# SIGMA will announce a 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS shortly



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2020)

> It looks like SIGMA is joining in on the announcement fun and will soon be announcing a 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS for mirrorless cameras. I doubt we’ll see an RF mount announcement with it.
> I’m still trying to find out when SIGMA will announce their RF mount plans, there has been a lot of conflicting information on the topic.



Continue reading...


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Sigma jumping on to the slow telephoto lens hype train - although the hype seems to fall a bit short reading the posts around here


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 10, 2020)

That will be an E and L mount at best.


----------



## MadisonMike (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon has not opened up the mount, so it will be harder for the 3rd parties. It will change in time. For now Canon is coming out with some great glass and you can use the old with an adapter. For the Sony users this is good news, there are lots of new options. Now this Sigma better be inexpensive. The Canon and Sony options are very nice, expensive but nice.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 11, 2020)

I love the DSLR version of this lens. It's really light and has pretty good IQ for the price. AF could be better though.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 11, 2020)

I assume it will be a contemporary version.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 11, 2020)

dslrdummy said:


> I assume it will be a contemporary version.


and with x2 tele converter attached it is even 200-800 - if the lens takes TC. a very useful focal range and at only F10-12.. 
Sigma 100-400 C can be had for around AUD $450, compact and light.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 11, 2020)

I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;





Review: Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C


The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new and aggressively priced Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C lens.From TDP:The AF accuracy could be slightly improved and a tripod ring would be nice to at least optionally have available, but otherwise, the 100-400 C gives you a...




www.canonrumors.com





"Photozone aka optical limits has finally reviewed the lens: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1045-sigma100400f563c
They found what I found in the 4 copies I looked at courtesy of the local dealer; the IS in the viewfinder is terrible and not much good in practice. Their summary is: "Thus even though the Sigma is quite capable in optimal conditions, we'd suggest to look elsewhere."
My experience of the Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 wasn't good either. I made the mistake of buying one because I thought it would be light for travel but eventually sold it as the tracking of birds in flight was hopeless. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600mms are much, much better and really worthy of consideration."


----------



## Dragon (Jun 11, 2020)

Sigma needs to dissect an R5 before they introduce RF lenses. Clearly a lot the RF protocol that isn't in any body currently released and even the Canon RF lenses will probably need a firmware update to be on board.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 11, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma and Tamron 150-600mms are much, much better and really worthy of consideration."



The sport or contemporary version?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> The sport or contemporary version?


Contemporary.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 11, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Contemporary.



Thanks, I'll look into that one. I love how light the 100-400 is, but I'm finding 400mm often isn't enough for birds.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Thanks, I'll look into that one. I love how light the 100-400 is, but I'm finding 400mm often isn't enough for birds.


There's copy variation, so test the one you buy. My copy is excellent, and I bought it in the local store as I tried it there and it was so good I couldn't resist it. The image is very steady in viewfinder. The AF at 600mm is fairly slow.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;
> http://[URL]https://www.canonrumors...-400mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-c.32797/#post-668504[/URL]
> 
> "Photozone aka optical limits has finally reviewed the lens: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1045-sigma100400f563c
> ...


The 150-600 offerings from the third parties really are some of the best lenses on the market. Not purely in performance of course but a combination of performance, price and size. I would of course love a canon 100-400 but have never been left wanting with the sigma. Given how good they are it is a little bit surprising to hear the negative review of the sigma 100-400 but it just goes to show that while the third parties CAN produce absolute gems at time they are probably not as consistent as Canon.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;
> http://[URL][URL][URL]https://www.c...-400mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-c.32797/#post-668504[/URL][/URL][/URL]
> 
> "Photozone aka optical limits has finally reviewed the lens: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1045-sigma100400f563c
> ...




Sigma released a firmware update that corrects IS (OS) issues:

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/firmware-update-100-400mm-for-mc-11/

【Applicable product】
SIGMA 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Contemporary for Canon

【Benefits of this firmware update】

Improved the AF performance.
Enables the OS mechanism to start operating faster than before.

