SIGMA 100-400 F5-6.3 DG OS is a 4X MEGA-Zoom Lens Priced to Sell: VS Canon 100-400 and Nikon 80-400
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Pre-Order on B+H bhpho.to/2ojG7se
Sigma announced pricing and availability of their new 100-400 F5-6.3 DG OS zoom lens. It's priced at $799 and will be available end of April (in the video I said May, I was wrong).
I wanted to compare it to the Canon 100-400 which is $1999 and the Nikon 80-400 which is $2,296 to help you decide based on price and weight which one is for you.
Download MyGearVault FREE for Apple iOS right here itunes.apple.c...
Follow me on
RUclips bit.ly/frotube
/ froknowsphoto
/ jaredpolin
/ froknowsphoto
Get The FroKnowsPhoto Guide To Building Your Online Presence FREE right here as a download froknowsphoto.c...
Help support the show by using this link on Amazon amzn.to/27NH7Dk
USE CODE FRO at squarespace.com... to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Get your FREE GUIDE to capturing motion in Low Light Right Here froknowsphoto.com/ just look for the orange box.
One thing I should also say is we don't know how good the AF speed will be but at the end of the day will you drop an extra $1500+ for slightly better AF? Lets debate it.
Honestly, if it matches what the 150-600 C does, it will be perfectly fine. I shot an air shot with that one and it was fine.
Jared Polin
bottom line, I think if you're a professional photographer (getting paid to take photos), go with the L lens/expensive ass Nikon lens. They are generally "better" (sharper, less vignetting, etc) from what I've read/seen. But if you're not a pro and just want a solid lens for the price, then this one or the 150-600mm is the best bet.
just my opinion...I'm curious about these lenses and have been looking to get something in this area for a little while. I'm excited for the field test!
Well said. I have similar thoughts.
It's also worth bearing in mind, a bad 400mm or 500mm lens versus a brilliant 200mm lens cropped to that length, then resized using BlowUp, Fractals, Photoshop etc can be a better (read: sharper) result (though obviously with less compression to bring the background forward). Not always, of course, and Sigma is really producing quality at the moment so it'll be really interesting to see how this lens is.
The auto-focus of the Nikon 80-400G lens is much faster than the Nikon 200-500 and Sigma 150-600. But in my 8 month (and counting) experience with the Sigma 150-600, it is very sharp, very stabilized, very little vignetting, unnoticeable chromatic aberration. The image quality suffer mainly from 2 reasons: (1) the speed of the AF motor fails to keep up with the subject, and the image becomes out of focus, OR, (2) whichi is more common, air pollution.
I bought the 150-600 sigma after watching your review on it Jared, and it's an incredible lens for the price, shot some very clean and sharp images with it on my 7D Mk2 and couldn't be happier. The 100-400 seems to be thrown in to compete in between the Canon and Nikon equivalents, but given the opportunity again I'd still pay the extra for the 150-600, given the more advanced OS system on it which I love using for different shooting situations
I recently got the Canon 100-400L to use on my 5D MK4 and 7D MK2 and have to say it has very much exceeded my expatiations.
i have the 150-600 but would like to also have this for it's portability.
"150 to *low voice* 900"
Jake Kinchen yeah what the fuck was that hahaha
pretty obvious he made a mistake and caught it during editing so he did a voiceover.
Except it shoulda been 225 to 900
No, 100-400 would be 150-600 (at 1.5x). He was correct the first time.
@Mark Lassman, you are correct in reference to Nikon because it is 1.5, but Canon is 1.6 and I don't care to calculate it....
@jared I tested one out last week in Japan where it's already available.
AWESOME! it's AF is fast, focus is on point and the lens is sharp wide open. I'm getting one as soon they are available in Australia.
Friend with me uses 5D 4 + 100-400mk2 and he said if he was buying today he would go the sigma, to him what he saw there wasn't a $1500 difference in quality or AF.
On cropped camera bodies the range is actually 150-600, just like you initially said! No voiceover needed! :)
I used to have the old version of the Nikon 80-400 and the old version of the Sigma 150-600 - but I sold both to buy the Nikon 200-500. I've pre-ordered the Sigma 100-400 (keeping the 200-500) because it is so much lighter and smaller, it will let me get to places I couldn't get to with the 200-500. Last year I climbed down the side of an embankment with my 70-200, but I really needed 300 or more. I would not have been able to get there with my 200-500, but I'm pretty sure that I can with the 100-400.
