# Sigma Announces the 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 21, 2017)

```
SIGMA 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM</p>
<p>Introducing the light bazooka-a new approach to the ultra-telephoto zoom</p>
<ol>
<li>Top performance with the specification and functionality of a more expensive unit</li>
<li>Compact packaging with uncompromising image quality</li>
<li>Push/pull zoom mechanism incorporated</li>
<li>Telephoto plus macro functionality</li>
<li>Other features</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>A compact body and top performance in one complete package</strong></p>
<p>An ultra-telephoto lens with an optical stabilizer (OS) system has several advantages. The OS allows the photographer to take photographs in unstable circumstances. The narrow angle of view makes it possible to dramatically compress perspective and flexible handling of the background. The photographer can thereby make the subject appear to jump out of the image, with the area in focus impressively sharp and clear. Nevertheless, ultra-telephoto lenses have traditionally had some disadvantages as well. As the nickname “bazooka” implies, they have tended to be big, heavy, and therefore burdensome to carry around. With the goal of creating an ultra-telephoto lens that is far more accessible, SIGMA incorporated all of its latest technologies into SIGMA 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Contemporary. With its outstanding combination of optical performance and compactness, this is an ultra-telephoto lens that is a joy to carry and use. While keeping the robust functionality and exceptional image quality of an ultra-telephoto zoom lens intact, SIGMA has achieved amazingly compact packaging enclosing 400mm optics. Introducing the new and greatly enhanced “light bazooka” ultra-telephoto zoom lens.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>SIGMA 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Contemporary offers the compact size, lightweight, and high cost performance of a 70-300mm lens while delivering 400mm telephoto performance. This approach results in a tempting new ultra-telephoto choice for photographers. Offering a combination of stunning image quality and outstanding functionality, this lens satisfies the needs of pros and amateurs alike.</p>
<p>【Key features】</p>
<ol>
<li>Top performance with the specification and functionality of a more expensive unit</li>
</ol>
<p>Since its release, the SIGMA 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Contemporary has won photographers over with its strong fundamental performance and exceptional image quality. The new lens retains all of this performance in a compact 400mm ultra-telephoto zoom package with a filter size of just ⌀67mm and weight of just 1,160g. Yet it also comes with the full range of features and functions expected of an ultra-telephoto zoom: optical stabilizer (OS), hypersonic motor (HSM) with updated algorithm for fast autofocus, focus limiter, and more. In addition, this uncompromising specification becomes customizable with the available SIGMA USB Dock accessory.</p>
<ol start="2">
<li>Compact packaging with uncompromising image quality</li>
</ol>
<p>In designing this lens, SIGMA strived to push both compactness and image quality to the limit. Four SLD (Special Low Dispersion) glass lens elements and an optimized power distribution help minimize optical aberrations. Moreover, by taking special care to minimize transverse chromatic aberration, which cannot be corrected via aperture control, SIGMA has ensured outstanding image quality throughout the zoom range.</p>
<ol start="3">
<li>Push/pull zoom mechanism incorporated</li>
</ol>
<p>For quick control of the angle of view, the zoom ring incorporates a push/pull mechanism in addition to the regular twist mechanism. The exclusive lens hood has also been designed to accommodate push/pull zooming and overall lens maneuverability. By making it possible to adjust the angle of view instantly, this lens gives photographers an even better chance of getting that crucial shot.</p>
<ol start="4">
<li>Telephoto plus macro functionality</li>
</ol>
<p>With a minimum shooting distance of 160cm and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:3.8, this lens can shoot either from a distance or up close.</p>
<ol start="5">
<li>Other features</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Dust- and splash-proof mount</li>
</ul>
<p>Since the area of the lens most vulnerable to dust and other foreign bodies is the mount, rubber sealing helps provide peace of mind.</p>
<ul>
<li>All-new optical stabilizer (OS) unit with exclusive algorithm</li>
</ul>
<p>Featuring a newly developed gyroscopic sensor and a new and exclusive algorithm, the all-new OS unit provides a powerful stabilization effect. An acceleration sensor detects camera shake in any direction—horizontal, vertical, or diagonal. This technology allows the OS to stabilize the image very effectively, regardless of whether the camera is being held in horizontal or vertical orientation.</p>
<ul>
<li>Nikon electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism included</li>
</ul>
<p>The Nikon mount version of this lens includes an electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism that allows it to receive the appropriate signals from the camera body. This feature ensures precision diaphragm control and stable Auto Exposure (AE) performance during continuous shooting.</p>
<p>Note: Functionality may be limited on some camera bodies.</p>
<ul>
<li>Rounded diaphragm</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Designed to minimize flare and ghosting</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Compatible with the newly developed tele converters</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Fast AF with full-time manual override</li>
</ul>
<p>Note: The operation of full-time MF may vary based on mount type</p>
<ul>
<li>Compatible with Mount Converter MC-11</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Available SIGMA USB DOCK (Makes customization and flexible adjustment possible)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Available Mount Conversion Service (Allows use with another camera body)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>High-precision, durable brass bayonet mount</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Evaluation with SIGMA’s own MTF measuring system “A1”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Made in Japan (With outstanding craftsmanship)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The lens barrel is engraved with the year of release</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Valandil1983 (Feb 21, 2017)

Push/pull mechanism refers to that "air-pump"-like zoom mechanism as in the original canon 100-400, right? That's actually nice, I always liked that method in a long telezoom. Also, no word on pricing yet or did I miss that?


