80-400 OS Sigma for 20D

[Dimitri_V]

Is it anywhere near the 100-400 L IS USM in quality,please help

[RichardtheSane]

From the reports I've seen, (and a brief test of it) no.

Firstly the AF is slow, and I do mean sloooow, it doesn't even have HSM.

The OS just doesn't seem as effective as my 100-400 (which keeps the image steady as a rock!)

And I wasn't that impressed by the build either.

Can't comment on optical quality because I don't have any evidence there

[tpinchback]

Is it anywhere near the 100-400 L IS USM in quality,please help

Do not waste your money on this lens. Buy the 100-400L IS even if it means saving up for the next couple of months. You will be better off in the long run with the canon.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,
I tested both.
I choose the 80-400OS.

For the following simple reasons.

1.
I HATE the push pull zoom of the Canon.
2.
The 80-400OS was a bit sharper on 400mm wide open
And I shoot almost alway's on 400mm wide open :D.

The canon looks nicer, I really would love to have a white lens :(
The USM is MUCH faster.

However in the long run I want image quality and the pictures I compared the Sigma won in the areas it was important for me.
I use it for animals and sport, offcourse the USM is faster but when locked in you don't need the extra speed it can keep up the fastest bird I took in flight with the autofocus.

The buildquality I don't understand, the version I have here is build like a rock, compared to the Canon I can't say it's less or more sturdy.

The OS and IS was of the same quality in my opinion, both gave me 400mm shots clear and sharp till arround 1/100's and even down to 1/80's but that was not reliable (have to say I have very steady hands)

Greetings,
Frank

[chuckindetroit]

I actually own one, not just read reports, and am very happy with the performance. It is quite sharp, great feel and quality, and focuses fast enough for normal use. The OS works well. If you are shooting sports or other fast moving events it may not be for you. This lens can also be zoomed with push-pull. Besides, I don't like the look of an off-white lens on a black body. I would paint an L lens black if I had one!! Just kidding. But if the white color is soo good for a lens, why doesn't Canon color their bodies similarly!?

[Bruce Watson]

I would concur with Frank and Chuck, although let me state up front that A.) I have never used the Canon lens and B.) I have only had the Sigma for a couple of weeks.

However, the build quality seems very good compared to other Canon/Sigma/Tamron lenses that I own, the focus speed is not bad, but not to USM standards and most important, the lens is very sharp, even at 400.

The Canon may very well be a better product is some ways, but the Sigma cost me substantially less and is very suited to my needs and cost/benefits.

Each one of us had to make the decision and compromises that best suit us.

YMMV

Bruce