Canon 100-400L vs Sigma 100-300 (+ 1.4x TC perhaps)

[JaGWiRE]

Say money is no value, and the use will be street shooting (candids, some portraiture perhaps of friends who I shoot with), poor attempts at birding, squirrels and other common wild life probably (maybe venture into more real wild life later), and zoo shooting.

[crn3371]

Both are good lenses. I've heard that the Sigma does its best on a tripod, so, adding a tcon would just make matters worse. There's a lot to be said for IS when shooting at 400mm.

[JaGWiRE]

Both are good lenses. I've heard that the Sigma does its best on a tripod, so, adding a tcon would just make matters worse. There's a lot to be said for IS when shooting at 400mm.

I'll be shooting 90-95% of the time in daylight I think, doubt I'd try anything indoors with either (I can't even use my 70-200 f4 indoors, partly why I'm replacing it with 135L tommorow.)
I'll be handholding either 99% of the time too. I don't know how much IS will help as I don't see shutters being below 1/500sec, with my 70-200 f/4 at 5.6 I easily get 1/2000 at times, sometimes 1/1600 at 7.1, etc etc. All depends, but I keep iso between 200-400.
What about sharpness, and tracking wild life, and tracking people in movement (perhaps walking) for candids.

[CountryBoy]

The Sigma is on my camera most of the time. I've handheld it with and without the t/c, with good results. I have started using a monopod and sometimes a remote with the tc.With very good results. I'll be shooting little league baseball with it this spring. It can track wildlife and people very good. It just takes practice. And the lens is very sharp. It does retain AF with the 1.4 t/c.

I looked at a number of lens , both zoom and primes, before I bought the Sigma. It came down to it and the Canon 100-400. There was other reasons. but I just did not like the push/pull of the Canon. I might have gotten use to it. But I liked the feel of the Sigma better. The f/4 and IF was a big plus also.

But both are capable of very sharp images. Both have great IQ. Both are very good lens, maybe great.

But I don't think I would use either for candid street shots. It's hard to be "candid" with lens this size.

[JaGWiRE]

The Sigma is on my camera most of the time. I've handheld it with and without the t/c, with good results. I have started using a monopod and sometimes a remote with the tc.With very good results. I'll be shooting little league baseball with it this spring. It can track wildlife and people very good. It just takes practice. And the lens is very sharp. It does retain AF with the 1.4 t/c.

I looked at a number of lens , both zoom and primes, before I bought the Sigma. It came down to it and the Canon 100-400. There was other reasons. but I just did not like the push/pull of the Canon. I might have gotten use to it. But I liked the feel of the Sigma better. The f/4 and IF was a big plus also.

But both are capable of very sharp images. Both have great IQ. Both are very good lens, maybe great.

But I don't think I would use either for candid street shots. It's hard to be "candid" with lens this size.
I don't like the push pull either, but most people who have owned it have grown to love it. The 100-400L would be a definite, but technology wise it's somewhat old, with old IS, and a dust pumping system (I think all these lenses more or less though have some dust problems.)
The weight on both is about the same, not too heavy. The 100-400L has the plus that it's big, I'm not sure if I like that it physically moves in and out though vs internal focusing (this always made me scared for lenses, because if somebody walks past your camera and your on the ground or something and your lens goes flying out when you zoom and they walk into it or something, you've got a problem.)
Candid should be no problem when I feel the need for length (main candid lens will be 135L, and 30 I guess.) My friend shoots with 200 f2 and sometimes 1.4 and 2x tele on the street with no problem.