# Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 first (?) review



## andrei1989 (May 17, 2017)

i found maybe the first review of this lens, which i'm considering buying

http://www.diyphotography.net/sigmas-new-100-400mm-f5-6-3-dg-hsm-os-contemporary-lens-small-fast-strong-sharp/

unfortunately...nothing about tracking moving subjects or focus consistency...only that focus is fast and, from the sample images, the lens seems very sharp


----------



## AlanF (May 17, 2017)

There was an earlier and better review by cameralabs
https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-os-review/

His copy is as sharp in the centre as his Nikon 80-400 (which doesn't have a very good reputation for IQ).

and lenstip has sample photos with birds at 400mm which show good, but not outstanding sharpness of their copy
http://www.lenstip.com/2232-news-Sigma_C_100-400_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_-_sample_gallery.html

I am going to test one when the local shop gets one in as I like the idea of a light lens. But, there is a really big no no in the absence of tripod ring and it looks like no space to fit one. I think it essential for strap users to have two anchor points for carrying the camera in case one fails and not to put all the wait on the camera body.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 17, 2017)

thanks for the links 

considering the nikon is 3 times the price of the sigma and only a 3rd stop faster, having the same sharpness is a great achievment from sigma

i would have liked to see some samples on a crop sensor camera...7d2 or 80d or d500..


----------



## 9VIII (May 17, 2017)

Sigma needs to make a 500f5.6 Prime.

Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.
After looking at another five or six reviews of the Tamron 150-600 G2 (the most appealing lens from an overall design perspective, as well as being noticeably better than the G1), and various shootouts, the best conclusion that I can come to is still that everything in this price range is still practically equivalent, and even a small improvement in distance to target will outweigh all the benefits of bigger/longer/newer lenses.

The only way any manufacturer is going to make significant progress is if they go back to basics and do what we all know works. Get rid of the zoom and make something designed from the ground up to do one thing.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 17, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.



seriously? ???
first is at f6.3, second is at f8...cropped to ~100%
are we not looking at the same photos?
do you have some kind of 100" 8k screen you're viewing these on and they're soft?


----------



## 9VIII (May 17, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.
> ...



We have no idea what range those images were taken from, at MFD everything looks good.

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/can100-400II/can100-400_fot18.JPG

http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig100-400C/sig100-400_fot27.JPG

I was looking at stuff like this, but then I realised that not everyone automatically shoots everything at 400mm on a zoom lens.

If it's soft at 100mm that's mostly fine as far as I'm concerned.
I haven't found a good comparison at maximum zoom yet.


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2017)

9VIII said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Those are huge crops. At that close distance they should be tack sharp, and they are not. It's the type of sharpness I get at 25-50% of that size. I had a chance this morning to check out the Sigma. See next.


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2017)

GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING - SHOTS FROM ONLY ONE COPY OF A LENS

The Sigma rep visited the local store this morning and I was able to use the Sigma 100-400mm for a few minutes and took some shots of a target I usually use for testing lens - a flagpole on a roof. The lens wasn't AFMAed, but the target has 3D aspects and you can tell if it is out of focus. I took 20 shots, and then compared them with the Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm, the Canon 400mm DO II, and the Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm, 500mm and 600mm. All were on the 5DSR, wide open at 1/4000s or faster.

First, the target:


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2017)

Centre crops, RAW converted with DxO and USM of 0.9px 100% applied (to all).
Sigma 100-400 400mm top.
Canon 100-400mm next
Canon DO 400mm next
Sigma 150-600 C at 388mm bottom.


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2017)

For comparison, the Sigma 150-600mm at 500mm top, and 600mm bottom.
All have to be downloaded to compare.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 18, 2017)

nice comparison 
thanks for posting.
to me it seems the sigma is only very slightly less sharp than the canon 100-400, but i think i also notice a slight change in lighting: the canon shot had more direct sunlight, am i right?

curious..but the sigma 150-600 is the worst at 388mm...


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> nice comparison
> thanks for posting.
> to me it seems the sigma is only very slightly less sharp than the canon 100-400, but i think i also notice a slight change in lighting: the canon shot had more direct sunlight, am i right?
> 
> curious..but the sigma 150-600 is the worst at 388mm...



The Sigma 100-400 is the worst. Both the Canon 100-400mm and Sigma 150-600mm at 400mm (or close) are sharper. Look, for example, in the downloaded images at the vertical ropes by the pole. More of the detail is lost by the small Sigma. There are some changes in lighting but I have chosen the best image for the Sigma, irrespective of the lighting.

The big Sigma at 600mm gives much fine detail.


----------



## AlanF (May 18, 2017)

Just checked the extreme left of the Sigma 100-400mm. It's very impressively sharp, possibly better than the other lenses.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2017)

Thanks AlanF.

I have a feeling I'll be watching the Black Friday/Pre-Christmas sales for this lens. It would be nice to have a slightly lighter 100-400 zoom and would also make for better domestic relations to have two 100-400 options in the household.


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2017)

Looking back over the photos of birds posted from the lenstip/optoczyne site, I feel that they either were poorly taken or they had a poor copy. I look forward to more reviews.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 19, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Sigma needs to make a 500f5.6 Prime.
> 
> Early results from the Sigma 100-400 look a bit underwhelming.
> After looking at another five or six reviews of the Tamron 150-600 G2 (the most appealing lens from an overall design perspective, as well as being noticeably better than the G1), and various shootouts, the best conclusion that I can come to is still that everything in this price range is still practically equivalent, and even a small improvement in distance to target will outweigh all the benefits of bigger/longer/newer lenses.
> ...



