Sigma 100-300 EX F/4 replacement for Canon FF

I bought the Sigma, the non DG version, back in 2004 for my 300D. It has since then survived a 400D and a 7D. Although the 7D still gets some some usage, the majority of the shots is done with the 6D I bought a couple of years ago. I'm very unhappy with the shots from the 6D/Sigma combination and for that reason I've found myself using the 135 F2 instead, even if the situation craves a longer lens.

The biggest problem with the Sigma on the 6D is uneven image quality across the frame using focal lengths from 150-300 and apertures from F4 to F8. I would say that roughly 40-50% (depending on the FL and aperture) central pixels are sufficiently sharp while the other areas are suffering from some kine of blur that looks like motion blur. I guess the lens has always suffered from this phenomenon, but with the crop cameras the "sharp" part covered much more of the frame. Can anyone comment on this behaviour? At 300mm, the lens needs to be stopped down to F/16 for completely alleviating the issue. Please zoom into the attached image and look at the sharpness of the "unmown part" of the grass.

I've been looking at two lenses that could replace the Sigma, the Canon 70-300L and the Canon 100-400 II. My understanding is that the original 100-400 is rather poor IQ-wise and I don't think I would like the pump zoom. The 70-300L is almost half the price compared to the 100-400 but what about its performance? I want good performance across the frame at all FLs and apertures. Can the 70-300 give me that or is the 100-400 what I need? I could surely use the reach of the longer lens but at the same time I would also appreciate the 70-100 FLs when I'm out walking.

thanks
David

Thanks for your input! No matter how I try I cannot get any of the outer parts sharply rendered. I've even tried to use live mode focus to not avail. Are you saying all longer lenses are created this way? Unfortunately I have not access to another lens for comparison.

Davenor wrote:

I bought the Sigma, the non DG version, back in 2004 for my 300D. It has since then survived a 400D and a 7D. Although the 7D still gets some some usage, the majority of the shots is done with the 6D I bought a couple of years ago. I'm very unhappy with the shots from the 6D/Sigma combination and for that reason I've found myself using the 135 F2 instead, even if the situation craves a longer lens.

The biggest problem with the Sigma on the 6D is uneven image quality across the frame using focal lengths from 150-300 and apertures from F4 to F8. I would say that roughly 40-50% (depending on the FL and aperture) central pixels are sufficiently sharp while the other areas are suffering from some kine of blur that looks like motion blur. I guess the lens has always suffered from this phenomenon, but with the crop cameras the "sharp" part covered much more of the frame. Can anyone comment on this behaviour? At 300mm, the lens needs to be stopped down to F/16 for completely alleviating the issue. Please zoom into the attached image and look at the sharpness of the "unmown part" of the grass.

I've been looking at two lenses that could replace the Sigma, the Canon 70-300L and the Canon 100-400 II. My understanding is that the original 100-400 is rather poor IQ-wise and I don't think I would like the pump zoom. The 70-300L is almost half the price compared to the 100-400 but what about its performance? I want good performance across the frame at all FLs and apertures. Can the 70-300 give me that or is the 100-400 what I need? I could surely use the reach of the longer lens but at the same time I would also appreciate the 70-100 FLs when I'm out walking.

thanks
David

David,

I have both the 70-300L and 100-400 II and they are both excellent with respect to IQ. The 100-400 will accept Canon extenders and the 70-300 will not (or at least not advisable).

If you need the reach, the 100-400 is top notch and sharp at 400mm. It's close focusing capability is very very useful.  It is much better than my old 100-400 at 400mm.

If you want an excellent wider walk around lens, the 70-300 L is lighter and very sharp. Personally, I use the 100-400 way more often, but only because I need the reach as I  mostly shoot wildlife.  For walk around and travel, I'll take the 70-300.  Both are great!!!

Thank you dgumshu! I guess the sensible choice would be 70-300. I havenn't been doing wildlife as much as I used to but maybe if I get the 100-400 I will pick it up. Decisions, decisions... Being 600grams lighter is of course a big advantage in favour of the 70-300 though.

Here is a perpendicular shot of an old barn, 6D+Sigma @ 300, F4. The central part is very sharp, but all outer regions are more or less blurry.

Davenor wrote:

I bought the Sigma, the non DG version, back in 2004 for my 300D. It has since then survived a 400D and a 7D. Although the 7D still gets some some usage, the majority of the shots is done with the 6D I bought a couple of years ago. I'm very unhappy with the shots from the 6D/Sigma combination and for that reason I've found myself using the 135 F2 instead, even if the situation craves a longer lens.