I use 150-600 in my D500, but because of the heavy I think I buy the sigma 100-400 which gives me the conversion factor of 1.5 and less heavy ... being contemporary should have the same sharpness and speed. ... and my 150-600mm is spectacular ...
At first I really hated Jared,but now I can't get enough of him :P You're awesome man!
Kate Stavridi he's amazing!
I'm still wondering why the pics with a tripod collar haven't come out for it. that range definitely needs one. this would be excellent for crop sensors btw. especially if you have the 17-50 / 18-35 & the 50 -150(defunct sadly) / 50-100
Canon 100-400 for me! I'd be happy to carry around the extra weight if that means having a reliable and durable lens. Now if that 100-400 Sigma lens would be an ART or Sports lens, I might have to reconsider
well I just purchased the Nikon 200-500 f5.6, it's pretty awesome, I believe it's on par with the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 in certain areas
I have heard you compliment the sigma lens and agree that its a great value. So... Now would like some help in the decision between the sigma 400 or the 600 This is where I find myself still uncertain. Thanks for your great reviews. loved the review on the sigma 600
I think I'd buy the 150-600 and also buy a third party (Tamron until sigma updates theirs) 70-200 f/2.8 with the money I'd save by not getting the Nikon lens.
Great heads up. Thank you!Finally a lens maker is listening. Lighter lenses! I dumped my D700, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 2 years ago.I was the poster guy for gullable and realized all my years of lugging dead weight produced nothing really better than this set up of a 18-250 and 12-24 lens on my D7100. Technique, photography courses bests fancy gear and lens envy is not going to get you a winning shot.I have been waiting for this kind of lighter zoom for travel and will probably leave the 18-250 at home.2 lenses, a solid camera body, a good fill flash and a flask of whisky. What else do we need for great pictures?
It's not hard to compare the Sigma with the Canon, although they share the same focal length, that's about all that is similar. The Canon beats the Sigma at every step - and it should for twice the price. The Canon 100-400 can focus at 38.4 inches, the Sigma is 62.4. The Canon has better aperture, better glass, etc. It's basically as good or better than what a Sigma Sport series would be. I've had two Sigmas in this range (150-500 and 150-600 on FF and Crop) and I'm pretty disappointed in both of them. For the money it's not bad, but they are always really soft on the long end of the zoom. I'm getting a Canon 100-400 next month.
Sigma is really fucking up Canons gains these past couple years. I got a 35mm 1.4 Art, HOLY FUCK that thing is SHARP, the quality of the color is incredible. and the versatility of a 35. Best money I have ever spent
I can't justify purchasing Nikon lenses any more when Sigma and Tamron do such an amazing job. If I was to get a super telephoto lens, I'd probably get the 100-400mm. I use both a D750 and a D500 so I have a bit of room to select how much reach I want.
Yes, comparison videos help. Thanks.
The one not mentioned that is still widely available is the 100-400mm USM L Canon mki is a push zoom, but was the goto lens for pros for many years. An excellent lens and of course the AF is faster than Sigma on a Canon body. he refurb price I thinks is around the $1100 mark
Didereaux grabbed mine for $629 yesterday. A massive steal for those willing to do a little price hunting
I actually just purchased a Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM contemporary over this. I've rented it twice and loved it so much I had to buy one. Thanks for all the info Fro! You rock!!
Here we go again, reading of a spec sheet with no hands on.
finally a cheap 100-400 you need to do a review on this pls
As per the Sigma website, this lens will work flawlessly with the MC-11 adapter on a Sony e-mount camera.
Hi there Jared, I bought the sigma 100-400mm lens instead of the canon L lens. This lens kills the canon lens and it packs a punch. I am super happy with the lens
Same here, I had the canon but prefer the sigma, in fact the IQ blew me away, another better lens than the canon is the sigma 24-105 Art lens incredibly sharp.
