Opinion on Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX USM APO

[kenneth y]

I have a Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS USM and looking for a longer range zoom lens

not smaller than f/4 in aperture. I think the new Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

may be a bit short in range for use (eg taking animals in zoo) and overlap in

certain range with my existing lens. If it is a 100-300mm f/4 IS USM, then I

will not have a second thought. So now I have to think of Sigma AF 100-300mm

f/4 EX USM.

 

Can any users comment on this Sigma lens on its picture quality? Any

particulars on its usage and whether it is too heavy to carry in normal

shooting?

 

If I use a teleconverter, do you think having a Sigma 1.4x in matching the

Sigma lens is better than a Canon 1.4X? I saw somewhere that it is better to

use the same brand for both teleconverter and lens but I have no experience in

this.

 

 

Thank you in advance.

[jmoody]

Sucks that nobody will respond. I was dying to see the responses as I own the same 24-105 and have the same dilemna, and clicked 'notify me' and zilch! Guess we;ll never know. I'll make you a deal though, I'll write you if I ever hear anything & you do the same :-)

[craig_gillette]

Several years back there was some discussion on Dpreview on the lens. It's good. The FM forum reviews are generally good. I've never used one so have no direct experience. People I know that had one liked them and yet sold them. They are pretty big and heavy.

 

The Dpreview forum discussion seemed to run the lines that it was often a great compromise that people would begin with, being longer than the 70-200s, faster than the 400s and 500s and cheaper than the "brand name" lenses, yet usable with a TC. But it seems that as people could swing it, they'd go on to the Bigma for reach (or Tamron 200-500 now) and the 70-200/2.8s for speed. The 70-200/2.8s and converter come very close to the range, yet have the flexibility to remove the converter, save some weight and add the speed (which, if you go for the f4s, you won't gain any aperture).

 

As to zoo use? It won't compare to the 70-200/4s. Much larger and heavier, you'll probably find that you want or need a monopod or tripod after some walking about. I have a 100-300 KM lens, it's slower in focus system response and aperture, but is light and easily handheld. Of course, when on, I find it's both too short or too long. (Too long, I can swap it over to something else, but too short, still don't have anything with more reach - that's coming sme day. No Tc use on the KM.) I believe the Sigma does focus closer. But except for the 50-500 bigam, you would generally be swapping them on and off for either end anyways.

 

As to zoo

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

The sigma is a great lens only restriction is F4 but if you are ok with that and the animals don't moove that quickly then value for money it's a great lens. Now better still is the 120-300 2.8 sigma but its much more expensive.

 

You are better to match the lens with the Sigma convertor they are pretty good.

 

enjoy

Mark

[kenneth y]

To Craign: Thanks for the suggestion of 70-200 f2.8. I found the range is overlapping with my existing Canon 24-105 f4 to some extent. Also the weight of 1270g is not much different with the 100-300 f4 which is 1440g. The 100-300 could give me more ranges in case of need. If I only have a 28-70, then definitely the 70-200 is a good choice.

 

To Mark: The 120-300 f2.8 is definitely a good one. But I am concern about its weight of 2600g which is almost double the weight of 100-300 f4. Even the 100-300 f4 I may find it already quite heavy if hand-held.

For the teleconverter, yes I will get a Sigma 1.4x to match the Sigma lens. Do you have any experience or information how is the performance of Canon 1.4x converter on Sigma lens? Not much of this type of info on the net unfortunately.

 

Thanks for all the valuable advice from inmates.