p.18 #1 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I won’t go into much detail but I bought this to replace my APSc Sony 70-350mm G lens assuming that the Sigma was already better than that lens.
I tested Sigma mostly for 400mm and center and i was pretty happy. If memory served right then it was as sharp as GM maybe...definitely a very sharp lens.
But then before giving my 70-350 G i tested that too, I did it just because i had some free time and as i said, i pretty much believed Sigma was better.
To my astonishment, Sony G is at least as good if not a hair better. I panicked and tested it again and again, with the same results.
Tells me that you shouldn’t blindly believe what everyone is saying and do it yourself.
Sigma is very sharp indeed. Its also a full framer. But on my 24mp APSc camera, the equally sharp Sony G makes a much smaller set up, the reason why i bought Sigma in the first place...
I am still thinking what course of action should i take
p.18 #2 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
It's very possible all this is due to lack of sample size. The pictures I have seen in this thread all seems to be taken in less than ideal lighting condition. The GM and 200-600 don't do very well when you are not getting good light.
p.18 #3 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
nandadevieast wrote:
I won’t go into much detail but I bought this to replace my APSc Sony 70-350mm G lens assuming that the Sigma was already better than that lens.
I tested Sigma mostly for 400mm and center and i was pretty happy. If memory served right then it was as sharp as GM maybe...definitely a very sharp lens.
But then before giving my 70-350 G i tested that too, I did it just because i had some free time and as i said, i pretty much believed Sigma was better.
To my astonishment, Sony G is at least as good if not a hair better. I panicked and tested it again and again, with the same results.
Tells me that you shouldn’t blindly believe what everyone is saying and do it yourself.
Sigma is very sharp indeed. Its also a full framer. But on my 24mp APSc camera, the equally sharp Sony G makes a much smaller set up, the reason why i bought Sigma in the first place...
I am still thinking what course of action should i take ...Show more →
I second your analysis. I bought the 70-350 to use on my A7riv on longer hikes initially. I assumed it would get smoked by my 100-400GM which has been one of my favorite lenses since moving to Sony. I had lurked on the 70-350 threads for awhile and just thought it can't be that good. Then i got the chance to pick a new one up for 699. I mean come on, how do I not give it a try Well, no it's not GM razor sharp but it is surprising close. So close that the size/weight benefits make it much easier to justify bringing it out for "just in case" uses. Honestly I've shot some side by side stuff just out of my own curiosity and alot of the time without pixel peeping if I didn't tell someone that it was the 70-350 they would have believed it came from the GM. I'm holding onto the GM for now. But with the 35mmGM coming out I can easily see a three lens kit developing of the 20mm 1.8, 35mm 1.4 and 70-350 all 67mm.
p.18 #4 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
Ya sometimes we assume things maybe its an apsc lens thats why. But its a G and not cheap so its not surprising its sharp. With that size and sharpness i am now not exchanging it with Sigma. U turn
Before i send Sigma back i want to check corners also...
p.18 #5 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I looked every single picture in the Flickr Sigma group. There are some sharp bird pictures, but I think the key difference between the Sigma and 100-400 GM is the microcontrast. It's missing a little special sauce. Is that like $1500 worth of sauce, it's in the eye of the beholder I guess. The microcontrast drops off significantly with distance from the subject it seems. The ones that pop, the subject is super close.
p.18 #7 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
lora_to wrote:
Here are two recent shots that I haven't really processed yet. On the A7RIV.
Haze is always a huge problem in the Bay Area so please keep that in mind, but the Sigma is nice and sharp, even on the A7RIV. I'd call it sharp edge-to-edge with good contrast. I haven't shot it much at 400mm at infinity due to smoke winter haze around here.
I have not owned the 100-400 GM, but judging from other's images online it's not far off if I had to say. I did however own both the Sigma 100-400 and 150-600 in Canon EF mount and it's a good bit better than either. The lens is good enough that I barely feel the need to stop down, even for landscapes, it's more a habit because I always used to.
First shot was on a tripod (but without collar, just L-Bracket :/ ), Golden Gate Bridge, 135mm, f/7.1, 1/125s.
The second set of pictures is a quick comparison shot of the Sigma 100-400 to the Tamron 28-200 while hiking up the hill. The Tamron looked decent actually - until I saw the Sigma 100-400 in comparison on a computer, huge difference. San Francisco, 200mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, handheld.