As long as you have not seen the pictures out of this lens, or a 'real world review' (I am a fan of those that you make), you may never know which of these mega zooms are more suitable for your personal use. Based on the fact that this lens is much cheaper than that of the Canon/Nikon versions, it is going to be a popular choice for many budget oriented wildlife or sports shooters. The 150-600 on the other hand offers much more reach for some extra money and may be a choice for some keeping in mind though the extra weight. I personally use Canon (7D mark 2) and have bought the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II USM lens recently and I am straight forward more than happy with the image quality. Hoping to put that glass on a full frame body in the near future. But for Nikon users, there is another option for the 80-400mm lens that is 1/2 the price of the one Jared showed here. That lens however lacks stabilisation (VR).
When I saw your review on the Sigma 150-600mm, I was drooling. Now I might be more inclined to give this lens a look. Love my Sigma 18-250mm. Very rarely switch lenses. Might have to add this one to my arsenal. Enjoy your take on gear reviews.
I'm a wimp. I have the 150-600 and it's a great lens, but I get a little fatigued carrying it for long periods of time. I just ordered the 100-400 for some weight relief and to have something to add to my lesser camera setup. My main body is currently a D7100 but I also have a D3300 just for lighter trips. The 100-400 will be used primarily on the D3300 for what I hope will be a nice light weight setup.
I'm torn... almost purchased the 150-600 sigma... to add to my collection. have 17-50 f.2.8, 70-200 f2.8 (Sigma and love them) I currently have an ancient 100-400 vivitar circa 1997 that has been great but the AF is blown and no OS. I'm thinking of going for the 150-600 for sports primary use, weight not issue and keeping my 100-400 for my adventure/backpacking needs were AF and OS are less important than WEIGHT! BTW the AF in the vivitar is blown due to sand, dirt, grime from years of backpacking.
Hate to tell you this fro 100-400 on apsc is 160-640mm on the canon bodys.
I think I would definitely go for the Sigma 100-400 on my D5500.
Really looking forward for a full review. Sigma is doing a good job for us hobby photographers lately (let's face it: even the Art line is more for the hobby photographer than the professional), so it is interesting if they continue with that.
Thanks Jared, Can't wait for a full review. I would like to compare it too-Nikon 200-500, Older canon 100-400, and 75-300L ,older Tamron 150-600, Sigma 150-600 C... Thanx again Jared.
Probably the 100-400. I hear the 150-600 is very soft at the longer end, so I'd rather stick with the lighter, cheaper and arguably sharper alternative.
I think this shows sigma going into a new market. They want to to appeal to not only pro photographers, but amateurs as well. I think it will play out smart for sigma in the long run.
After some review, I would go with Sigma, given that the Sigma lens focus system can be micro adjusted with the USB Doc. For those of us who have entry level DSLRs without in-body focus adjustment capability, the Sigma Lenses are attractive.
Anyone have thoughts on a 70-200 + 2x extender?
WAOOOOOO!!!!!!! I found the video I wanted to see from you about the Sigma - Contemporary 100-400mm, thanks
The L lens you can find it used ( which doesn't take away anything from it, as they are built like tanks and designed to last decades of abuse) for less, around 1200 dollars. Also, you can find used the 70-300 L, a superb lens, with crazy close focusing distance, which gives you almost macro shots, for around 800. I don't agree that you cannot use them indoors, not un pitch dark, but with the iso capabilities of nowadays cameras you can easily boost the iso to 6400 or more and get crisp shots inside. I rarely used my 70-200 wide open anyway, too risky at an event to not have all that you need in focus. And , again, 300 or 400 mm if you are close to the subject blurs the background as a 200 at 2.8. Bottom line is, yes, third party megazooms are fine, but there is just something special of holding and operating those white tanks that are the L lenses. You just know that they deliver, rarely dissapoint, can take abuse, and keep the resale value decent
I was leaning towards the 150-600 but this does seem interesting. Either would be fine for outdoor festival shootings so I just gotta feel them out.
+Omar Cordy yea, the weight my be an issue for some. But that was my debate when making the video. It's twice the weight so I couldn't fully recommend it.
I enjoy these videos Thank you Jared
thanks Ben.
I really like my Sigma 150-600 on crop, but when you're on the run the whole day w'o tripod and you don't need the extra range, this might be a good alternative.also sometimes the initial 150mm and the minimal focus distance is too much.
