but stopping the Canon down to 6.3 to match the Sigma lens offers sharper images from the Canon based on what I have seen on the digital picture comparison tools.
Lance B wrote:
Well, you did say, "...the Canon has always tested to be better than the Nikon". So, that assertion is not right . However, the thing you need to remember is that I am pretty sure Roger tests at infinity and from memory DXO at 40x or 50x focal length(?). Do you shoot at infinity or less most of the time? I never shoot at infinity. Lenscore has the Canon slightly ahead in resolution but only slightly to the point that it would possibly be not that evident in real world scenarios and that is an average resolution number across all tested focal lengths, all tested apertures and all 5 camera to subject distances.
...
So, I don't think you can make blanket statements like the Canon always tests better than the Nikon. ...Show more →
Agree, it can depend on the type of use. I have the Canon 100-400II, its infinity performance is excellent (even with 1.4x TC added) but at MFD my copy is very disappointing (far worse than e.g. my 20 year old 4/300IS lens). Still not sure if my lens is an exception, but probably not (Canon says my lens is OK and some others have confirmed they see the same issues). MFD for the Canon zoom is pretty close (at 400mm and MFD, a credit card will more than fill the frame on a crop body) so I understand this is not relevant to the average buyer, but at 2-3 meters distance the problem is still present. If you only take shots of landscapes or faraway birds you will probably never notice ...
Did anyone already perform solid testing on the Sigma 100-400 at 400mm, MFD, near wide open?
rstoddard11 wrote:
The sigma has a very slight advantage at 400 over the Canon wide open, but stopping the Canon down to 6.3 to match the Sigma lens offers sharper images from the Canon based on what I have seen on the digital picture comparison tools.
From what I remember reading several of the reviews, this also depends on if one is using a full frame or a crop camera; these lenses have different optimization.