EDIT: Recently switched back to LR and it doesn't hide side-car JPEGs any more, so I accidentally posted a jpeg crop for the 100-400 vs completely unprocessed raw for Tamron, both jpeg crops now. Sigma is still much better but contrast and colors match a tad better....Show more →
Currently I have the Tamron 28-200 and was thinking of 100-400 GM but it is too expensive. So now I am looking at this Sigma. One question, your tamron shots looks like some movement issue or all shots like that at the long end. Regarding haze you can shoot after it rains, should be pretty clear IMHO. Or anytime in the early hours.
p.18 #8 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I think it's possible it was user error though I took a few shots with each lens, albeit handheld and each shot at 1/160 - 1/200 (so maybe pushing IBIS a bit), and they all looked similar. At least my copy of the Tamron is great up to ~140 but definitely deteriorates at 200. I have a lot more CA towards the edges and the corners are visibly worse at infinity than the center, even at f/8. I had two copies of the Tamron and this one was much better than the other copy I tried (both centering and sharpness).
p.18 #9 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
lora_to wrote:
I think it's possible it was user error though I took a few shots with each lens, albeit handheld and each shot at 1/160 - 1/200 (so maybe pushing IBIS a bit), and they all looked similar. At least my copy of the Tamron is great up to ~140 but definitely deteriorates at 200. I have a lot more CA towards the edges and the corners are visibly worse at infinity than the center, even at f/8. I had two copies of the Tamron and this one was much better than the other copy I tried (both centering and sharpness).
p.18 #10 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I bought a Sony 200-600 and have had it for about a week now. I can report some preliminary comparisons between it and the Sigma 100-400, mostly in terms of AF. I used both on the A7RIV with arbitrage's suggested A7RIV/200-600 AF+OIS settings.
I didn't compare sharpness 1:1 yet but my gut feeling is they still are about equal with slight edge for the Sony 200-600. Still, there's often a difference and but I'm starting to think that could be down to AF.
So, in terms of AF, the Sony and Sigma seem about equal when racking from very far out of focus to in-focus, neither is very fast on a long rack, maybe the Sigma is even a tad faster. And even otherwise the Sony only feels about 10-20% faster when the focus is already near the subject.
But, and here is the big BUT, the Sony 90+% of the time immediately nails the focus if it doesn't have to rack, and very quickly so. The Sigma on the other hand seems to get close to the focus but then needs a bit to fine-tune the perfect focus from there, it does not have the instantaneous feel of the Sony.
So the main difference, the Sony almost always immediately and accurately nails the focus. This seems to make a huge difference e.g. when photographing hummingbirds. The Sony immediately grabs the hummingbird and then follows, the Sigma always seems to lag a bit and you need the bird to hover for a fraction of a second in order to catch up, it's a small lag but it makes a big difference. This leads to about 20-30% keepers for the Sigma and 70-80% for the Sony.
So if I had to sum up AF, overall the Sony seems just a tad faster but in actual use there's a big difference. I'd describe the Sigma as having this small but constant lag whereas the Sony is (almost) always on target. It seems like a minor difference but in effect doubles or triples the keeper rate of hummingbird pictures with the Sony.
If I have time, I'd like to look into whether the Sony lenses seem sharper because of slight AF misses on the Sigma or are inherently so.
p.18 #11 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I am still thinking about this lens as it will give me more reach for the landscapes and it is lighter and smaller compared to the GM. Also good to find that my Sigma 105mm f1.4 collar will fit it.
p.18 #12 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
lora_to wrote:
I bought a Sony 200-600 and have had it for about a week now. I can report some preliminary comparisons between it and the Sigma 100-400, mostly in terms of AF. I used both on the A7RIV with arbitrage's suggested A7RIV/200-600 AF+OIS settings.
I didn't compare sharpness 1:1 yet but my gut feeling is they still are about equal with slight edge for the Sony 200-600. Still, there's often a difference and but I'm starting to think that could be down to AF.
So, in terms of AF, the Sony and Sigma seem about equal when racking from very far out of focus to in-focus, neither is very fast on a long rack, maybe the Sigma is even a tad faster. And even otherwise the Sony only feels about 10-20% faster when the focus is already near the subject.
But, and here is the big BUT, the Sony 90+% of the time immediately nails the focus if it doesn't have to rack, and very quickly so. The Sigma on the other hand seems to get close to the focus but then needs a bit to fine-tune the perfect focus from there, it does not have the instantaneous feel of the Sony.
So the main difference, the Sony almost always immediately and accurately nails the focus. This seems to make a huge difference e.g. when photographing hummingbirds. The Sony immediately grabs the hummingbird and then follows, the Sigma always seems to lag a bit and you need the bird to hover for a fraction of a second in order to catch up, it's a small lag but it makes a big difference. This leads to about 20-30% keepers for the Sigma and 70-80% for the Sony.