I can confirm that OS performance has been greatly improved with firmware update.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jun 12, 2020)

This lens makes zero sense when you already have a 150-600 f/5-6.3 on the market. I use the Sport version on my EOSR.
Why are all these manufacturers making these pointless zooms right now. This, Canon talking about a 700mm f/8...etc


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sigma released a firmware update that corrects IS (OS) issues:
> 
> https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/firmware-update-100-400mm-for-mc-11/
> 
> ...


The firmware upgrades came 18 months to 2 years after the release of the lens eg https://www.sigma-global.com/en/news/2019/04/18/2112/. Were they using us as beta testers or were they simply concerned with rushing a product on to the market? At least they put out upgrades.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The firmware upgrades came 18 months to 2 years after the release of the lens eg https://www.sigma-global.com/en/news/2019/04/18/2112/. Were they using us as beta testers or were they simply concerned with rushing a product on to the market? At least they put out upgrades.


They were genuinely unaware of the issue with AF kicking in a tad to late. It was not a problem shooting at 1/1000 or faster with Is on or off. Obviously. As you do shooting sports or any fast moving subjects. AF was just OK. I would not call it snappy on a DSLR at least. Colours were
A bit too warm for my taste. Contrasty, somewhat nervous bokeh. I would give it another go on R5. It’s a very compact lens, well suited for traveling.
it does offer somewhat limited OS quality.2-3 stops at best? With IBIS in R5 It would have been a very reasonable lens to own in my humble opinion anyway.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> They were genuinely unaware of the issue with AF kicking in a tad to late. It was not a problem shooting at 1/1000 or faster with Is on or off. Obviously. As you do shooting sports or any fast moving subjects. AF was just OK. I would not call it snappy on a DSLR at least. Colours were
> A bit too warm for my taste. Contrasty, somewhat nervous bokeh. I would give it another go on R5. It’s a very compact lens, well suited for traveling.
> it does offer somewhat limited OS quality.2-3 stops at best? With IBIS in R5 It would have been a very reasonable lens to own in my humble opinion anyway.


I need good IS for hand held shots at 400mm and lower shutter speeds, and the 100-400mm II is excellent for that. IBIS is best suited for shorter focal length lenses, and IS is much better for telephotos. With a Canon lens on the R5, the IS on an appropriate lens and the IBIS should be able to combine to give extra stops of stabilization over and above the IS value by itself.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I need good IS for hand held shots at 400mm and lower shutter speeds, and the 100-400mm II is excellent for that. IBIS is best suited for shorter focal length lenses, and IS is much better for telephotos. With a Canon lens on the R5, the IS on an appropriate lens and the IBIS should be able to combine to give extra stops of stabilization over and above the IS value by itself.


our knowledge of IBIS efficiency of Canon R5 or any other Canon camera is somewhat limited at this stage. Isn't it? 
Let's keep our options open for now and see what opportunity Canon mirrorless tech combined with IBIS may offer.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> our knowledge of IBIS efficiency of Canon R5 or any other Canon camera is somewhat limited at this stage. Isn't it?
> Let's keep our options open for now and see what opportunity Canon mirrorless tech combined with IBIS may offer.


Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"





More Canon EOS R5 specs revealed – “the camera will shoot comfortably on high-end production sets” - Canon Press Centre - Canon Europe







www.canon-europe.com





This follows the now well-established combination of in-camera and in-lens IS by other manufacturers like Olympus and Panasonic - the synchronization of IS is reality already. However, it is restricted to manufacturers' own lenses on their own bodies so far, unless I have missed it has changed. In practice, the IBIS has added about another stop to the IS of telephoto lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+++++ Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"

A..M. That’s a nice marketing piece. That’s all It is. let’s see how really efficient this tech is. It may or may not be sufficient enough..