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 21, 2017)

Valandil1983 said:


> Push/pull mechanism refers to that "air-pump"-like zoom mechanism as in the original canon 100-400, right? That's actually nice, I always liked that method in a long telezoom. Also, no word on pricing yet or did I miss that?



From the photos, it is a conventional twist zoom. But from the looks of the hood, it has a grip on it which you could use for a push pull system if desired. 

Also, I think we are stuck waiting until CP+ that starts on the 23rd.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 21, 2017)

Same level of weather sealing as 100mm L macro(better than nothing). ~33% lighter than Canon 100-400mm L II lens. Now will wait to know how much does it cost and how sharp it is at tele end? That lens will nice for occasional bird/mammal shooting I do but more importantly perfect for shy lizards.


----------



## hne (Feb 21, 2017)

Size, weight and filter diameter like the Canon 70-300L with an extra inch paid for the 400mm and slightly closer focusing. Not that I see much use of focal lengths above 100mm in my photography, but... I'm actually a bit excited.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 21, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Same level of weather sealing as 100mm L macro(better than nothing).



How do you know/conclude this? Cannot find a statement to this effect?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2017)

There are more specs on the Sigma global site. It's dust and splash resistant. The MTFs on paper look good, better at 400mm than the 150-600mm C at 600mm.


----------



## -1 (Feb 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Same level of weather sealing as 100mm L macro(better than nothing).
> ...



http://tinyurl.com/z5jn7sj


----------



## -1 (Feb 21, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There are more specs on the Sigma global site. It's dust and splash resistant. The MTFs on paper look good, better at 400mm than the 150-600mm C at 600mm.



Yeah all right and shobidoah but were is the lens collar?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 21, 2017)

-1 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...




it says only:


> Mount with dust- and splash-proof construction



But no reference to Canon EF 100/2.8 L Macro sealing ... that's why i am asking.


----------



## -1 (Feb 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Sigma doesn't specifies the quality of the sealing but further down the spec list:

"Physical
Weight 1160 g (2.56 lb)
Diameter 86 mm (3.4″)
Length 182 mm (7.18″)
Sealing Yes
Colour Black
Zoom method Push/Pull (extending)"


----------



## dufflover (Feb 21, 2017)

I find it kinda interesting they're competing on this front given the money required to develop and build any lens in the line up. I guess enough people were put off by the size or weight of the 150-600 varieties?

But it does seem to make more sense as a 70-300L competitor ("bonus 100mm for the size") rather than 100-400 as such (obviously much more expensive and bigger, etc.)


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2017)

The Maximum Magnification here is nice, but the Minimum Focus Distance is still way too much for most the the Macro type stuff I like to do on a tripod.
If price to performance on this lens is good enough it will still be very tempting though.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 21, 2017)

So they are finally giving at least some form of sealing to non-S lenses too? Apparently the new 135mm A has weather sealing as well.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Same level of weather sealing as 100mm L macro(better than nothing).
> ...


Its a contemporary lens and dont think it will get full weather resistant treatment found on Sport line up of lens. Generally that means only mount gasket present to prevent moisture from entering the camera. Canon 100mm L also has similar level of weather(moisture resistant mount gasket) sealing only more expensive super telephoto lenses get full weather sealing protecting every part of lens. 
Here is an example of what sealing on 150-600 Sport looks like:








Sharlin said:


> So they are finally giving at least some form of sealing to non-S lenses too? Apparently the new 135mm A has weather sealing as well.