So if I had to sum up AF, overall the Sony seems just a tad faster but in actual use there's a big difference. I'd describe the Sigma as having this small but constant lag whereas the Sony is (almost) always on target. It seems like a minor difference but in effect doubles or triples the keeper rate of hummingbird pictures with the Sony.
If I have time, I'd like to look into whether the Sony lenses seem sharper because of slight AF misses on the Sigma or are inherently so....Show more →
Great to know. I have Sigma 100-400 but thinking of also getting a 200-600 to get pictures of birds in my yard (including hummingbirds). I'm thinking of keeping 100-400 for when I want reach on a hike. There is a short hike near my house that has tons of cows and horses and I don't want to carry a huge lens.
p.18 #13 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I tried doing a slightly more controlled test, sitting by a newly installed feeder for an hour to get a feel hummingbirds with either lens. Unfortunately, it's very overcast right now and neither lens had that many keepers at ISO 6400 and 1/1000 and the hummingbird only showed once for each lens about 5 secs.
It might be another week before the sun is back but I'll try then.
p.18 #14 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
I have a question to the actual users of this lens, what are your impressions on infinity performance at the long end?
I don't really have any other experience at 400+ but my copy seems to deteriorate the further the focus is.
I mean @400mm@@ but focused pretty close I can't hardly tell the difference in sharpness vs @100mm.
However, when I focus far away (or at infinity) the sharpness/contrast (details in general are lost, a bit similar to shooting at high iso) seems to take a dip.
It's hard to tell for me whether that's the nature of the game at long distances (hot air, etc.) or this lens in general or my copy specifically... I think I'll have to do a more controlled test and ideally rent the GM to compare to, but maybe you can point me towards the right direction in the meantime .
I'll try to find some examples from my recent trip to show you what exactly I have in mind.
These two I consider ok, but they show focus distance of 2m in EXIF, iso 400 and 640 respectively:
These 2 are still rather ok, though there is some funkiness happening for iso 100 imho (maybe they are not flat enough and dof comes into play), focus distance 205.20m and 410m respectively:
Edit: I think I'm seeing things again, as I went through the photos most @ 400mm with focus distance 200m, 400m, etc. were okay (discarding the cases were AF obviously missed / IS was not enough).
I need to shoot some real infinity and hopefully compare to the GM to see if I get the same impression...
p.18 #15 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
j4nu wrote:
I have a question to the actual users of this lens, what are your impressions on infinity performance at the long end?
I don't really have any other experience at 400+ but my copy seems to deteriorate the further the focus is.
I mean @400mm@@@ but focused pretty close I can't hardly tell the difference in sharpness vs @100mm.
However, when I focus far away (or at infinity) the sharpness/contrast (details in general are lost, a bit similar to shooting at high iso) seems to take a dip.
Edit: I think I'm seeing things again, as I went through the photos most @ 400mm with focus distance 200m, 400m, etc. were okay (discarding the cases were AF obviously missed / IS was not enough).
I need to shoot some real infinity and hopefully compare to the GM to see if I get the same impression......Show more →
This could be just a heat haze / heat shimmer. On tripod, turn off IS and use delayed shutter or a remote.
I would not be happy about this performance. I have older Sigma 100-400 C Canon mount on MC-11.
p.18 #16 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
jtra wrote:
This could be just a heat haze / heat shimmer. On tripod, turn off IS and use delayed shutter or a remote.
I would not be happy about this performance. I have older Sigma 100-400 C Canon mount on MC-11.
Thanks, do you mean all of these 4 shots or only the far away ones?
These were all shot handheld btw.
p.18 #17 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
jtra wrote:
This could be just a heat haze / heat shimmer. On tripod, turn off IS and use delayed shutter or a remote.
I would not be happy about this performance. I have older Sigma 100-400 C Canon mount on MC-11.
j4nu wrote:
Thanks, do you mean all of these 4 shots or only the far away ones?
These were all shot handheld btw.
I mean only the far focus distance. I have not looked closely others.
p.18 #18 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
Thanks!
I'll throw in these 100mm vs 400mm shots of the same scene so the difference is more apparent:
100mm (102.50m focus distance in exif for some reason): DSC06708 by Jan U, on Flickr
p.18 #19 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
Hmm I don't believe nobody shoots their Sigma 100-400 at 400mm at infinity...
If there really is no feedback on this I'll have to rent the GM to compare, which might be interesting anyway .
p.18 #20 · Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)
j4nu wrote:
Hmm I don't believe nobody shoots their Sigma 100-400 at 400mm at infinity...
If there really is no feedback on this I'll have to rent the GM to compare, which might be interesting anyway .
I've tried and I'm not thrilled but since I'm new to this I always assume it's user error. Will be curious what you think after you rent the GM.
and do it yourself. 
. 
