Thoughts: Canon EF100-400 L vs Sigma 135-400?
Discussion
So I have more or less decided that my new years present to myself will be a replacement for my rather ordinary Canon 75-300 4.0-5.6 USM III lens
I'd like something a bit longer and higher quality so considering these two.
Any thoughts on relative merits of these two lenses? Obivously the Canon is more than twice the price, but will I, as a pretty average picture taker, notice/benefit from the difference?
For reference:
Canon is: EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM; £1042
at Warehouse Express Sigma is: 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO; £427.99 at Warehouse Express
If you can afford the Canon, go for it.
My first long zoom was the 135-400 and whilst it's a decent lens for the price, i suspect you will be disappointed in the long term. If you want a better alternative look at the Sigma 100-300 F4, a 1.4x Convertor and a good monopod.
I've had the 100-400L for just over a year and it's a superb lens but bear in mind it's not a low-light lens (f4.5-5.6) which is why i also have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8
Some 100-400 examples
(Click on the pic to remove the PH "Squish" effect)
On a dull day at Snetterton last March...
Brands Hatch BTCC final round 2005. This was the first time i used the 100-400L..
Something from last Saturday at Croft...
My first long zoom was the 135-400 and whilst it's a decent lens for the price, i suspect you will be disappointed in the long term. If you want a better alternative look at the Sigma 100-300 F4, a 1.4x Convertor and a good monopod.
I've had the 100-400L for just over a year and it's a superb lens but bear in mind it's not a low-light lens (f4.5-5.6) which is why i also have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8
Some 100-400 examples
(Click on the pic to remove the PH "Squish" effect) On a dull day at Snetterton last March...
Brands Hatch BTCC final round 2005. This was the first time i used the 100-400L..
Something from last Saturday at Croft...
Edited by monkeyhanger on Tuesday 2nd January 21:37
V6GTO said:
£1042? Bloody bargain!
It's my main lens, I have it on the camera 90% of the time and I have several other good lenses. All this talk of being heavy makes me laugh...get some muscles you whimps!
Martin.
Martin.
It's my main lens, I have it on the camera 90% of the time and I have several other good lenses. All this talk of being heavy makes me laugh...get some muscles you whimps!
Martin.
Martin.
Well its $1400 at J&R in New York, and I have a couple of trips coming up ... and its darn near two to the pound so ...
tertius said:
:
Canon is: EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM; £1042
at Warehouse Express Sigma is: 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO; £427.99 at Warehouse Express
iirc I saw the Canon advertised somewhere on line in the UK for just under a grand a week or so before xmas. Surprised me at the time.
The Canon-Outlet on eBay had a "refurb" going before xmas. They usually will have 12 months warranty from Canon but you don't see them often. It went for £795 as I recall.
Here it is:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dl
LongQ said:
tertius said:
:
Canon is: EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM; £1042
at Warehouse Express Sigma is: 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO; £427.99 at Warehouse Express
iirc I saw the Canon advertised somewhere on line in the UK for just under a grand a week or so before xmas. Surprised me at the time.
The Canon-Outlet on eBay had a "refurb" going before xmas. They usually will have 12 months warranty from Canon but you don't see them often. It went for £795 as I recall.
Here it is:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dl
Know anything about these guys; http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Digital-4-U
They have it for £900. New, in the UK.
te51cle said:
monkeyhanger said:
I also have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8
How do you find that lens ? Is the quality sufficient for the price ? I was thinking of adding that and a 1.4x convertor to my collection.
Put it this way..
The 100-400L is excellent. The Sigma is better
I have a 2x TC and the images need a little bit more sharpening but i've got some nice shots with it. I know a couple of people who use it with the 1.4x and they say the TC hardly affects image quality or AF speed at all.
tertius said:
V6GTO said:
£1042? Bloody bargain!
It's my main lens, I have it on the camera 90% of the time and I have several other good lenses. All this talk of being heavy makes me laugh...get some muscles you whimps!
Martin.
Martin.
It's my main lens, I have it on the camera 90% of the time and I have several other good lenses. All this talk of being heavy makes me laugh...get some muscles you whimps!
Martin.
Martin.
Well its $1400 at J&R in New York, and I have a couple of trips coming up ... and its darn near two to the pound so ...
Don't forget the ~8% New York sales tax though. I picked up a 70-200 F4L IS over there at christmas and got hit by it. They don't include it in the sticker price and only tell you about it when you go to pay and it's too late to back down. Still, tax included everything is still vastly cheaper!!
OK, so resurrecting this thread ...
As mentioned I borrowed the Canon 100-400 and to be honest was a bit underwhelmed by it. Took a fair few pics, but very few really grabbed me, and generally they didn't seem that sharp (user error no dount).
So, its put me off the Canon a bit (OK a lot).
SO I'm back to considering the Sigma 135-400 or even the 50-500.
Somehow I can't believe that the 50-500 can actually be good across that huge range but it does seem to be well reviewed.
Any further thoughts anyone would like to share?
As mentioned I borrowed the Canon 100-400 and to be honest was a bit underwhelmed by it. Took a fair few pics, but very few really grabbed me, and generally they didn't seem that sharp (user error no dount).
So, its put me off the Canon a bit (OK a lot).
SO I'm back to considering the Sigma 135-400 or even the 50-500.
Somehow I can't believe that the 50-500 can actually be good across that huge range but it does seem to be well reviewed.
Any further thoughts anyone would like to share?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff