70-200 f4 IS + TC or sigma 100-300 f4

Right last question about this Promise

I'm either getting a 70-200 f4 IS + a 1.4 TC , or a sigma 100-300 f4 , and was woundering how much slower the 70-200 with TC will be to focus/track than the sigma,
and another question how much difference in backgound blur will there be between the sigma wide open at f4 and the canon +TC at f5.6, to isolate the subject from background I know it will depend on distance from subject etc, so maybe a dumb question.

Cheers, James

I did some testing and found that the 70-200 + TC (effectively 280mm f/5.6) is sharper and with better contrast than the Sigma at 300mm f/4. With the Sigma at f/5.6 and higher, it is better than the 70-200 + TC at any aperture.

I've not used the Sigma where I've needed fast focussing, but my impression is that it's better than the 70-200 + TC (but slower than the Canon without TC).

cheers , i think im still leaning towards the 70-200 at the min

gcogger wrote in post #3489482
I did some testing and found that the 70-200 + TC (effectively 280mm f/5.6) is sharper and with better contrast than the Sigma at 300mm f/4. With the Sigma at f/5.6 and higher, it is better than the 70-200 + TC at any aperture.

I've not used the Sigma where I've needed fast focussing, but my impression is that it's better than the 70-200 + TC (but slower than the Canon without TC).

Still trying to decide ?
If you plan on shooting over 200mm alot .The Sigma would be the way to go. If not the IS of the 70-200mm would be nice.

gcogger -I use it for youth baseball, it does focus fast. I know from using the 70-200mm f/4(non-IS), that it seemed just as fast, or at least to close to call. But overall the Sigma was just the better lens, for me.

If I was worried about the background blur, I would get the 70-200mm f/2.8(non IS) and try to move closer to the action. Or go for the 400mm f/2.8L .

Take a look at the road signs on a test by lightrules, http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/image/699681​56

I guess you still plan on getting the 400mm f/5.6 ?

Over on FM, there is one for sale at $700... Sigma would be the way to go based on what I have seen for IQ and others' perspectives on the lens.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/55021​7

CountryBoy wrote in post #3490684
Still trying to decide ?
If you plan on shooting over 200mm alot .The Sigma would be the way to go. If not the IS of the 70-200mm would be nice.

gcogger -I use it for youth baseball, it does focus fast. I know from using the 70-200mm f/4(non-IS), that it seemed just as fast, or at least to close to call. But overall the Sigma was just the better lens, for me.

If I was worried about the background blur, I would get the 70-200mm f/2.8(non IS) and try to move closer to the action. Or go for the 400mm f/2.8L .

Take a look at the road signs on a test by lightrules, http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/image/699681​56

I guess you still plan on getting the 400mm f/5.6 ?

Yep, still not decided,and yes still plan on getting the 400 5.6 for birding, I have looked on that test before and going by that the sigma looks better than the 70-200 f4 IS + TC , as would be expeced I suspose, thats the thing i dont know if i will need longer than 200 but I suspose you can never have enough reach,

I would love the 400 f2.8 but its like £5k here in the uk,

grimreaper wrote in post #3491042
Yep, still not decided,and yes still plan on getting the 400 5.6 for birding, I have looked on that test before and going by that the sigma looks better than the 70-200 f4 IS + TC , as would be expeced I suspose, thats the thing i dont know if i will need longer than 200 but I suspose you can never have enough reach,

I would love the 400 f2.8 but its like £5k here in the uk,

What else do you have? I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 400mm 5.6, I don't miss the 200mm I'm missing in between.
Personally, I'd either get the 100-300 or the 70-200 & the 400, the latter of which I think is best.

At the min I have a sigma 10-20 and a sigma 24-70 and my camara is a 30D, yes the 70-200 and 400 is in the lead at the min

I have also been asking myself this question. I agree with you, grimreaper, I am leaning towards the 70-200 (non IS) w/ 1.4 TC rather than the Sigma 100-300. It's a bit more appealing on a tight budget; and while I know the Sigma is a very, very good lense I'm just not sure if it's the best choice for me.

I had considered this same comparison, but went with the canon due to size/weight. Look at the specs, the Sigma is significantly longer and a whole lot bulkier.

Logan7 wrote in post #3491491
I had considered this same comparison, but went with the canon due to size/weight. Look at the specs, the Sigma is significantly longer and a whole lot bulkier.

" Are We Not Men", (Devo I think)

Longer yes,
Heavier Yes,
Bulkier ,no it is well balenced. Not at all bulky feeling.

I also have the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8, for times I don't feel like I need the lenght or the weight.

All I need now is the Ex 150mm 2.8 macro, the 400mm f/5.6L and the 500mm f/4L and I will be complete(maybe ).

Logan7 wrote in post #3491491
I had considered this same comparison, but went with the canon due to size/weight. Look at the specs, the Sigma is significantly longer and a whole lot bulkier.

This is the reason I also chose the Canon 70-200 f/4. I do a lot of handheld shooting and didn't want the extra weight of the Sigma as my wife would be using the lens also. I have since bought a monopod but still am glad I got the 70-200 over the 100-300.

grimreaper wrote in post #3491214
At the min I have a sigma 10-20 and a sigma 24-70 and my camara is a 30D, yes the 70-200 and 400 is in the lead at the min

I'd stick with that...I think you'll be very happy with that combo.

Tough decision as the Sigma 100-300/4 is a great lens. However, the 70-200/4 IS is so sharp (and handholdable) it does take a TC or two well. Done with 2 or 3 more lenses? Ha! I'm bidding on another right now on eBay. Done? Never.

The 100-300mm 4.0 is probably the best lens I have owned, including I think 12 L's and several other Ex's. however, lack of IS hits it unless you have very good shake free technique. I have the 70-200mm IS L 4.0 and 400mm L combo. Overall I would say it is more flexible and easier to use. The 100-300mm for me is very strictly only A1 on a tri or mono. The 70-200 will easily give lots of keepers with its IS. The 400mm L tho' is also really mainly a mono/tri lens. You can handhold them all but the last 20-10% of goodness only comes well mounted. A good 100-300mm and TCon is an awesome lens and a single space in your bag. The L combo may be a tad better in other ways, like steadiness and flexibility. IQ I dunno if I would mreally bother to call it. Just doesn't matter. All top grade. Af will be faster with the raw Sigma rather than the Tcon combo.