I've recently purchased the Sigma 100 – 400 C lens, one of the new batch of lenses that Sigma have released this year. I already had the 150 – 600 C which is an excellent lens in itself but is far too heavy (for me anyway) to carry around all day, more of a hide or car window lens. The Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM is far beyond my budget, while good used condition examples of the older model are pretty much the same price as a new Sigma.
I always read as many reviews as I can before buying any gear. All reviews are similar, but one of my favourite sites is Lenstip and this is what they said (slightly edited for brevity, removing references to Nikon) about the image resolution.
Centre of image : “the Sigma C 100–400 mm f/5–6.3 DG OS HSM ...... didn’t have the slightest problems to get results noticeably better than the older ...... 100-400 mm Canon devices. What’s more, the Sigma didn’t have any problems to reach MTFs ......... slightly better than the new Canon EF 100-400 mm II. “
Edge on APS-C sensor : “At 200 mm the results are simply sensational, with MTFs noticeably exceeding 40 lpmm. The 100 mm focal length is not much worse. The longer end of range of focal length range shows a similar level, with the resolution results reaching near 37 lpmm.......... The duel with the Canon 100-400 mm II is more balanced: at the longer end of the focal spectrum you get a draw, at the shorter end the Sigma is better.”
Edge of FF sensor : “at many combinations of apertures and focal lengths it is defeated slightly by the Canon 100-400 mm II. “
Summary of this, the Sigma is at least as good as, sometimes better than, the Canon except slightly worse at the edge of full frame. That's not a problem for me as the edge at these focal lengths is nearly always out of focus anyway.
I've now tested the lens out on a range of subjects and 4 different bodies (6D, 5D2, 70D and 80D) and I've been very impressed by the image quality, well up to what I expected from the reviews.
Of course there's more to a lens than just IQ so this is my comparison of Sigma and Canon.
Sigma positives :
Price, price, price! Canon street price from official sellers £1849, Sigma £799, difference £1050.
Grey supplier (DigitalRev) Canon £1429 Sigma £679, difference £750.
Whichever way you buy, the Sigma is less than half the price of the Canon.
Weight, Canon = 1640 grams, Sigma 1160 grams, difference 480 grams, just over a pound, Sigma weighs 71% of Canon..
IQ – very little difference according to LensTip comparison.
Autofocus on mine is dead accurate with all tested bodies.
Canon positives :
Slightly wider (only 1/3 stop) max aperture.
Faster autofocus. I've found the Sigma a/f to have no problems in accuracy, albeit only tested in decent light. It isn't the fastest however, and reviews suggest the Canon is faster, so may be better for fast action. However, I have the Sigma dock and suspect I can improve a/f speed somewhat by adjusting the parameters there.
Closer minimum focus, Sigma only focuses to 1.6 metres, Canon 0.98. However, at 400 mm I've found it easy to fill the frame with a butterfly or fairly small flower from well beyond 1.6 m, so not a problem for me, I don't see a long zoom as particularly suitable for macro.
Tripod mount, missing from Sigma. This has caused some negative comments in reviews, but it's not a heavy lens and I've tried it on a tripod with no worries.
Canon probably has better weather sealing.
So far I'm extremely happy with this lens, as all of my recent Sigma purchases. The IQ is as good as I expected, it's light enough that I'm happy to carry it around all day and I didn't break the bank to buy it. What more could I ask? If I were much richer and wanted to shoot a lot of high speed action I'd probably buy the Canon, which is a very well regarded lens, but I doubt if I'd see any difference in the actual images produced. In terms of value for money, the Sigma is unbeatable.
I always read as many reviews as I can before buying any gear. All reviews are similar, but one of my favourite sites is Lenstip and this is what they said (slightly edited for brevity, removing references to Nikon) about the image resolution.
Centre of image : “the Sigma C 100–400 mm f/5–6.3 DG OS HSM ...... didn’t have the slightest problems to get results noticeably better than the older ...... 100-400 mm Canon devices. What’s more, the Sigma didn’t have any problems to reach MTFs ......... slightly better than the new Canon EF 100-400 mm II. “
Edge on APS-C sensor : “At 200 mm the results are simply sensational, with MTFs noticeably exceeding 40 lpmm. The 100 mm focal length is not much worse. The longer end of range of focal length range shows a similar level, with the resolution results reaching near 37 lpmm.......... The duel with the Canon 100-400 mm II is more balanced: at the longer end of the focal spectrum you get a draw, at the shorter end the Sigma is better.”
Edge of FF sensor : “at many combinations of apertures and focal lengths it is defeated slightly by the Canon 100-400 mm II. “
Summary of this, the Sigma is at least as good as, sometimes better than, the Canon except slightly worse at the edge of full frame. That's not a problem for me as the edge at these focal lengths is nearly always out of focus anyway.
I've now tested the lens out on a range of subjects and 4 different bodies (6D, 5D2, 70D and 80D) and I've been very impressed by the image quality, well up to what I expected from the reviews.
Of course there's more to a lens than just IQ so this is my comparison of Sigma and Canon.
Sigma positives :
Price, price, price! Canon street price from official sellers £1849, Sigma £799, difference £1050.
Grey supplier (DigitalRev) Canon £1429 Sigma £679, difference £750.
Whichever way you buy, the Sigma is less than half the price of the Canon.
Weight, Canon = 1640 grams, Sigma 1160 grams, difference 480 grams, just over a pound, Sigma weighs 71% of Canon..
IQ – very little difference according to LensTip comparison.
Autofocus on mine is dead accurate with all tested bodies.
Canon positives :
Slightly wider (only 1/3 stop) max aperture.
Faster autofocus. I've found the Sigma a/f to have no problems in accuracy, albeit only tested in decent light. It isn't the fastest however, and reviews suggest the Canon is faster, so may be better for fast action. However, I have the Sigma dock and suspect I can improve a/f speed somewhat by adjusting the parameters there.
Closer minimum focus, Sigma only focuses to 1.6 metres, Canon 0.98. However, at 400 mm I've found it easy to fill the frame with a butterfly or fairly small flower from well beyond 1.6 m, so not a problem for me, I don't see a long zoom as particularly suitable for macro.
Tripod mount, missing from Sigma. This has caused some negative comments in reviews, but it's not a heavy lens and I've tried it on a tripod with no worries.
Canon probably has better weather sealing.
So far I'm extremely happy with this lens, as all of my recent Sigma purchases. The IQ is as good as I expected, it's light enough that I'm happy to carry it around all day and I didn't break the bank to buy it. What more could I ask? If I were much richer and wanted to shoot a lot of high speed action I'd probably buy the Canon, which is a very well regarded lens, but I doubt if I'd see any difference in the actual images produced. In terms of value for money, the Sigma is unbeatable.
Comment