I have the Sig 150-600 C and it is very nice on both 7DMII and 5MIII at 600 you need a tripod to get really sharp but hand held is do able too
what ever lens you pick, I say take full advantage of a crop sensors boost
I love my 150-600mm Sigma on my Canon 80D. Your real world review of that lens is very good as well.
Sigma are making to many f5 -f6.3 lenses, they would have done better making this a 4.5 -5.6 or a constant 5.6.
Tried one out today on a Canon 5D4 and it was amazing. Very quick and sharp, great colours too. I’d love to see a review by you on it!
Curious..have you tried the 150-600 on a 5D4? Im looking at either getting this 100-400 one or the 150-600 for wildlife...I cant decide
I wouldn't be too quick to pre order this lens. I'd like to see the hit rate. I was really excited about the Sigma 50-100 for crop sensor to pair with the awesome 13-35 but what a disappointment when I started seeing reviews and comments on how often it just simply missed focus. Even when the reviewers tried to calibrate it.
I hope Sigma gets it right, if so this will be a nice lens for the price.
For someone that already has a 70-200mm, which would be a more practical addition to a kit, the 100-400, or the 150-600?
Can't wait review. Will it be soon?
I just bought this lens to replace the Nikon 55-300mm 4.5-5.6, I'm really happy with it; specially with the autofocus... is way faster than the Nikon.
I am waiting for samples and real world reviews of that 100-400mm Sigma. I primarily use these lenses for shooting large mammals and while travelling in Himalayas/Western ghats where every single gram of weight saving is important. Also I think sigma is tackling 70-300mm lenses with this 100-400mm lens, rather than create another boring 70-300mm lens having a 100-400mm lens with similar price and slightly heavier lens(but lighter than other supertele zooms) might be an attractive option.
good points
I was really close to getting the 1000 dollar Nikon 18-300 but for 300 more I can get the tamron 70-200 2.8 g2 since I want to learn to do portraits instead of just long reaching lenses,, just waiting on that review from you, I trust your videos over most RUclips
I recently picked up the Tamron 70-200 g2 for my Nikon D500. I'm shooting indoor gymnastics and it is a fantastic lens. I had a few shots with missed focus, but that was user error not the equipment. Extremely sharp lens. I've always been a fan of Canon L and Nikon glass. Pleasantly surprised on the new Tamron.
It is an interesting conundrum, I have the original Canon (Trombone) 100-400mm L and I doubt it would be worth my while personally to get the MK II, it probably isn't £1000 better, the Sigma 150-600mm that you reviewed is an interesting proposition for its super zoom aspect, I might do that, but I doubt I'd go from one 100-400mm to another.
Would this be alot better then the canon 55-250mm kit lens for sports photography? Jared polin
I just bought the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 AF-P VR lens for $550 on sale. I may return it to Best Buy because it's only been a few days. I've been thinking of exchanging it for this lens for the extra reach. Anything to consider when choosing between these two?
You get what you pay for. I've used the Nikon 80-400 mm and it was so so. I own the Canon 100-400mm ii and it is out of this world!!! No clue about the sigma but if you're serious about your photography and you shoot outdoors, save your money and buy the Canon
Sigma C 150-600 mm still seems like a better choice to me,,, but nice to see versions weighting less
Would depend on the AF Speed for sports I actively shoot Jousting and medieval events as well as reenactments for several genres and while AF is not a deal killer that price point if it is even reasonably quick makes it a want for my bag.
Fro knows fro-toe!!
I thought the Nikon 200-500 mm f5.6 as a further comparison is a good option after you mentioned the Sigma 150-600mm, at around $1800au, its good value. The Nikon is very sharp and the fixed f stop maintains your set exposure as you zoom in.
I've owned the Canon 100-400mm for 9 years now, great lens.
I should also add this. If you're a professional, aka you're getting paid and this is your full time gig, you go with the Canon L lens and I guess the Nikon though that nikon is dam expensive so maybe disregard that on nikons side.
I was thinking about getting a Canon 100-400 mm but I want the sigma 100-400mm lens now.
That is a nice price. Could be a good longer alternative to the Tamron 70-300 VC if it can deliver significantly better IQ.
I'm knew to this is I have a Tamron 150-600 how is the sigma better .I shoot sport outside mainly surfing
excellent summary, nice and dense, great comps.