This - absolutely!


----------



## Cochese (May 21, 2017)

Though I haven't used this yet, I feel like it's not any sharper than Canon's 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. And with that lens, I get a bit more light all the way through. And you can usually find them used for about the same price.


----------



## AlanF (May 23, 2017)

TDP has published the IQ of its copy. Slightly less sharp and more CA throughout the range than the Canon 100-400mm II. Here is the comparison at f/6.3 for both so diffraction is the same.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1120&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

It's a pretty good lens.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 23, 2017)

that's pretty impressive...
i was expecting the sigma to be somewhere near canon's first version..


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 23, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> that's pretty impressive...
> i was expecting the sigma to be somewhere near canon's first version..



My resolution expectations were higher than these results. But I may rent it at some point, just to see whether Sigma has resolved its AF inconsistency problems.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 23, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> My resolution expectations were higher than these results.



for 800$ new? ???


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 23, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > My resolution expectations were higher than these results.
> ...



Ha - I am ever the optimist with high expectations! If it was really sharp, I might have accepted some AF problems.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2017)

The Polish mother site of Lenstip has posted its review. The Lenstip one will be out in a day or two, but Google will translate:

http://www.optyczne.pl/420.1-Test_obiektywu-Sigma_C_100-400_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html

Their copy of the lens is sharper in the middle than the Canon 100-400mm II, the opposite to the TDP charts! It's all copy variation.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 26, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > that's pretty impressive...
> ...



To be fair, you will not see any resolution differences between the canon or Sigma, it's very slight. But AF consistency, aperture motor reliability, general reliability, durability and resale values...well I'm pretty sure that Canon would be the better bet. 
I've often found that Sigma optics are very comparable to Canon's. It's just the rest of the lens that's the problem. For semi-pro and hobbiest use, Sigma is great. For serious pro use, for me...it's a pass (and that's from long term experience).


----------



## SecureGSM (May 26, 2017)

To be fair, It appears that you are missing the point, clearly... this lens was designed to specifically address the size and the weight issue that is traditionaly associated with 400mm focal length zoom lenses, yet to be afordable and sharp, designed as a perfect and small travel companion for photo enthusiasts, not for the "Serious Pros.. for you..".
There is an alternative to Canon lenses, you know.. other brands do exist.. I have heard very good words about Tamron G2 lenses closing on the gap... even for professional use. I am sorry to hear about your personal first hand negative experience with the Sigma *first generation Art lenses* being unreliable, non durable and lucking AF consistency, but my Sigma 85 Art and Canon 135 Art doing just fine in that regard.
I am sorry to say, but your personal experience with Sigma brand products is a little bit outdated.

I try not to do a judgement or offer an advise with something I have no sound experience with. It is not quite practical long term to operate that way. It pays to stay relevant.


GMCPhotographics said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > andrei1989 said:
> ...


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 26, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> To be fair, It appears that you are missing the point, clearly... this lens was designed to specifically address the size and the weight issue that is traditionaly associated with 400mm focal length zoom lenses, yet to be afordable and sharp, designed as a perfect and small travel companion for photo enthusiasts, not for the "Serious Pros.. for you..".
> There is an alternative to Canon lenses, you know.. other brands do exist.. I have heard very good words about Tamron G2 lenses closing on the gap... even for professional use. I am sorry to hear about your personal first hand negative experience with the Sigma *first generation Art lenses* being unreliable, non durable and lucking AF consistency, but my Sigma 85 Art and Canon 135 Art doing just fine in that regard.
> I am sorry to say, but your personal experience with Sigma brand products is a little bit outdated.
> 
> I try not to do a judgement or offer an advise with something I have no sound experience with. It is not quite practical long term to operate that way. It pays to stay relevant



It's good to hear that Sigma may have resolved the AF problems. I wait to hear more positive reports, to better understand the copy to copy variation.


----------



## slclick (Jul 22, 2017)

It's fantastic, especially for 799


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2017)

slclick said:


> It's fantastic, especially for 799



how good is the optical stabilization? The one I tested was fine optically but he OS wasn't good at lower speeds, as noted also by Cameralabs - I don't mean "acceptable" sharp but tack sharp for severe cropping (many testers just look for how many images look OK).


----------



## canon1dxman (Jul 23, 2017)

I recently sold my Sigma 150-600C to a friend. He loved it but found it too heavy so bought this Sigma 100-400. His verdict? Absolutely loves it. I'm not swapping my 100-400 II for one but it seems to be amazingly good value.

Next step for me will be the Tamron 70-200 G2.


----------



## slclick (Jul 24, 2017)

canon1dxman said:


> I recently sold my Sigma 150-600C to a friend. He loved it but found it too heavy so bought this Sigma 100-400. His verdict? Absolutely loves it. I'm not swapping my 100-400 II for one but it seems to be amazingly good value.
> 
> Next step for me will be the Tamron 70-200 G2.



I swapped my Canon for the Siggy and pocketed much money and have nearly identical images.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2017)

slclick said:


> canon1dxman said:
> 
> 
> > I recently sold my Sigma 150-600C to a friend. He loved it but found it too heavy so bought this Sigma 100-400. His verdict? Absolutely loves it. I'm not swapping my 100-400 II for one but it seems to be amazingly good value.
> ...



No doubt it is good optically. Same question as I asked above. How good is the OS at low shutter speeds? Also, how good is the AF for moving subjects?


----------



## slclick (Jul 24, 2017)

google is your friend. I have yet to take many with the OS on at lower speeds, If and when I do I will report to you asap Sir.


----------

