Canon 400 2.8 or Sigma 300-800 5.6?

I got one of the first copies to be produced of the DG Sigmonster almost two months ago and I understand that these will ship out to US and Europe within two months from then (just my speculation, nothing official from Sigma).

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Manila's Sigma distributor managed to get a DG copy for me that early.

When I compare my DG pics with the crops of Northcape and Sue Tranter taken with the non-DG, I can't see any material difference in output, except those attributable to user error (my part). Both the said users appear happy with the optical performance of their non-DG copies.

If you consider the Sigmonster, I suggest you get the non-DG version if price difference is significant. If the price difference is small, the DG version is the obvious choice.

When shooting from a fixed position, the zoom flexibility allows a lot of framing options and I'd choose the Sigmonster for your application for this reason. Sure, the 400 2.8L is two stops brighter, but the high ISO performance of today's DSLRs would also allow me some decent shots in lower light with the Sigmonster.

I believe the optical performance of the Sigma zoom from 300 to 700 mm wide open approaches or matches that of a long L prime using sensors currently available. At 800 mm however, while decent wide open, the Sigmonster needs to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 to deliver super sharp images.

Here's a sample pic from my copy taken I think from more than 40 feet - 731 mm, f/11, ISO 200, 1/200 sec.



100% crops:





Good luck on your choice.

--
Liquidstone
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/my_favorites

Tom Carmody said:

Thanks to all for expressing their thoughts on this matter!
Believe it or not, I actually forgot about using the Canon 400 2.8
as a stand alone lens in other situations - i.e. on a monopod while
moving about in other situations when I'm not in the press box!
(See what happens you become too focused on a certain aspect of a
problem!) For Isaac Sibson: I was planning on purchasing a new 400
2.8 L IS lens, but I appriciate your input on the differences in
quality between the three versions of the 400 2.8. Also for
Liquidstone I especially appreciate your input on the 300-800 (Your
beloved Sigmonster!) I was wondering though about a DG version of
this lens. I have not heard of any offiial announcement of a DG
version of this lens, and could not find any information about a DG
version on the Sigma USA website. I am certainly not doubting your
sanity or veracity, but I was wondering what differences there may
be between the DG and non-DG versions of this lens. On most of the
other Sigma lenses where there was an upgrade to a DG version,
Sigma has made claims of an improved multi-coating process, and on
some lenses an improved optical design. Do you know what the
difference is between the two versions of this lens? Are the
differences worth the price increase?

Thanks Again!

Click to expand...

For sports the 400/2.8 to get the shutter speed on grey days.
Gene

--
Gene - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my wildlife galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

The Canon 400 2.8 has the best MTF chart in the lens universe, if I'm not mistaken. This lens was reportedly designed for Ahnold --it's heavy at 11 lbs. I'm confused why they added IS on this beast --do people really handhold this lens much? It is a wonder piece of glass though.
--
A photograph is worth 1,000 reviews

At longer focal lengths, where the smallest vibrations are magnified, IS even helps on a tripod, and it definitely comes in handy on a monopod.

And the 300 f/2.8L IS might have a better MTF, but you could be right.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

DaveClarkOne said:

The Canon 400 2.8 has the best MTF chart in the lens universe, if
I'm not mistaken. This lens was reportedly designed for Ahnold
--it's heavy at 11 lbs. I'm confused why they added IS on this
beast --do people really handhold this lens much? It is a wonder
piece of glass though.
--
A photograph is worth 1,000 reviews

Click to expand...

Both 300 and 400 are fantastic MTF's. On a 1.6x crop the 300 is better (actually, pretty much 100% all the way on a 1.6x), but at the edge of a full frame, the 300 drops off quite sharply and the 400 is better. Both are exceptional though. As I shoot 1.6x crop, the 300 is the better lens and thus with TC's which will magnify the central portion, the 300 should outperform the 400 slightly.

Excal

Nill Toulme said:

And the 300 f/2.8L IS might have a better MTF, but you could be right.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

DaveClarkOne said:

The Canon 400 2.8 has the best MTF chart in the lens universe, if
I'm not mistaken. This lens was reportedly designed for Ahnold
--it's heavy at 11 lbs. I'm confused why they added IS on this
beast --do people really handhold this lens much? It is a wonder
piece of glass though.
--
A photograph is worth 1,000 reviews

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Excal

I have the 300 f4 IS, and as happy as I am with it, I will agree that the 400 f5.6 has a slight edge in sharpness. I opted for the 300 because it served my needs better and it's smaller than the bazooka-sized 400.
--
A photograph is worth 1,000 reviews

Isaac Sibson said:

If you're talking about buying second hand, be very wary.

The original EF 400 f2.8L can generally be described as a woofer...
it was NOT good. That is why it was the only one of the first
series of Great White Lenses to make it to a version II (which was
a perfectly good lens) before the IS version came along (which is
also perfectly good).

--
I have too many expensive hobbies.

Click to expand...

Can't say about all the 400 2.8 version I lens but mine is great. It's often wrong to generalize. And I got mine for $2200.
--
George Guinn
or Sometimes
Gandalf

Gandalfphotography.com

DaveClarkOne said:

I have the 300 f4 IS, and as happy as I am with it, I will agree
that the 400 f5.6 has a slight edge in sharpness. I opted for the
300 because it served my needs better and it's smaller than the
bazooka-sized 400.

Click to expand...

Don't be so fast there! The 300/4 and 400/5.6 are nearly the same MTF wise and infact the 300 stopped down has a better MTF. Plus, the IS will make for better shots in most situations. The 400/5.6 is indeed a long lens and makes it trickier to get into camera bags. Don't beat yourself up about the choice... I owned the 400/5.6 L and the lack of IS was a killer for me. The 300/4 IS L is therefore a nicer weapon of choice IMHO. Infact, I may get one soon...

Excal

DaveClarkOne said:

--
A photograph is worth 1,000 reviews

Click to expand...

--
Excal

You won't have the zoom capability, but with a 1.4x or 2x converter you'll still have the range...the 400 f/2.8 is a bad boy! Saw a guy shooting nighttime college football last fall with one of those Sigmas...haven't figured that one out yet...that's way too much $$$, in my opinion, to spend on such a slow lens...regardless of its zoom range...

--
Regards,
Kevin Tat

--

max...it is hard to cover all three of these reqirements with a single focal length lens. you need 600+ for surfing, 70-400 for large field sports, and if you are birding you cannot get enough length. any teleconverter will degrade the immage and slow autofocus regardless of the lens used. i recently sold my 400 2.8 is because i would never use it, unless i could drive it to and set it up next to my suv, prefering my 300 and 500 is. if i was not up to my ears in lenses and was starting from zero i would get the 300 2.8 is and the sigma 300-800.

Max Savin said:

--
max...it is hard to cover all three of these reqirements with a
single focal length lens. you need 600+ for surfing, 70-400 for
large field sports, and if you are birding you cannot get enough
length. any teleconverter will degrade the immage and slow
autofocus regardless of the lens used. i recently sold my 400 2.8
is because i would never use it, unless i could drive it to and set
it up next to my suv, prefering my 300 and 500 is. if i was not
up to my ears in lenses and was starting from zero i would get the
300 2.8 is and the sigma 300-800.

Click to expand...

That's good advice.... fellow would be purchasers take note of this guy's words!

So a question to you Max Savin... if you would take the 300 2.8 and Sigma 300-800 if you started again, why not the 500/4 over the Sigma?

Excal