• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Sigma 100-400mm beats the Canon 100-400mm L lens!


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 02:09 PM

Hi guys, 

              The new Sigma is put through it's paces and compared with the Canon 100-400mm L lens by Dustin Abbott........................

 

   .......it turns out to be sharper at all focal lengths even at 400mm !!!

 

  ...also it has better contrast than the Canon.

 

  The Canon beats it on vignetting  though, the Sigma starts at F5 whereas the Canon starts at F4.5.

 

  The Sigma is under $800 verses over $2,000 for the Canon.

 

  Shock horror: The Canon has focus breathing which the Sigma hasn't!.........

 

 

   OEMs are going to struggle selling their lenses in the oncoming years with the competition from TPMs, especially since the recent OEM releases seem to have doubled in price, perhaps they are seeing how far they can push it before people "bulk" and go for the Siggies and Tammies!

 

 

 

 

 

 

  BTW. It got a very praiseworthy review from Lenstip too!


  • Richardma likes this

#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 June 2017 - 02:38 PM

Just between us: It is as good as the Fuji 100-400  ;) which also costs a tad more. Plus: Real menchanical focus ring,, no stupid "focus by wire" which is a disappointing feature on the Fuji side. Adjustment by dock. Okay, no tripod foot but at 1160 grams - who cares? Tame filter Ø 67mm, 1.6 m MFD. I was very surprised.



#3 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 994 posts

Posted 21 June 2017 - 10:50 AM

Which sigma; you mean the 100-400 C ? Also 'beat' how ? I'm not saying the canon is worth 4x or even 2x but i believe it offers somethings lacking on the sigma.



#4 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 21 June 2017 - 11:51 AM

beat in terms of equal or better sharpness and contrast - at least in that video with side by side comparisons of pictures. No beat in terms of vignetting, but also equally was the bokeh. Impressive, given the lens' price. Must be a horror to owners of the Canon who want to sell it. This might be one of the few cases one would gain money by selling the one and buying the other.  ^_^



#5 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 21 June 2017 - 11:58 AM

Why would one want to sell the Canon if one already has one? Personally, I would not. It is good enough for me, and I generally prefer the rendering of L-lenses SOOC over the rendering achieved with Sigma. I am sure it can be fixed in PP, but I just don't like it.

 

Besides, having tried and tested many lenses over the years, I generally prefer to stick with OEM lenses.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#6 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 21 June 2017 - 12:12 PM

Well, if I bought an item for 2k $ and another one equally good coming later for 800$, there's a gap of 1200$ i between, Selling the used Canon for 2/3 of new, say 1300 $ at the end of the day I would have 500$ more in my pockets.

 

Theoretically.

 

I'm not in such a situation and I cannot answer why YOU should sell your lens, but in my glass collection Nikon is deminuishing. Sigma mostly is equally reliable, better customizable (in general), most of my Sigma lenses are better or the same quality optically. Of course, everyone has his preferences and for Canon's sake and benefits, keep your "genuine lenses"  ^_^

 

After all, these things are made to help us creating pictures - no one wants to know, how mucch a lens cost for a picture.



#7 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 21 June 2017 - 12:33 PM

Exactly :). I will keep shooting with my Canon lenses. I really like what they provide, I know what to expect, as to how they work, and what the end result is, and which I have become accustomed to. I don't look at cameras and lenses for their price either, I look at what I want to achieve, the way I like it, and whether that is worth it to me. It is not a bookkeeping exercise for me, and fortunately I am in a position that I do not have to look at it that way either :).

 

The funny part is that it is not about these lenses being "genuine" lenses, it is the combination of camera(s) and lenses and the resulting images, IOW, a personal preference. F.e., I do not like how Zeiss and Voightlander lenses render either (I have tried quite a few), and quite a few were and are quite a bit more expensive than the equivalent Canon glass, apart from the fact that I have some specialist lenses for which no real equivalent can be found yet either, except, partly, with Nikon, although I may have a go at some specific other 3rd party lenses, at some time in the future. :)

 

Anyway, my FF lens collection is about as complete as it will ever get, barring maybe a specific single lens, and anything else will just be a nice to have over the top, and will likely only be rarely used anyway.

 

My MFT lens line-up will likely still change quite a bit over the next few years, however, while I am still going through phases I already went through with Canon, APS-C and FF :), although I have a good idea where it will be going ;).

 

Kind regards, Wim



#8 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 21 June 2017 - 12:42 PM

Just between us: It is as good as the Fuji 100-400  ;) which also costs a tad more. Plus: Real menchanical focus ring,, no stupid "focus by wire" which is a disappointing feature on the Fuji side. Adjustment by dock. Okay, no tripod foot but at 1160 grams - who cares? Tame filter Ø 67mm, 1.6 m MFD. I was very surprised.

 

I was happy until you mentioned the MFD :/. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de