I'd purchase the 100-400. I currently own the sigma 70-300mm for my D7200 for sports and I'm about to purchase a D750 so it would give me close to the same reach with slightly better glass.
So I just needed to have my 150-600 c serviced because it ingested lots of dust in the inner elements. I'm left with the impression outside lenses need to be weather sealed because the cleaning costs chew up any upfront savings. Must say I was also very disappointed with sigma's service. I've written them off...again.
I'll get the Sony 100-400 e-mount when it comes out, someday.
Would love that lens but can get the 150-600 Tamron or sigma used for cheaper now for like 700
oh, that's cool.
Please! Make a video for the new Tamron 150-600mm g2!
Jared, my friend, I am actually comparing lenses to buy a telephoto zoom. So, because of that, thanks for this video! As for which lens I think I will have to go with the Sigma 150-600mm because (although it is heavier and a bit more expensive than the 100-400mm) having that extra zoom power justifies the extra weight and cost.
For aviation photographers like myself, the old push pull Canon 100-400L was almost standard in most kits. It is interesting to note however that many people I know have not upgraded to the new version of the lens, as many like the old one better. Currently I own the 70-200 f4 (tack sharp and constant aperture a plus) and kit short lens (don't use it often) with a 50D backup and 7D II primary. You think I should keep my 70-200 and pick up a used 300mm f4 for longer reach stuff or should I pick up a used 100-400L V1 instead?
I own both ver1 & ver2 of the 100-400L and the ver2 is worth every dollar.
My thought is that it would be a different story if at 400mm it is a f5.6. Otherwise it is just a shorter zoom version of the 150-600mm contemporary. I own the 150-600mm contemporary and the weight doesn't matter since I am using a monopod. I would get the nikon 200-500mm as I find myself birding at 500mm and a f5.6 lens can shoot better than the f6.3.
I shoot Nikon (D750 now, perhaps adding the D500 later this year), and a $2,300 lens just ain't happening in my lifetime. I'd go for (and prob WILL get) the Sigma 150-600mm. I don't mind the weight, the extra reach can't hurt, and it's very fairly priced.
Steve Starr Go for it! I brought a 150-600 last week and now my 300mm F/4L IS USM stays at home or my partner uses it. The sigma is a very good lens! love mine :)
Steve Starr take my word, get the 200-500 f5.6, you won't regret it (hopefully)
No, just get the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens, it's essentially the Sigma sport lens at the weight of the Sigma C lens. Although it do cost approx. the same as the Sport version.
You might think the weight (and size) is not a problem until you have it...
I would wait and see the results for the Sigma 100-400 (sharpness wise)
I've got the Tamron 150-600 and it is a beast - even compared to other heavy glass - and (like the sigma 150-600) it's not that sharp ... I have to use it at 500mm and then the 100mm extra reach are probably not worth it
not true the sigma is better built. its heaver than the sigma c way a big margin.
I'd like to see how it performs; autofocus wise. I would jump on the Sigma just to see how it does. My 'old' Sigma 70-200 2.8 was really good. I usually shoot automotive events, so, I'd like to see it at F/8 to F/16. Can't beat the price of the new Sigma 100-400, it's a pretty good deal compared to Nikon and Canon.
I've got the Sigma 150-600 and thinking about replacing it with the 100-400 just to save some space and weight, but without sacrificing too much. Is this extra 100mm worth the added weight 🤷♂️ I don't know.. I'm hesitant about making the trade, but I've definitely been thinking about it. I love shooting wildlife, dangerous wildlife at that, so that extra distance could potentially save my life. But then there is cropping, which I can usually keep very minimal at 600mm on a 90D aps-c.
I know a dude that shoots music videos with the Canon equivalent. I'm a Nikon guy & based on budget this is up my ally. What would you recommend for DSLR music video work?
whats your thoughts on the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 compared to these 4 lenses?
Well hey Jared. I'm a quadriplegic as I have some use in my right arm only as I operate my Panasonic FZ100 with a mouth and use a remote shutter which I operate with my right hand knuckle as I have my camera mounted on a 14 inch tripod attached to a clipboard. I'm wanting to but the Canon 80D as the touch screen will give me great ease of use with a home made stylist pen I can use by mouth. Anyway, with my very limited use of my arm with no hand nor finger movement, if I were to buy one of these super zoom lenses I'd buy the Sigma 100-400mm as it is the lightest. But, a 70-30mm will be easiest for me. Thanks. You do a great job Jared as I enjoy your great video's. I love the fro, man!!!
