Canon 100-400mm or Sigma 120-400mm

[AndyT350]

Hi All,

Just wanting a bit of opinion really as i'm after a new lens with a bit more reach over my current Canon 55-250mm on my 500d.

It will be used for Motorsport, birds and a Safari (if all goes to plan!)

So the question is how much better is the Canon 100-400mm over Sigma 120-400mm especially with the Canon coming in at almost double the cost?

[jimmy156]

I went through they exact same dilemma when i bought my long lens. I ended up with the Sigma 120-400 and i'm pretty happy with it. Had it just over two years now.

Its not tack sharp wide open, but sharpens up by f/8.0, the AF works well as does the image stabilisation.

I will say i have had to have a play around with the AF microadjust to get the AF working better, but once i have done this its sharp most of the time.

If i had the money, i probably would have gone for the Canon lens, but it think VFM wise its a pretty good buy.

You will find going from 55-250 up to a 400mm zoom there is a learning curve to getting the best out of such a long lens, and to start with you may not have a very high keeper rate. But its worth keeping at it!

Finally a couple of examples:


2012-03-25 by jimmyb156, on Flickr


IMG_6860 by jimmyb156, on Flickr

It can do landscapes too


IMG_1198 by jimmyb156, on Flickr

Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 16th April 13:44

[MartinP]

I used to have a Sigma 120-400 which I recently sold as it wasn't getting much use (got as much for it on e-bay as I'd paid for it new 3 years ago). As jimmy156 says for his, it was really sharp shut down a stop or more, but wide open it went very soft, enough that I hated any images taken like that (but I am a bit of a sharpness freak).

I think the choice just comes down to whether can you justify the extra money for the Canon lens to be able to use it wide open. If money is no issue, then it's a no brainer - get the Canon lens!

[jimmy156]

Although definitely better, the Canon will still want to be stopped down a bit for best sharpness.

[Dogsey]

I considered the Canon 100-400 when I bought my kit but decided on the Sigma 100-300 f4, to be honest I couldn't have made a better choice, the Sigma is pin sharp at f4 and while I can usually get a bit closer (or can crop) it's rare that I can the extra light that would be needed with an f5.6 lens, especially one that needs to be stopped down to f8 before it's properly sharp.

It's been a perfect choice for me for wildlife shooting and the little bit of motorsport I've done, at least until I can afford something fast and even longer. (Anyone want to buy me a Canon 500mm f4?)

[markmullen]

I've got the 100-400, very happy with it, even with a 1.4x exii converter.

[nellyleelephant]

markmullen said:

I've got the 100-400, very happy with it, even with a 1.4x exii converter.

Same as the above, same camera too. Although the focus does slow down with the 1.4, it's still quick enough.

[RobDickinson]

The Canon. All day every day.

If (note if) you get a good sigma 120-400 it wont be a patch on the canon at 400.

Though the canons IS system is old and needs time to settle and the push pull zoom is something to get used too.

Shooting at 400mm will take practice too, its not as easy as you may think!


The sigma 100-300f4 is decent but also look at the new 120-300f2.8 OS , should be around the same price as the canon 100-400L and is faster has better stabilisation, sharper and weatehrsealed. You can add a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconvertor on it.


Edit :- just checked local prices and the 100-400L is about $2100 and the 120-300f2.8 is $3000 so sorry not in the same ballpark.

[jimmy156]

RobDickinson said:

The Canon. All day every day.

If (note if) you get a good sigma 120-400 it wont be a patch on the canon at 400.

I disagree with this.

If they were the same price then yes, it would be a simple decision, the canon is better. But comparing my shots to a colleagues taken with the 100-400 i certainly wouldn't say the difference in night and day.

You can't ignore the price difference between the two. £710 for the sigma and £1249 for the canon. Thats £550 difference, you could get another L lens for that!

If the option was.

- A canon 100-400L

or

- Sigma 120-400, Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Canon 60mm macro

Would it still be the Canon all day everyday?

Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 16th April 22:25

[RobDickinson]

Not sure how the 60macro or 17-50 is going to shoot airshows?

Also consider the value of those lenses 1-2 years after you have bought them. Yes the canon is more money but it will hold its value a lot better, it'll focus on what you want when you want it too, and even do so on canons next body.