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++++ Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"
> 
> A..M. That’s a nice marketing piece. That’s all It is. let’s see how really efficient this tech is. It may or may not be sufficient enough..


Sufficient enough for what?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Sufficient enough for what?


To supplement the Sigma 100-400 C mediocre IS... remember where we started?
my point was: Sigma 100-400 C image stabilisation Is only 2-3 stops Strong. Not so great. However in combination with the R5 IBIS it maybe good enough.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> To supplement the Sigma 100-400 C mediocre IS... remember where we started?
> my point was: Sigma 100-400 C image stabilisation Is only 2-3 stops Strong. Not so great. However in combination with the R5 IBIS it maybe good enough.


But, as I pointed out in the post:


AlanF said:


> This follows the now well-established combination of in-camera and in-lens IS by other manufacturers like Olympus and Panasonic - the synchronization of IS is reality already. However, it is restricted to manufacturers' own lenses on their own bodies so far, unless I have missed it has changed. In practice, the IBIS has added about another stop to the IS of telephoto lenses.


So, it would be against precedence for the Sigma to work in combination with Canon IBIS.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> But, as I pointed out in the post:
> 
> So, it would be against precedence for the Sigma to work in combination with Canon IBIS.


lets wait and see. It remains an assumption for now.


----------



## secant (Jun 12, 2020)

Since SIgma didn't really announce that this will be available for Canon RF yet but we are already expecting it to happen. Anyone also interested in the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 and think it might be available for RF? I don't think Tamron has any lenses available for RF yet. There are a lot of mirrorless lenses that might potentially be added to the RF lens option. Samyang 45mm F1.8, Sigma 45mm F2.8, Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, Tamron 70-180mm F2.8, etc.


----------



## slclick (Jun 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Tammy is the way to go if you don't have the clams for the Canon. I have owned the Siggy, the Tammy and the Canon Mark 2. Of course we know which is the best in all aspects except price but the Tamron is remarkably good for the price.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 13, 2020)

slclick said:


> The Tammy is the way to go if you don't have the clams for the Canon. I have owned the Siggy, the Tammy and the Canon Mark 2. Of course we know which is the best in all aspects except price but the Tamron is remarkably good for the price.


Thanks for the recommend. In these times I am having to dismount my high horse and consider 3rd party brands. I used to own the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC and it was a great lens. I just bought the Tamron SP 45mm f1.8 Di VC to replace the RF 50mm f/1.2L and RF 28-70mm f/2L I had to sell. It is also a great lens for $399. The purple fringing can be bad, but that is easy enough to fix. I've wondered about the Tamron super zoom vs the Sigma. I've about given up on making any money at this. I was right on the edge of actually making some money (profit) when the pandemic hit. I have not booked a portrait session since early March.

Reality: Composition and lighting make all the difference. The lens? Yes, it helps. But it isn't the big picture. I have seen fantastic photos taking with 3rd party lenses. I think Tamron makes lenses that are more than good enough. Thanks again. While I would love the mental self-kudos of carrying all RF "L" Canon lenses, it just is not going to happen right now. Hoping I can hang on to my RF 85mm f/1.2L.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 14, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Thanks for the recommend. In these times I am having to dismount my high horse and consider 3rd party brands. I used to own the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC and it was a great lens. I just bought the Tamron SP 45mm f1.8 Di VC to replace the RF 50mm f/1.2L and RF 28-70mm f/2L I had to sell. It is also a great lens for $399. The purple fringing can be bad, but that is easy enough to fix. I've wondered about the Tamron super zoom vs the Sigma. I've about given up on making any money at this. I was right on the edge of actually making some money (profit) when the pandemic hit. I have not booked a portrait session since early March.
> 
> Reality: Composition and lighting make all the difference. The lens? Yes, it helps. But it isn't the big picture. I have seen fantastic photos taking with 3rd party lenses. I think Tamron makes lenses that are more than good enough. Thanks again. While I would love the mental self-kudos of carrying all RF "L" Canon lenses, it just is not going to happen right now. Hoping I can hang on to my RF 85mm f/1.2L.