Thanks this was very helpful
Hi
Which better for sport photography ?
Sigma 100-400 or tamron 100-400
I wish signs made a 150-600 Art series
I would have loved to see a Sports version of this lens for around $1000. It would be the perfect match for my D500.
Also, you have something in your nose.
Interesting comment. I would guess if it were the sport it would have been $1,500.
Hmm, true. But considering how fast prices of Sigma lenses usually drop, I don't think it would take long until a lens with an MSRP of $1500 would be available for about $1000-$1100. Just look at their 150-600 Sports. At least here in Europe, it used to be over 2 grand, now you can easily get it for under 1500.
The only difference with the sport lenses is that they are heavier and weather sealed.
You were talking about sigma 100-400mm and cannon L in the same range....leaving aside nikkor 80-400 which is quite good, but if you compare tamron with cannon L and sigma in same range....tamron is far better than cannon and sigma as well
Interesting. I on a build towards getting the Canon 100-400, think it might hold its value a bit better.But may need to re-think. Any thought a, Jared. anyone?
Your outro is quite unequivalent with the volume that you talk, it is louder and this kinda hurt my ears.
Anyway great videos, thanks for the incledible content you've been putting up here
I shoot mostly himalayan birds (very small and fast), and i use a Canon, but most of my participants have issues focusing on these small birds, in time. they end up losing shots many a times. I hope they have fixed that on this lens
Great video brother!!
Pretty good comparison, but I think those are out of my price range.
If you have a option to choose "sigma 100-400mm" and "Tamron 100-400mm"
Which one will you choose ...????
Pls reply..
Hey Fro, any chance you can get your hands on the Sigma apo 200-500mm 2.8? I just want to see your take (and reaction) on it.
Might rent this one and see how it performs in airshow photography, I don't mind it being half a stop slower than my 100-400 L MKI, but since the Sigmas sharpness seems to be on par with the 100-400 MKII (according to other reviews... needs verifying and testing :-) ).... it comes down to focus speed and Image stabilizing. It's lighter, which is good if you are shooting all day with the lens in the air :-) Basicly.... I must rent this thing or just wait for some more reviews.... not in a hurry.... my MKI still works fine :-) But wouldn't mind having something of equal or better IQ with better stabilizing
Good specs
On the Sigma I don't think is has a tripod mount and my past experience with Sigma is they have good glass, the auto focus is not as good and with each new generation of Canon bodies the lens only works wide open.
Can this lens be used on the Canon M100 camera.
I'd need to wait and see how the image quality is and how well it focuses. I'm still a little leery about Sigma and their focusing issues. Of the ones you listed I'd pick this one if the reviews come in good. I'm currently trying to convince myself that I should buy the Canon equivalent but I'm having a hard time swallowing that pill. The 150-600 is just huge and I think I would think twice about taking it with me.
I just thought I'd follow up with this as the new Sigma reviews are coming in on the 100-400 and it is as sharp and sometimes sharper than the Canon. However, between me writing my comment above I ran into Sigma at a bird sanctuary right after I wrote that. I had rented the Canon 100-400 mkII and was testing it out. Sigma was letting anyone use their lenses for free and I tried out the 150-600 C and it blew me away! I bought it 5 days later. Now that I've had two months with it I'm glad I got it. The extra 200mm has come in quite handy photographing birds. I'm sure I'd love this one too. I might go back over all my images and see how many times I went over 400mm to see if I could switch to this lighter shorter lens but I doubt I'd want to at this point.
Got given an old 100-400 Canon IS, pump barrell zoom has worn bearings, sent it off to Canon for repair. Quoted AU$940 to repair, but i can get this new Sigma lens online for just AU$880. That repair suddenly became unnecessary.
Very helpful video. I was looking at sigma 600mm but now the 400mm I think. I will be using with Nikon D5300, will that work? Thank you :)
defiantly the Sigma Jared, but when is sigma releasing there new 70-200? come on SIGMA!