Sigma 120-300EX vs Canon 100-400L

[Canuck]

Hi all, I am soliciting your feedback on the lenses aforementioned. THis is not a my lens is better than yours, but intended to see how they stack up against each other in a noncombative and impartial way. I have a Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX that I really like a lot. It is a real beast of a lens at 5 3/4 lbs, but I have found that I can produce some really great pics. I am no one special. The main attraction I see is that it is F2.8 all the way out to 300mm and can be a 600mm F5.6 w/ a 2x. I have heard varying degrees of how well this works or doesn't work. I present a few pics taken w/ the beast....
Straight out of the camera as a lg/fine jpeg, no mods other than crop night sky out around moon...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2161111
This one was a raw pic and sharpened...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3188930
Totally pitch back outside...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2419953
A Russian jet, a Tupolev 154M...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3180716

[Cadwell]

The Sigma 120-300EX versus 100-400L debate is an interesting one and is one I have with myself every time I'm at the race track. I can give you my take on it from shooting them both over the last six months or so.

1. At any focal length they share the Sigma is better optically.

2. Focus speed / accuracy are about even.

3. The 100-400L is faster at 400mm (in terms of AF) than the 120-300 plus 1.4x TC (this is less of an issue with the 1D MkII) Hence if I have the light and am shooting at 400mm I'll use the Canon. Otherwise the Sigma plus TC is fast enough to still be useful if needed, particularly when the Canon starts to struggle due to low light.

4. The 100-400L is much more convenient to use and transport (half the weight and half the size when not extended)

5. Image stabilisation on the 100-400L is great – I need to use the monopod a lot with the 120-300. Hand holding a 2.6kg 672mm effective focal length lens at 1/320th which is what nearly all my racing shots are taken at (much faster and the cars look parked on the circuit) is not really an option.

6. The 100-400L starts to struggle on a 10D with its AF function when the light fades. The Sigma will go on happily focusing into nearly complete darkness. Once the 100-400L starts getting anywhere near max aperture I switch over to the Sigma.

If I had to keep only one lens I would keep the Sigma but it’s great to have the 100-400L as well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I could not add anything to Cadwell's excellent reply...

I only want to re-iterate my love of the light weight of the 100-400mm.

For me that was the absolutely amazing aspect of this lens... getting close to prime calibre image quality in such a lightweight package makes it just a super handy lens to have.

[nemesis099]

That was a terrific comparison/review of the sigma and canon lenses. Just makes me wish I had a larger budget so I could get one of them. I think I'm going to purchase the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lense for now and if I really need the extra reach get a 1.4x TC and if I still need more reach then I'll get the 120-300 just hard to put down $2,000 for a lense right now.

[Canuck]

I'd definitely like to get with someone someday who has a 100-400 and swap lenses just out of interest.

nemesis099,
Believe you me it was a tough job to plunk down that kind of money at first, but seeing what you can do with that lens is unreal! THe 100-400 also does a great job from what I've seen.

[DocFrankenstein]

I can only imagine the DOF @ 300mm f/2.8 :?

Keeps your subject isolated alright 8)

[nemesis099]

nemesis099,
Believe you me it was a tough job to plunk down that kind of money at first, but seeing what you can do with that lens is unreal! THe 100-400 also does a great job from what I've seen.

Well someone could convince me that the lense is worth it but convincing my wife is another story. I bought the Drebel before we got married just so she couldn't complain about it.

I would go with the 100-400 but I've heard that it is better to get the 2.8 for sport photography which is what I want it for. I already have a 70-300 4-5.6 but i'm not happy with the pictures they always seem fuzzy.

I wish they made a less expensive 120-300 f4 or something down the middle a little bit.

[Cadwell]

I wish they made a less expensive 120-300 f4 or something down the middle a little bit.

There is the Sigma APO 100-300 f/4.0 EX. I've never used one... but it has a fairly stellar reputation. Might be worth you looking in to.

[nemesis099]

There is the Sigma APO 100-300 f/4.0 EX. I've never used one... but it has a fairly stellar reputation. Might be worth you looking in to.

Thanks I didn't even know that was out there. I'm going to have to find a place to check it out.

[Canuck]

There is the Sigma APO 100-300 f/4.0 EX. I've never used one... but it has a fairly stellar reputation. Might be worth you looking in to.

Thanks I didn't even know that was out there. I'm going to have to find a place to check it out.

Cadwell, good call!

You can find it at B&H for about $900 on this link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=217722&is=REG

[robekert]

Canuck,
Your shots make me happy and feel justified because I just ordered a Sigma 120-300 today. I have been looking for a versatile, fast, long zoom........I think I have found it.
Cheers,
Rob

[Canuck]

Canuck,
Your shots make me happy and feel justified because I just ordered a Sigma 120-300 today. I have been looking for a versatile, fast, long zoom........I think I have found it.
Cheers,
Rob

Cool! I am glad I was able to assist you there. Can I possibly interest you in buying a 24-70 F2.8L ??? Here's a sample...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=9615110

Oh great, I have hijacked my own thread. :)

Back to the 120-300, you know it is 5 3/4 lbs, right?