85mm Art also came with moisture seals also 150-600mm C was also moisture sealed. its good to see Sigma changing stance on weather/moisture seals on their non-S lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2017)

-1 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There are more specs on the Sigma global site. It's dust and splash resistant. The MTFs on paper look good, better at 400mm than the 150-600mm C at 600mm.
> ...



According to the specs, there isn't one. As I've mentioned in another thread, that is a pain as I like to have both the camera and telephoto mounts attached to a Black Rapid strap. Nevertheless, this will be on my shopping list as lightweight for me when I am travelling (most likely with the M5) and for my wife who finds the 100-400mm II rather heavy. The M-mount adapter has a tripod foot.


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 21, 2017)

dufflover said:


> I find it kinda interesting they're competing on this front given the money required to develop and build any lens in the line up. I guess enough people were put off by the size or weight of the 150-600 varieties?
> 
> But it does seem to make more sense as a 70-300L competitor ("bonus 100mm for the size") rather than 100-400 as such (obviously much more expensive and bigger, etc.)



I was reluctantly set on a the canon 100-400ii, with the majority of use being my wife since I already have the Sigma 150-600C. If this lens is anything optically like my 150-600C, but in a far lighter package I will for sure be picking this up for her and at a far cheaper price point then the canon version. For us, this is a direct competitor to the Canon 100-400ii and as of right now anyway, I'm pretty sure won (for us).


----------



## scyrene (Feb 21, 2017)

I know marketing speak is usually drivel, but "ultra telephoto", really? While not strictly defined, we tend to use the term 'super telephoto' for anything over ~400mm. So why the need for such hyperbole? It's neither longer at the long and than most super-teles, nor is the zoom ratio (if that is what they are referring to) 'ultra' by anyone's standards. *Sigh*


----------



## motofotog (Feb 21, 2017)

isnt 400mm f6.3 little slow? they could have made 400mm f 5.6, we should wait and see for the pricing compared to Canon/Nikon. 
have they published MTF chart?


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2017)

motofotog said:


> isnt 400mm f6.3 little slow? they could have made 400mm f 5.6, we should wait and see for the pricing compared to Canon/Nikon.
> have they published MTF chart?



Why yes they have.
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_100_400_5_63/data/

This thing is a BEAST!


----------



## -1 (Feb 21, 2017)

9VIII said:


> motofotog said:
> 
> 
> > isnt 400mm f6.3 little slow? they could have made 400mm f 5.6, we should wait and see for the pricing compared to Canon/Nikon.
> ...



Without a lense collar!!!


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 21, 2017)

40.9oz/1160g. Is that with or without the hood? 100-400 II is 54.7 oz (TDP) without hood and tripod foot and 60 oz with hood and foot. So approximately 1 lb lighter, but you lose on max aperture, and the tripod attachment point. Will be interested to see how it AFs at f/6.3, but the thing is heavy enough that a lot will use a strap system. I'm not sure if it's worth 1 lb to be darker and possibly take a hit on AF, esp. at the long end.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2017)

-1 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > motofotog said:
> ...



Normally I would say the lack of a tripod foot is a negative thing, but in this case I'm not so sure.

The Sigma 100-400C is only 3oz heavier than the Canon 70-300.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
That lens does have the option for a collar, but most reviews put it in the role of a highly versatile walk-around lens. Probably at the top of the weight range of what people would consider for that role, but if there's less than 10% weight difference between the two then the stated focus of making a 400mm zoom handle like a 300mm zoom seems reasonable.

Now we just have to hope that the price drops in proportion to the weight in comparison to the 150-600C.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 21, 2017)

I woner if Sigma will come out with an M mount?

As someone else said, it might be good on my M5.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 21, 2017)

Bennymiata said:


> I woner if Sigma will come out with an M mount?
> 
> As someone else said, it might be good on my M5.



not o this one. Using the EF/EF-M adapter will give it a nice tripod mount. 8)


----------



## Cory (Feb 21, 2017)

Kind of nice that it has 67mm threads to match my other main lenses.
Good chance that this will soon end up in my arsenal.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Bennymiata said:
> 
> 
> > I woner if Sigma will come out with an M mount?
> ...


+1 and more flexibility to use on EF mounts as well.


