Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 100-400L or Sigma 120-300?

Go to last post
J

John_A_G

Veteran Member
Messages
8,257
Solutions
9
Reaction score
3,718
Location
OH, US
Tough decision. I currently am using a 70-200 2.8 and sometimes 1.4xTC for both sports and wildlife. I'd like to upgrade and these are the top two contenders. The Sigma's 2.8 would be a HUGE benefit for sports but the weight of the Canon and the extra reach are a benefit in it's favor. I know there are fans in both camps and photos I've seen from both are great. Anyone with experience with both of these that can help sway the decision one way or the other?
 
We are in a similar situation, I too have the 70-200 2.8 and I chose the 100-400. My reasons: wanted a longer lens for wildlife and nature that I can handhold and wanted IS. I can also use it for sports/action in nice sunlight. The sigma would have been my choice if I did a lot of sports under stadium lights. I've owned both and decided to stay with the canon, since it will get much more use from me. The sigma is difficult to carry and handhold for any length of time, plus NO IS. It really depends on your goals and shooting style.

Danny
 
If you shoot sports you can't really use 100-400mm at night in low light. I have 120-300mm and 70-200mm IS with 2X TC for sports and 120-300mm just so much better. Even with 1.4x TC it gets you F4 at 420mm vs F5.6 on 100-400mm. IS is not going to help you much for fast action anyway.

For wildlife is another story. I would get 100-400mm (I shoot some birds and animals) for non-moving ones but even birds twitch so you need to keep shutter speed high anyway. And a good 120-300mm is sharper than 70-200mm IS or 100-400mm IS just does not have enough reach.

BTW, picture below is me with 1DS2 and 120-300mm at Dodgers game.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
Eugene Powers said:
And a good 120-300mm is
sharper than 70-200mm IS or 100-400mm IS just does not have enough
reach.
Click to expand...
Eugene,

Not sure what you meant by this statement. Are you saying 100-400 is too short? If so, how does the 120-300 help that (or are you assuming you could use the 2.0 TC).

How does the sharpness, contrast and focus speed compare between these lenses.

Anyone use the 120-300 with a 1.4x TC? If so, how does that combo compare to the 100-400?
 
You misread my post a little. 120-300mm might not have enough reach but sharper than 70-200mm IS, 70-200mm IS with 2X TC and 100-400mm IS.

1.4x TC does not affect sharpness of 120-300mm much. 2x TC does and you need to keep shutter speed up more than rule of thumb so at 600mm shutter speed should be at least 1/1000 and even more on crop factor cameras.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
I don't have 100-400mm I tried it though. Focus of 120-300mm just as fast as 70-200mm IS and faster than the same lens with 2x TC. I think it might be faster a little than 100-400mm but it is very hard to tell. For sure 120-300mm focus locks better. Focus with 1.4x TC just as fast as without.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
The only thing they will not allow in to Dodgers stadium is a bag which is 14" or more in any direction unless you have room tickets. I go as a fan and I do get private room tickets sometime. Unfortunately, no matter there I sit it is always behind the net but since I never pay for the tickets (perks) I can't complain. You can bring any lens you want. 120-300mm is the longest I got.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
It depends on your primary use. The 120-300 is better for handling the challenges of shooting sports under less than satisfactory light. It also will help with background blur.

THe 100-400 is a better wildlife lens, but can shoot sports adequately given good light.

I use my 120-300 with a Canon 1.4x TC frequently. I find only slight deterioration in AF speed and sharpness from the TC, quite acceptable for me. Btw, when I used the Sigma 1.4x TC I noticed significant light fall-off at max aperture of f4. Not so with Canon TC, strangely enough.
--
Mike
 
John, Here's my two cents (not sure it's worth even that). I currently own both of these lenses. I find I use the 100-400 IS more due to it's better portability (size, weight, IS). I can use it as a walkaround. The sigma beast has to be on a monopod at the least and I can't use it as a lugaround. I find the AF to be a bit slower than the 70-200 IS and I like the AF on the 100-400 L better. The Sigma is not as contrasty and the colors don't pop as much. This requires a bit more photoshop. I like the DOF control of the Sigma and it appears to be a fine lens. However, for me and what I shoot, the 100-400 L is a better investment. I have too much money invested in the Sigma to have it sit there as much as it does. So, for me the 100-400 is the way to go because it gets more use.
 
Handheld, 800 ISO 1/160 F6.3 with 1.4x TC 207mm no sharpening applied except for 25% in RAW converter which is nothing really.
If I was using ISO 100 it would be much sharper.





--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
Thanks everyone! I've decided to go with the 100-400 right now. The Sigma would be primarily for shooting HS football - and since I'm not making any money off that yet, it seems like the 100-400 would get more year-round use. Appreciate everyone's insight - especially those with experience with both lenses.

John
 
Maybe it just me, but the test results don't look right to me. I see your 400mmf5.6 wide open to be not as good as 100-400 wied open. And 120-300 f2.8 isn't any better than 100-400.

I like your 100-400 as it results look what I get from my 100-400L but 400 f5.6 should be sharper than 100-400. I am sending mine to canon for calibartion.

Regarding 120-300 f2.8, using 1.4xTC at F4 is real bad a bit better at f5.6.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com
 
Most of my pictures are archived so I found these on my HD.
No sharpening applied.

120mm F2.8





300mm F2.8





--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top