I do like sigma glass and almost talked myself into a 120-300f.28OS (after using the non OS one) but for the range and the subject ( motorsports and airshows) the 100-400L cant be beat.

Buy one used and it wont cost you a bean either if you sell it.

[jimmy156]

RobDickinson said:

Not sure how the 60macro or 17-50 is going to shoot airshows?

Also consider the value of those lenses 1-2 years after you have bought them. Yes the canon is more money but it will hold its value a lot better, it'll focus on what you want when you want it too, and even do so on canons next body.

I do like sigma glass and almost talked myself into a 120-300f.28OS (after using the non OS one) but for the range and the subject ( motorsports and airshows) the 100-400L cant be beat.

Buy one used and it wont cost you a bean either if you sell it.

I was just making the point that if i had £1250 to spend, i would rather spread it out and gang more gear!

As someone else posted, he sold his Sigma 120-400 and got what he paid for it, so they hold their value pretty well,

I had to make this very decision when i bought my kit and i opted for the sigma, but only based on price.

I agree with you about the 120-300 2.8, when (if) i upradge my long lens i will probably get ones of these plus a 2x TC. 600mm 5.6 for £2500 .

I don't want to seem like i'm arguing the toss because i agree with you, the Canon is the better lens, but i don't think it's £550 better, which is why i went for the Sigma. The Canon also has its own problems with some copies not being sharp etc, its not only Sigma who's QC isn't spot on. I also think a lot of it has to do with manufacturing tolerances and can be sorted by getting your kit calibrated, or using AF microadjust.

[RobDickinson]

I think a lot of the problems with (any) 400mm lens is user error, especially on crop, they are tricky beasts to get things right with.

[RobDickinson]

Here is my play with a 2003 100-400L:

http://zarphag.com/2009/12/birding-with-an-l/

I went out and bought a 400/5.6 prime tho.>

[jimmy156]

RobDickinson said:

I think a lot of the problems with (any) 400mm lens is user error, especially on crop, they are tricky beasts to get things right with.

Yeah and that, its certainly my biggest problem

[AndyT350]

jimmy156 said:

I disagree with this.

If they were the same price then yes, it would be a simple decision, the canon is better. But comparing my shots to a colleagues taken with the 100-400 i certainly wouldn't say the difference in night and day.

You can't ignore the price difference between the two. £710 for the sigma and £1249 for the canon. Thats £550 difference, you could get another L lens for that!

If the option was.

- A canon 100-400L

or

- Sigma 120-400, Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Canon 60mm macro

Would it still be the Canon all day everyday?

Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 16th April 22:25

It's funny you said that... As I'm still relitively new to this game and building up my kit a Tamron 17-50 2.8 is definately on the short list as an upgrade from my kit walkabout lens - getting both (and a flash) for the price of the canon 100-400 is seriously tempting. (Only aslong as I won't be dissapointed with the sigma and end upgrading to the canon soon after anyways!)

Cheers for the comments all so far - still no clue what I should do

[jimmy156]

AndyT350 said:

It's funny you said that... As I'm still relitively new to this game and building up my kit a Tamron 17-50 2.8 is definately on the short list as an upgrade from my kit walkabout lens - getting both (and a flash) for the price of the canon 100-400 is seriously tempting. (Only aslong as I won't be dissapointed with the sigma and end upgrading to the canon soon after anyways!)

Cheers for the comments all so far - still no clue what I should do

Its a tricky one. I don't think you'll be disappointed with the sigma (i'm not). But if you can afford it, the canon is the better lens. I guess it depends how much you want to spend.

[MartinP]

If you're a pro or have a big budget then the choice is simple. If not, it really is a tough choice as that price difference is so significant. A few years back I dithered a lot before eventually buying the Sigma and for me at that time it was the right choice. I was also lucky with how lens prices shot up afterwards so that I could sell it on for what I'd paid for it.

At the end of the day it's one of those decisions that you have to make yourself based on what you need and your budget, but I doubt you'll be disappointed with the Sigma.

Here are a couple of the shots I got from my Sigma at the 400mm end.



Ginetta by Martin Price Photography, on Flickr



Ascari by Martin Price Photography, on Flickr