----------



## FECHariot (Feb 22, 2017)

jayt567 said:


> I'm not sure of the attraction of a lens in this focal and fstop range. Wouldn't a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter give you more flexibility for around the same price? Just asking, not trying to start a war.



$2000 for a 70-200/2.8 II and another $500 for a canon TC3. This is going to have to be cheaper than the $960 150-600C else why would anyone buy it?


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 22, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> jayt567 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure of the attraction of a lens in this focal and fstop range. Wouldn't a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter give you more flexibility for around the same price? Just asking, not trying to start a war.
> ...


Size is still a negative factor on the 150-600C.
"Reach" is what people judge supertelephoto lenses by.
The Super Zooms generally have sharpness fall off beyond 450mm, the Canon 100-400 was already nearly as good as those lenses when using a APS-C at 400mm vs Full Frame at 600mm.
If the 100-400C has extraordinary sharpness then effective reach will be similar to the Superzooms, while being physically much smaller.
"If" Image Quality is high enough.
Don't forget that Nikon also sells a 200-500mm lens for less than their own 100-400.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 22, 2017)

a potential travel friendly telephoto zoom....

:


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2017)

9VIII said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > jayt567 said:
> ...



The fall off in sharpness above 450mm is less than putting a 1.4xTC on a good 400mm. I regularly use a Sigma 150-600mm C, Canon 100-400 mm II and 400 mm DO II. My copy of the C at 600mm is sharper and more contrasty than the 100-400 mm II with a 1.4xTC and is nearly as good as the DO with a 1.4xTC. Its drawback is being rather slow AF at 600mm. The AF is fast at 400mm. I'll be getting the 100-400mm C in the full knowledge that it will be more limited than my longer lenses but has the advantage of weight and size for some purposes.


----------



## -1 (Feb 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



The M adapter does have a tripod foot but it is about as far off the point of the weight balance as the tripod mount on any FF camera, unfortunately... Well, If one ain't afraid of ad hoc solutions then there might be some third party thingys down the road.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 22, 2017)

-1 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > -1 said:
> ...



I was also thinking of this...but there is no space on the lens to put a collar...on the tamron 70-300 VC there is space over the focus scale and the collar for the 70-300L fits from what i read..


----------



## -1 (Feb 22, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Well... I'm a T6i and you a mere SL1 but don't you think that there could be space between the focus and the zoom rings? ;-))


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 22, 2017)

-1 said:


> Well... I'm a T6i and you a mere SL1 but don't you think that there could be space between the focus and the zoom rings? ;-))



no..the lock switch is there..also..too far away..


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2017)

yes, foot on EF-M adapter is too far back for good weight balance ... but at least it takes mechanical stress off mount on small EOS-M bodies and is very compact and light. it would probably work for me since i would inly use it occasionally.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2017)

See below. 

Specs from Sigma on the 100-400 C: 3.4" X *7.2*" / *40 oz *
Specs from Canon on the 70-300L: 3.5" X 5.6" / *37.1 oz*
Specs from Canon on the 100-400L II: 3.7" x *7.6*" / 56.1 oz

So I clearly pooched the scaling a small amount. Lining up different mounts from different photos is a decidedly less-than-ideal setup. 

So the Sigma appears to be the _*weight*_ of the 70-300L but the _*size*_ (more or less) of the 100-400L II. Both make sense based on the 100-400 (length) + different max aperture (weight).

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2017)

@Ahsanford: Thanks for the data and overlay image! 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> @Ahsanford: Thanks for the data and overlay image! 8)



Not my finest work. The pictures and the published specs don't line up very well. My overlay of the Sigma must be a bit on the larger-than-it-is side of things.

But thx

- A


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > @Ahsanford: Thanks for the data and overlay image! 8)
> ...



Yes, the manufacturers claimed sizes are 182.3mm long x 86.4mm diameter for the Sigma and 193mmx94mm for the 100-400mm II. That actually works out in terms of volume of the Sigma being 20% smaller or the Canon 25% larger. I don't recommend testing my calculations of volumes using the method of Archimedes, despite the claims about being splash proof.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Yes, the manufacturers claimed sizes are 182.3mm long x 86.4mm diameter for the Sigma and 193mmx94mm for the 100-400mm II. That actually works out in terms of volume of the Sigma being 20% smaller or the Canon 25% larger. I don't recommend testing my calculations of volumes using the method of Archimedes, despite the claims about being splash proof.