The biggest problem with the Sigma on the 6D is uneven image quality across the frame using focal lengths from 150-300 and apertures from F4 to F8. I would say that roughly 40-50% (depending on the FL and aperture) central pixels are sufficiently sharp while the other areas are suffering from some kine of blur that looks like motion blur. I guess the lens has always suffered from this phenomenon, but with the crop cameras the "sharp" part covered much more of the frame. Can anyone comment on this behaviour? At 300mm, the lens needs to be stopped down to F/16 for completely alleviating the issue. Please zoom into the attached image and look at the sharpness of the "unmown part" of the grass.  ...

"Swirly bokeh".  Sweet.  Some find that a feature rather than a fault.    You just need more interesting subjects than grass. 

Lemming51 wrote:

"Swirly bokeh". Sweet. Some find that a feature rather than a fault. You just need more interesting subjects than grass.

Sorry for the boring subject. 

Yes the bokeh of this lens is very uneasy. Any contrasty/pointy object just outside the DOF will create a weird bokeh.

My main issue with the lens is however the inconsistent sharpness across the frame. One would expect that at least some grass straws should be rendered sharply to the left and right and not just in the middle. Just to clarify, focus is set at the beginning of the unmown lawn.

Here is one shot with the 135L @ F2. You can clearly see the thin DOF across the whole frame from left to right. Within the DOF, the snow is rendered nice and sharp. For some reason, the Sigma+6D won't give me this. I've tried and it's completely impossible. 

Thanks for sharing Ferdels, great shot!

I have gathered a collection of Sigma shots myself, the majority on APS-C. When the Sigma was released we had 6Mpixels sensors. I remembered looking at the Canon 100-400L I at the time but I went with the Sigma as it was much cheaper and also faster with its constant F4. OS would otherwise be a very nice addition to the lens. Sigma has the 120-300 EX 2.8 sports with OS but the price and weight is too intimidating for me.

That should still be an excellent lens. You might have an internal alignment issue. You might call Sigma customer service to see if there is anything they can do for you.

Or, if you have the new lens bug (and can afford it), just go for it!

Yes perhaps it's an alignment issue. Too me all corners/sides are equally bad to it doesn't appear to be some kind of lens element decentering though. Perhaps I would be more inclined to fix it if someone could show me a FF Sigma 100-300 sample image of a flat surface with nice sharpness all over the frame. 

The upgrade itch is very strong at the moment so I might pull the trigger on a 70-300L this evening. 

To me boils down on if the wide 70-100 is more important to you than the long 300-400. If wide get the 70-300L if long get the the 100-400 II. As an alternative get the 70-200/4 IS and 400/5.6 and cover both. If you add a 1.4 TC it can be more seamless.

Thanks for the suggestions. Actually I'm thinking the extra 70-100 can be quite valuable. You can always do some cropping on a 300 mm shot. Maybe I haven't experienced the awesomeness of a 400 mm lens though.

Davenor wrote:

I bought the Sigma, the non DG version, back in 2004 for my 300D. It has since then survived a 400D and a 7D. Although the 7D still gets some some usage, the majority of the shots is done with the 6D I bought a couple of years ago. I'm very unhappy with the shots from the 6D/Sigma combination and for that reason I've found myself using the 135 F2 instead, even if the situation craves a longer lens.

The biggest problem with the Sigma on the 6D is uneven image quality across the frame using focal lengths from 150-300 and apertures from F4 to F8. I would say that roughly 40-50% (depending on the FL and aperture) central pixels are sufficiently sharp while the other areas are suffering from some kine of blur that looks like motion blur. I guess the lens has always suffered from this phenomenon, but with the crop cameras the "sharp" part covered much more of the frame. Can anyone comment on this behaviour? At 300mm, the lens needs to be stopped down to F/16 for completely alleviating the issue. Please zoom into the attached image and look at the sharpness of the "unmown part" of the grass.

I've been looking at two lenses that could replace the Sigma, the Canon 70-300L and the Canon 100-400 II. My understanding is that the original 100-400 is rather poor IQ-wise and I don't think I would like the pump zoom. The 70-300L is almost half the price compared to the 100-400 but what about its performance? I want good performance across the frame at all FLs and apertures. Can the 70-300 give me that or is the 100-400 what I need? I could surely use the reach of the longer lens but at the same time I would also appreciate the 70-100 FLs when I'm out walking.

thanks
David

I also had the 100-300 Sigma (the DG version) for many years and replaced it with the 70-300L.  I did love the 100-300 f4 but found the following gains with 70-300L:

- General image quality is superior (don't even feel the need to stop down most the time)

- Keeper rate is superior (better AF precision/speed, plus the benefits of IS which really is good for at least 3 stops)

- A significant amount lighter (around 400g) and more compact in your bag

The only downside really is the 70-300L is it isn't really made for use with a TC (yes, I know it works with some Kenko models but i'd classify that as for emergency use only rather than a regular partner for the lens).

That all said, the 100-400L II wasn't even on the horizon when I bought my 70-300L and I would well have considered that if it'd been an option.  Undoubted quality, extra reach and the weight is broadly similar to the 100-300 Sigma.