tried a couple in stores when they first came out along with the 150-500. I will say the 120-400 was the better of the 2 but was still no great performer. Focus was slower and ranged from utter miss to not quite on the mark. Later ones are said to be better. but for IQ the 100-400 I had kicked their but quite alot.
The 100-400 is a lens i regret selling , I thought I would either pick another one up or go for the sigma. I will get another 100-400 but not just yet.
If you dont mind not having OS then the 100-300/4 is one of the best lenses sigma make. Put a 1.4 TC on it and you should be good
I've been considering the 120-400, but I think I'll save up for the 100-400. Things I've read in other places, is that it takes good photo's but it's hit or miss. The failure / bad lens rate is kinda high, somewhere around 45%. If you could try one out to see if it's one of the "good" ones, I'd say go for it. The OS is supposed to be really good.
When I wrote Bryan Carnathan about it, he said that when he had lensrentals.com send him their BEST copy, even it had serious focusing issues. After all, you get what you pay for.
Interesting Popular photography did a zoom shoot out, and the Sigma 120-400 edged out the 100-400L They said both had outstanding IQ (first time I've seen that word associated with the Sigma), but the Sigma's price and better ergonomics won the day.
So far I've only heard negatives about the 120-400, but maybe newer ones have improved.
The only trouble with the 120-300 is the 3kg weight and the fact it's really more like 280mm.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 120-400mm vs Canon 100-400mm lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Interesting Popular photography did a zoom shoot out, and the Sigma 120-400 edged out the 100-400L They said both had outstanding IQ (first time I've seen that word associated with the Sigma), but the Sigma's price and better ergonomics won the day.
So far I've only heard negatives about the 120-400, but maybe newer ones have improved.
The only trouble with the 120-300 is the 3kg weight and the fact it's really more like 280mm.
the same conclusion was in a mag over here in the UK. All in all I would still get the 100-400L but if the newer ones have the AF thing sorted and the IQ is up with the canon then it may be worth a look.
I would however buy from a store that I could try the thing before commiting or at least a retailer that will take a return
p.1 #13 · Sigma 120-400mm vs Canon 100-400mm lens.
The Sigma 120-400 is one of the best Sigmas I've used. It is the equal to the Canon in IQ, AF (and superior to Nikons 80-400) with image stabilization being even better.
p.1 #14 · Sigma 120-400mm vs Canon 100-400mm lens.
keithreeder - that's the best answer of the bunch.
The weight issue - well, you get used to it. I hand-hold it almost all the time now, rarely throwing it on the monopod. I need the 2.8 for football - so the 100-400 never works there. And price wise? You can pick up a used copy pretty inexpensively ($1500?).
p.1 #15 · Sigma 120-400mm vs Canon 100-400mm lens.
Rob001 wrote:
keithreeder - that's the best answer of the bunch.
The weight issue - well, you get used to it. I hand-hold it almost all the time now, rarely throwing it on the monopod. I need the 2.8 for football - so the 100-400 never works there. And price wise? You can pick up a used copy pretty inexpensively ($1500?).
thats still nearly double the cost of the 120-400 though isn't it.
p.1 #16 · Sigma 120-400mm vs Canon 100-400mm lens.
Sure, but if you're gonna be shooting sports there's gonna be times you're going to need the 2.8. So, now you're looking at either a 70-200 or the 120-300. The 120-400 isn't gonna be enough. It's great for birding where you typically don't need the wider aperature, but, well, I guess my bias as a sports shooter is coming through, eh?