Appreciate the volume numbers, thanks.

Everyone reads these things differently, but I see this principally as a *retracted length* + *weight* consideration and leave volume behind. Consider that in comparing the 70-200 f/4L vs. the 70-200 f/2.8L, everyone loves the weight reduction and I see zero comments about "what a delightfully small diameter it has".  

Unless there's a massive difference in front element diameter or hood size, the only thing that really bosses how I will pack the lens is length. And I think we'd all agree that weight absolutely matters.

Same thing goes for mirrorless vs. SLR, IMHO. The volume reduction looks sexy on paper, but with a lens attached if it goes in the same bag in the same slot taking up the same space, I'll keep the mirror and a 5D-sized grip for now.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the manufacturers claimed sizes are 182.3mm long x 86.4mm diameter for the Sigma and 193mmx94mm for the 100-400mm II. That actually works out in terms of volume of the Sigma being 20% smaller or the Canon 25% larger. I don't recommend testing my calculations of volumes using the method of Archimedes, despite the claims about being splash proof.
> ...



Weight is related quite closely to the volume: the weight of the 100-400mm II without the tripod foot is 1549g according to TDP so the Sigma at 1168g is 25% less, close to the 20% lower volume. The length is only 5.5% less. So, whether you realise it or not, the diameter is important to you as volume is proportional to diameter squared, and weight, which you consider to be important, changes far more significantly with diameter than length.


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 22, 2017)

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 22, 2017)

yeah...it would have been nice if it had a tripod mount.. :/
but space is limited though..only something integrated in the body of the lens would have worked...and not rotating..


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
I know that TDP isn't the pinnacle of testing, but in this instance the 7D2 on the 100-400MkII is sharper than the 150-600C at 600mm with the 1Ds MkIII.
Technically the 7D2 at 400mm has a narrower field of view as well.
Basically the whole thing is a wash, the SuperZoom lenses are good value for money, but they don't really improve on anything that was already available.
Brian at TDP has noted in some of his reviews that he will sometimes order multiple copies and pick the best one, and he probably only does that with Canon lenses so it's possible that we're looking at a "best vs. worst case" scenario here, but again, the minor differences in sharpness across all these lenses amounts to practically nothing, each option is basically equal, except the 400mm lenses maintain much better Autofocus.


As soon as you put the 7D2 on the 400f5.6 Prime it's just no contest (unless you're in a colour fringing competition).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
The Sports version does look a bit better in the center: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Edit: And here's the Sigma 150-600C stopped down just in case anyone is curious. Yes the center sharpens up nicely, but it still also weighs 50% more and sacrifices AF speed.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

The Tamron 150-600G2 is a bit closer (actually with all the CA I'm tempted to say I like the G1) but again, we're just matching the IQ of a cropped 400mm lens, that's not saying much.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
140-600G1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


The point of all this being, there is nothing to say that the Sigma 100-400C won't be their best Supertelephoto lens outright (barring only the 500mm f4 Prime of course).


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2017)

When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay. 

There are some glaring oddities on the TDP site, such as the performance of the Tamron 150-600mm. He must have bought the worst copy ever sold. When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use. It came as a huge surprise to me that my Sigma performs as well at 600mm as my uber expensive whites at 560-600mm. I borrowed it to test from the local shot for amusement and then kept it because it was so good. 

Another factor is that lenses give different performances in practice on different bodies.


----------



## dufflover (Feb 23, 2017)

Plainsman said:


> ...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.



Not a chance. It's _not_ that weak. It's the sort of unfair reputation that seems to go around with lower end camera gear, like weak mounts, crappy plastic bodies, zero weathering ability, flaky flippy screens and onboard flashes, etc.


----------



## masterpix (Feb 23, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Same level of weather sealing as 100mm L macro(better than nothing). ~33% lighter than Canon 100-400mm L II lens. Now will wait to know how much does it cost and how sharp it is at tele end? That lens will nice for occasional bird/mammal shooting I do but more importantly perfect for shy lizards.



The 100-400 is not a macro lens, but with 1m shortest distance it may serve as one. I did not focus on the bee (a you can see) but the sharpness of the 100-400 clearly caught the shadow of he wing on the flower.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 23, 2017)

dufflover said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.
> ...



true! i shot with my old 1000D in the rain and put it in the not-waterproof bag. when i got home the camera was wet on the outside (like water on it, not just some condensation). worked perfectly.