Hmmmm....
Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 14, 2020)

MadisonMike said:


> Canon has not opened up the mount, so it will be harder for the 3rd parties. It will change in time. For now Canon is coming out with some great glass and you can use the old with an adapter. For the Sony users this is good news, there are lots of new options. Now this Sigma better be inexpensive. The Canon and Sony options are very nice, expensive but nice.



I don't see why, considering the Canon EF-RF adapter is dumb, it's just adjusting for the flange distance. They could make an EF version with RF mount.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 14, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't see why, considering the Canon EF-RF adapter is dumb, it's just adjusting for the flange distance. They could make an EF version with RF mount.


RF lenses have more than just a mount difference. True, you can machine the rear of a EF lens so it would mount on a R camera, but it would have none of the RF features. To me, a EF lens plus adapter makes more sense than the same lens with modified rear end. But, they sell, just check Samyang / Rokinon. They use the same lens with a longer rear housing.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Jun 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;
> http://[URL][URL]https://www.canonr...-400mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-c.32797/#post-668504[/URL][/URL]
> 
> "Photozone aka optical limits has finally reviewed the lens: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1045-sigma100400f563c
> ...



Looking forward to the L mount version. Been contemplating the Ef version with an adapter. Now I can look forward to the native version


----------



## Cryhavoc (Jun 14, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> This lens makes zero sense when you already have a 150-600 f/5-6.3 on the market. I use the Sport version on my EOSR.
> Why are all these manufacturers making these pointless zooms right now. This, Canon talking about a 700mm f/8...etc



The size and weight difference is pretty big. I carried both on day trips on Kauai. After the first day, the 150-600 stayed in the room since the 100-400 on my Eos R was good enough and definitely lighter to haul around all day. The bigger lens was used when we weren't going to be travelling all day and just walk to the beach to shoot surfers.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 14, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Hmmmm....
> Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
> Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.


I'll have to look into that. Thanks! I'm very happy with the fact that Canon has given a great solution with the adapter.


----------



## slclick (Jun 14, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Hmmmm....
> Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
> Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.


Here's new....I could write all sorts of rebuttals to your statement but with how Canon holds it's value, I'll just leave it at that and this screenshot from B&H, ok?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 14, 2020)

Canon hit the sweet spot with the 100-400mm II. I have two of them for when my wife and I go out together. They are tack sharp edge-to-edge and have really fast AF, and the IS is superb with the image rock steady in the viewfinder. The bare lens is nearly as sharp as my 400mm DO II was - see https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout. I really like my Sigma 150-600 C but when it comes to BIF or dragonflies in flight, it's no contest.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 15, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Sigma needs to dissect an R5 before they introduce RF lenses. Clearly a lot the RF protocol that isn't in any body currently released and even the Canon RF lenses will probably need a firmware update to be on board.



I don't think third parties are going to bother with RF protocol. They'll stick to the EF protocol over the RF interface (which mimics an adapted EF lens) as that's what they already know and has far less risk.

I don't think *true* RF lenses are really possible in the way that Canon lenses are - there's no capabilities for proper in-body correction etc.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> But, as I pointed out in the post:
> 
> So, it would be against precedence for the Sigma to work in combination with Canon IBIS.



None of us know how it works at the moment (or at least, those do aren't allowed to say). 

Can lens IS and in-body stabilization work at the same time without conflicting if they are not designed to communicate with each other and interact? If so good. But if not, then I'm assuming that Canon will by default disable IBIS when lens IS is detected except when the two are able to work together, which no doubt means Canon RF lenses only.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 15, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> None of us know how it works at the moment (or at least, those do aren't allowed to say).
> 
> Can lens IS and in-body stabilization work at the same time without conflicting if they are not designed to communicate with each other and interact? If so good. But if not, then I'm assuming that Canon will by default disable IBIS when lens IS is detected except when the two are able to work together, which no doubt means Canon RF lenses only.


