Sell my 100-400 for the sigma 120-300 os?

So I am kicking around the idea of selling my 100-400 (very sharp copy) for a siggy 120-300 os. I want something just a bit faster, but would prefer a zoom for versatility. How is this lens with a 1.4 tc? Is it atleast as sharp as the 100-400 at 400mm? I haven't seen many posts comparing the two. Obviously this is going to be a lot heavier, but is it handholdable for lets say 1-2 hours? Thanks guys.

Sold my (nice copy) 100-400 for a Canon 300mm F4 IS. Why ? Closer minimum focus, better reach (100mm shorter but allows FAR more cropping) + more versatile (for me). I have tried quite a number of Sigmas but on all their long (200mm+) lenses I have found the AF to be too slow and sometimes hesitant, though on most the IQ was very good.
Try before you buy, if it will lock on and track well enough for your uses then go for it - Sigma make some nice lenses.

skater911 wrote in post #13222639
So I am kicking around the idea of selling my 100-400 (very sharp copy) for a siggy 120-300 os. I want something just a bit faster, but would prefer a zoom for versatility. How is this lens with a 1.4 tc? Is it atleast as sharp as the 100-400 at 400mm? I haven't seen many posts comparing the two. Obviously this is going to be a lot heavier, but is it handholdable for lets say 1-2 hours? Thanks guys.

With a 1.4x TC, it's *sharper* than the 100-400 at 400mm.

Shadowblade wrote in post #13222982
With a 1.4x TC, it's *sharper* than the 100-400 at 400mm.

how is the af pre and post tc? Again, as good as the 100-400?

skater911 wrote in post #13222639
So I am kicking around the idea of selling my 100-400 (very sharp copy) for a siggy 120-300 os. I want something just a bit faster, but would prefer a zoom for versatility. How is this lens with a 1.4 tc? Is it atleast as sharp as the 100-400 at 400mm? I haven't seen many posts comparing the two. Obviously this is going to be a lot heavier, but is it handholdable for lets say 1-2 hours? Thanks guys.

i owned the canon 300L f2.8 briefly and with 1.4 TC it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400L @ 400mm and it sure didn't focus as well especially in low light. no way the siggie is as good.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #13223115
i owned the canon 300L f2.8 briefly and with 1.4 TC it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400L @ 400mm and it sure didn't focus as well especially in low light. no way the siggie is as good.

ed rader

good to know, i trust your experience. What do you use now?

Thanks,

Richard

ed rader wrote in post #13223115
i owned the canon 300L f2.8 briefly and with 1.4 TC it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400L @ 400mm and it sure didn't focus as well especially in low light. no way the siggie is as good.

ed rader

My experience has been the complete opposite - the 300L with 1.4x TC was even sharper than the 400 f/5.6L (a *very* sharp lens), and totally blew the 100-400 out of the water sharpness-wise (and it's probably not due to a bad copy, since I've owned three different 100-400Ls). AF speed, also, was faster than the 100-400L. I've had the same experience with a friend's Sigma 120-300 OS.

Either your copy of the 100-400L is exceptional, or the 300L or the TC was substandard...

ed rader wrote in post #13223115
i owned the canon 300L f2.8 briefly and with 1.4 TC it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400L @ 400mm and it sure didn't focus as well especially in low light. no way the siggie is as good.

ed rader

I had the old siggy ( non is ) and using the siggy 1.4, I could honestly say I would be hard pressed to see any difference in focus between it and the 100-400. Image quality was excellent with the siggy 1.4 combo. With the new OS version, I would not hesitate in selling off the Canon for the Sigma.

I shot sports ( soccer, rodeo and baseball ) with the Siggy.

skater911 wrote in post #13223165
good to know, i trust your experience. What do you use now?

Thanks,

Richard

thanx. i use the 100-400L. i also have access to a 500L and 400 DO just about anytime i need them.

i bought the 300L f2.8 right before i went to alaska with the intention of using it alot with a 1.4 TC. during the first outting i knew it was a mistake. in low light it was hard to lock focus on either of my 1d bodies and the IQ wasn't as good as my 100-400L @ 400mm (it was close).

if you need 300mm alot more than 400mm it might be worth it otherwise i would stick to the native length. the 100-400L is an old lens that needs a refresh but it's an excellent lightweight wildlife lens.

ed rader

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #13223115
i owned the canon 300L f2.8 briefly and with 1.4 TC it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400L @ 400mm and it sure didn't focus as well especially in low light. no way the siggie is as good.

ed rader

Something wrong with the 300mm f2.8 IS. One f5.6, 1.4xTC on 300mm f2.8 should kick butt of 100-400L. I had very sharp 100-400L but took 300mm f2.8 IS in the end. I had 500mm f4, 300mm f2.8 IS, 400mm f5.6, 100-400L for a while.

300/400mm f2.8 are top notch
500/600mm f4 next step down
400mm f5.6 next step down
100-400L just below above

BTW - The steps are very small but you can see them in your shots.

I have the 100-400L as well as the new 120-300 OS. I'd say whether the 100-400L is as sharp as or sharper than the 120-300 +1.4TC will likely come down to copy variation.
This lens and the 100-400 are very different IMO. While the 120-300 is light enough to carry all day and is certainly easily handholdable, it's too heavy to shoot for a prolonged period hand held in comfort. The 100-400 is much better in this regard.

ed rader wrote in post #13223115
i owned the canon 300L f2.8 briefly and with 1.4 TC it wasn't as sharp as my 100-400L @ 400mm and it sure didn't focus as well especially in low light. no way the siggie is as good.

ed rader

I found the 300/2.8 + 1.4x tc was certainly sharper than my 400/5.6 (which I love). Also lost very little in AF speed with the 1.4x tc. Could it be that you had a duff 300/2.8 (very rare).
BTW I owned the 300/2.8 for over two years and the 400/5.6 for 6 years.

The "REZ" tests, at The Digital Picture, it appears that the EF300 2.8L IS with a 1.4Xii at F4 is slightly bettered by the 100-400L at F5.6-- but- when the 300 2.8 combo is stopped down to 5.6 it jumps ahead of the Zoom.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=0

The 100-400L at 400 5.6 vs the older, non OS Sigma with 1.4Xii at 420 5.6 the Canon appears to excel.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

It's hard to get a handle on the Sigma's IQ with extenders.

I've seen what appear to be excellent results even with a 2X, such as those from Brummel- http://www.dpreview.co​m …bums/sigma-120-300-2-8-os

I've also seen some rather poor quality examples.

Can't help but wonder if there is significant sample variation with the Sigma?

Leigh
www.leighwax.com

Get the sigma and if your wiling to get it calibrated you might be happy. A friend of mine that works at a pro camera shop seems to find issue with all of the sigma long tele zooms interms of focus. Hmmmm 30mm, 50mm, 85mm sigma's seems to be plagued with the same issues.......

Your a brave person