Canon 100-400 L IS vs. Sigma 80-400 EX DG APO OS

[myself621]

I'm debating between the Canon 100-400 L IS and the Sigma 80-400 EX DG APO OS (optical stablization) lenses. The Sigma is about $400 dollars less and the only disadvantage I can find is that it has a lower minimum aperture at f22 at 5.6 compared to the Canon's f40 at 5.6. I'm getting into sports and motorsports photography, but I can't think of a situation where f22 won't be sufficient. Anyway, any feedback on these lenses would be appreciated.

[LightRules]

The biggest difference is that the L has ring USM and the EX lacks ring HSM. That is important especially for what you want to shoot. You might also want to look into the Sigma 120-300EX f2.8.

[jorj7]

The Sigma is also heavier and has slower AF.

[myself621]

Good points. I totally overlooked the USM/HSM thing. Thanks.

[pknight]

I engaged in the same debate with myself, and decided that the 100-400 was the way to go, based in part on the USM issue. I'll see how that choice went when it arrives next week.

[GSH]

For what you'll be shooting the 100-400L is the way to go, assuming reasonable to good light of course...

If you throw the Sigma 120-300 into the equation it becomes a bit more complicated.

I have both :D

[myself621]

Has anyone had good experiences with a Bigma for motorsports? It seems like another choice, and I've heard that image sharpness is comparable to the 100-400L. Is this true?

[jediforce4ever]

Go for the 100-400L
The AF on the Sigma is terribly slow.

[jorj7]

I've owned the Bigma and it's a very versital lens. It can take decent motorsports
photos, but it requires good light (f/6.3 at 500) and the focus is not as fast as the
100-400L. If you can "prefocus" on an area and are shoting on a sunny day it would
work well. I used it (and the 100-400L) last year to shot rallies, and it compared
favorably. I'm currently using the 35-350L for these evens and I like it better then
either....