As you say, we don't know yet. However, Panasonic and Olympus collaborate (to some extent) and their lenses combine IBIS and IS only when they are Oly/Oly or Panny/Panny and not Oly/Panny. EF lenses (Canon or Sigma) mounted on a Sony with IBIS with an adaptor don't combine IS and IBIS. So, my guess is that only RF lenses will work fully IS + IBIS.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 15, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think third parties are going to bother with RF protocol. They'll stick to the EF protocol over the RF interface (which mimics an adapted EF lens) as that's what they already know and has far less risk.
> 
> I don't think *true* RF lenses are really possible in the way that Canon lenses are - there's no capabilities for proper in-body correction etc.



I was loading lens profiles into my RP this weekend and noticed that the new EF 600mm lens cannot be loaded into the body with a message saying it provides correction+DLO data on its own already. Canon heavily implied that having the lens provide DLO data is an RF feature, but it seems that the 2 most recent EF lenses can do it as well.

Recent Sigma lenses already provide correction data, so it isn't a stretch to think that Sigma is working on having them provide DLO data as well.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 15, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Recent Sigma lenses already provide correction data, so it isn't a stretch to think that Sigma is working on having them provide DLO data as well.



It would be interesting, but I strongly suspect that would be too much work for Sigma to do when all they really want to do is create a generic lens for L/E/RF mounts and do as little extra work as possible to support mount-specific features. Hope I'm wrong about that though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Sigma needs to dissect an R5 before they introduce RF lenses. Clearly a lot the RF protocol that isn't in any body currently released and even the Canon RF lenses will probably need a firmware update to be on board.



That's not the way Canon typically does things. They include things in bodies and lenses for years before the product that the body or lens needs it for is introduced. 

Back in the 1990s, bodies introduced as early as 1992 contained the needed firmware to work with IS lenses. The first Canon IS lens was not released until 1995.

When Canon released the 470EX-AI flash with a self aiming bounce function in 2018, they also revealed that all EOS bodies released since 2014 were fully compatible with it. Older bodies were compatible with the flash's "semi-automatic" mode.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Hmmmm....
> Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
> Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.



I've seen plenty of used copies of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS for the price if the Tamron, i haven't seen any used copies of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II for anywhere near the price of the Tamron 100-400.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 26, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I was loading lens profiles into my RP this weekend and noticed that the new EF 600mm lens cannot be loaded into the body with a message saying it provides correction+DLO data on its own already. Canon heavily implied that having the lens provide DLO data is an RF feature, but it seems that the 2 most recent EF lenses can do it as well.
> 
> Recent Sigma lenses already provide correction data, so it isn't a stretch to think that Sigma is working on having them provide DLO data as well.



Interesting. When I hook up my 5D Mark IV body to EOS Utility to load lens profiles, it tells me I do not need to load the profile for any current EF lens, including the EF 600 IS III and EF 400 IS III. Apparently all of that info is included in the 5D Mark IV's firmware, and updating the firmware recently must have included the lens info for the new Super Telephotos. Neither of those lenses has ever been attached to my 5D Mark IV.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 26, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Interesting. When I hook up my 5D Mark IV body to EOS Utility to load lens profiles, it tells me I do not need to load the profile for any current EF lens, including the EF 600 IS III and EF 400 IS III. Apparently all of that info is included in the 5D Mark IV's firmware, and updating the firmware recently must have included the lens info for the new Super Telephotos. Neither of those lenses has ever been attached to my 5D Mark IV.


As I understand it, non-DLO correction data could already be provided by the lens itself, Sigma is doing that for their recent lenses.
RF added lens provided DLO to that.

That doesn’t preclude Canon from baking in data for lenses into the firmware as well.


----------

