Sigma 100-300 EX f4 Photozone Test

Believe it or not, I've never even touched the well-regarded 100-300EX but had only heard of its excellent optics. Klaus has recently reviewed it and it's a stunner:

http://www.photozone.d​e …/sigma_100300_4​/index.htm

His conclusion: "The AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM is the most impressive Sigma lens tested to date. It is capable to deliver a near flawless performance with great resolution figures, low vignetting, low distortions, low CAs and as a nice whipped cream on top the build quality feels just right. It also mates pretty well with the Canon EF 1.4x II converter at costs of relatively high CAs and a somewhat lower but still high resolution. All-in-all ... highly recommended!"

That's some statement.

Is on my list - either that or the 120-300f2.8

(hides from wife)

That review is dated Feb 2005? And his copy is the non DG .. so I'm thinking the date is correct? Could be misprint..?

Regardless,.
Sigma owns this 300mm zoom market..
There are no other contenders.

His test of the 120-300mm has the same date.. and he has images of and references the f/4... which he thinks is better than the f/2.8

High praise indeed!

Yeh, misprint. If you go to the "Home" page, it shows this review under the new ones and a date of 2/25/2006. Good catch, CDS...but of course, that's why you're a mod

Good thing I'm getting one then...whenever the importer actually gets it. I've been waiting over 4 weeks for the official importer to get it in. Probably could have got it in a week if I had grey imported it.

This lens even seemed to AF faster than there excellent 70-200mm f/2.8 EX..
It doesn't make sense that it would.. but my very brief moments using it left that impression.

It's a good sharp lens. But in my view, not that sexy. The range is a bit off. It's not fast enough for sports and not long enough for animals/birds. That's why I don't think it's as popular as the 70-200 or the 50-500 in the Sigma lineup.

I've used it once, but wasn't impressed by it. Not as sexy as the 70-200mm L lens of mine, nor as tough and heavy with a long range like my bigma either. I also didn't think the sharpness was better than the 70-200, which it isn't (they are about the same league).

I hate to say I told you so ...

This is a great lens and stands above the 70-200 and Bigma having had all three. The range is much more useful when you add on a TCon, which it takes to very well, but is still more practical than the 70-200 types ... at least for me. I used my ex copy 90% of the time with the 1.4 TCon and it performed so well I was amazed. The AF accuracy and speed is excellent, with and without. This lens does need a firm platform to give its best. It then goes from good to superb.

Now thats nice reading - since i own one. But i would never exchange it for an 70-200 lens anyway. The reange is perfect to me and it's focusing speed is very fast. I just have to save to get a 1.4 converter and then its a decent wildlife combo (420mm f/5.6). I got the lens second hand - one month old, half the price of a new with almost two years of warranty remaining. The Bigma is a tad too expencive for me, it's even more heavy, and demands quite some light at 500mm.

Besides the tests at Photozone and the reviews at FredMiranda, has anyone done any side by side testing of the Sigma 100-300 vs. 120-300? Would be very interesting.

I don't do testing, I'm too busy taking photographs... however, I have used both. The 100-300mm is a very, very nice lens. The 120-300mm is better in every category. The optics are nicer, it focuses more quickly and more accurately. The 100-300mm is well made. The 120-300mm is built like a brick outhouse...

At the price, if I didn't already have a 120-300mm already I'd buy a 100-300mm tomorrow. There is no other 300mm zoom to compare to these two Sigmas.