Sigma 100-300 f/4 "L"

Hello everyone,

 

Have you worked with Sigma 100-300 f/4 lens? Could you tell anything

about image quality?

 

I am comparing it to Canon 70-200 f/4. I know that focal lengths

don�t match, however they seem to be the same class. If I have Canon

70-200 and Sigma 70-200 I would go Canon. But when the Sigma 100-300

appears I hesitate. Sigma is up to 300mm (collar included), but Canon

is Canon.

 

Hmmm...

 

Linda

Frm my research, Image quality is good with the Sigma, close to great with the Canon. The Canon AF is much faster if that's important to you. If you want 300mm the Sigma is the way to go for the money. Take the Canon, add $100 for the tripod ring and $??? for the 1.4 TC and you'll be equivalent to the Sigma in performance - but for a lot more cash. If image quality is the prime concern the Canon is fantastic.

<I>"Take the Canon, add $100 for the tripod ring and $??? for the 1.4 TC and you'll be equivalent to the Sigma in performance - but for a lot more cash."</I>

<BR>

 

<BR>

<P><BR> Maybe you are thinking of the slower 100-300 Sigma zooms. The f/4 version is $839 USD at B&H. For that price, you are approaching the price of a used Canon 70-200 2.8 L (non IS). If you are interested in simply getting to the Canon 300 f/4 L will be better, as would the Canon zooms. I haven't used the Sigma, but photozone.de rates the Sigma lens in question very highly. But ratings are ratings and L glass is well, hard to beat.<P>

If you want a quality 100-300 for Canon then the Sigma is really the only lens in current production from any manufacturer that fits the bill (perhaps apart from the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8). Very good optically, it also has fast AF, and benefits from internal focus and zoom. Maybe Canon will get round to producing a competitor with IS - but expect to pay at least $1500 for it if they do.

 

Incidentally, I think that many would reckon that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is almost the equal of the equivalent Canon while being somewhat cheaper - you lose slightly on close focus distance and overall weight but not on optics or AF performance unless you're using a top end body - though the IS version of the Canon is another thing altogether with its 3 stop improvement in hand holding ability. The 70-200 f/4 L is a very fine lens, but add the 1.4xTC and you're reduced to 280mm at f/5.6. Of course the Canon 300 f/4 primes beat all of these for optical quality, but then you'd expect a prime to be sharper and better corrected than a zoom.

<P> Optically, there are only 3 good 100-300 lenses. The Canon f/5.6 L and the Sigma and Tokina f/4 ones. Comparing the Sigma to the Canon 70-200/4 is not a fair one. The Sigma is much longer, much heavier and more expensive. BTW, a friend of mine compared his Tokina to my Canon 200/2.8 USM L and it was rather close. </P>

<P> So, you need to consider not only focal lengths and aperture but also :<br>

Weight (are you constantly using a tripod?).<br>

Overall length.<br>

Filter size (more money to spend on quality ones).<br>

Overall price.<br>

Possible compatibility problems (Sigma is notoriously known for this).<br>

AF motor (the canon f/5.6 is last, the Sigma HSM and Canon USM are first and the Tokina falls between).<br>

The option of a prime.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

Thank you very much. I will have to think about it and about all the situation and condition I will work with the lens.

 

Linda