i would say this lens would need a tripod mount for better balancing ON the actual tripod, even if it were close to the mount...also for attaching some strap to it


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2017)

dufflover said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.
> ...



Even a 5DIII mount can fail - see http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/23634/how-strong-is-the-tripod-mount-on-the-bottom-of-a-dslr

I always use both the camera and lens mounts on a Black Rapid for proper security.

ps the mount on the 100-400mm II is fixed to the ring by 4 tiny, teeny weeny, screws. I had to buy a Japanese compatible screwdriver to tighten mine when they worked loose/


----------



## AJ (Feb 23, 2017)

dufflover said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.
> ...


Drebels are made out of ABS plastic. They make car bumpers and whitewater kayaks out of ABS plastic. It's tough stuff.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 23, 2017)

AlanF said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



i think the discussion is about the lens mount, not the tripod mount..

to eliminate your worries..use this


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 24, 2017)

the 100-400mm poison looks yummy!

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4711801152/cp-2017-hands-on-with-sigmas-newest-lenses


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay.
> 
> There are some glaring oddities on the TDP site, such as the performance of the Tamron 150-600mm. He must have bought the worst copy ever sold. When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use. It came as a huge surprise to me that my Sigma performs as well at 600mm as my uber expensive whites at 560-600mm. I borrowed it to test from the local shot for amusement and then kept it because it was so good.
> 
> Another factor is that lenses give different performances in practice on different bodies.



If you really care so much about what Roger says you should know that the implications of your own testing don't have any application beyond the lenses in your own hands.

I already pointed out the bias that you can pretty safely assume is happening with TDP, even if you were to flip the results and give all the 600mm zoom lenses the same advantage over the 400mm lenses on crop as the charts currently give to the 400mm lenses, that would still be a pretty mediocre result from a 600mm Full Frame lens competing with a cropped 400mm lens.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 24, 2017)

Ah-Keong said:


> the 100-400mm poison looks yummy!
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/4711801152/cp-2017-hands-on-with-sigmas-newest-lenses



that 14mm is HUUUGE

but the 100-400 will look good on my 70D


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2017)

9VIII said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay.
> ...



Have you actually read the post you have replied to? I wrote as now highlighted in bold "*When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use.*", which is my stock mantra as individual copies of lenses vary widely, and is what Roger repeatedly says and which I have learned from him.

Have you yourself directly compared a Sigma or Tamron at 600mm on FF with a 400mm on crop?

I am going to start a new thread on inconsistencies between lens review sites.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 24, 2017)

still no prices or availability were announced?


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Your post is debating the validity of TDP tests, positioned as a rebuttal to my assertion that a 400mm lens could be the best Supertelephoto lens that Sigma makes.
Regardless of what you said directly, the _implication_ is that your hands on testing is worth more.
It is to you, but not to anyone else, and acknowledging that it isn't valuable to anyone else just makes the entire post pointless, except that it's a fancy way to say that you don't think your favorite lens isn't an outlier.
Practically speaking you may as well have just said the Sigma 150-600 makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Lensrentals' own testing confirms the poor 600mm performance of the Tamron 150-600G1 (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout/), and I can't seem to find any more recent testing from Lensrentals on any of the other Superzoom lenses at 600mm.

(I get the impression Roger is specifically trying to avoid posting that sort of information, he did test them at 400mm, but we're still just judging these lenses as 400mm lenses at that point https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ and another one just for fun: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons/).


The only logical way for a consumer to navigate this space is aggregate scores, unfortunately you're lucky if you can find three decent reviews of any given model, but at least by posting results from all four Sigma and Tamron Superzoom lenses we have more than three samples there, it's not a good average, but it is "an average".
Again, if we had Lensrentals data on the more recent Superzooms (maybe there is but I can't find it) then there would practically be no discussion to be had, but as is we just have the one Lensrentals test of the Tamron 150-600G1, which shows poor results at 600mm and that Canon's 400mm lenses are very sharp.

It's far from ideal but it's the best information we have to go on.
My conclusion is that anyone is practically just as well off using the 400mm lenses as the 600mm lenses, they all seem to offer roughly the same price to performance.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 27, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> that 14mm is HUUUGE
> 
> but the 100-400 will look good on my 70D



yeah! in my opinion, its a good travel telephoto zoom.
the 14mm looks huge in the small hands. 

:


----------

