Sigma 100-400 officially priced....$799

B&H just sent out emails. The sigma 100-400 is priced at $799

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …_400mm_f_5_6_3_​dg_os.html

Yup. I wouldn't ever use a lens like this very much but for some reason I'm still interested.

.
Without a doubt, making the maximum aperture f6.3 instead of f5.6 is what has allowed this low level of pricing. If Sigma had gone the opposite direction and made it a third of a stop larger than the Canon - f5.0 - I wonder what price point it would've come in at. I would have been seriously interested in a lens like that.

Regardless of the price, Sigma has given me no reason not to stick with my Canon 100-400mm v2. The only things which the Sigma seems to give over the Canon are price and weight - neither of which matter to me.

.

The only reason to buy the Sigma would be price. The Canon is such an outstanding lens the Sigma would need to phenomenal for there to be any other reason!

sidknee wrote in post #18315500
The only reason to buy the Sigma would be price. The Canon is such an outstanding lens the Sigma would need to phenomenal for there to be any other reason!

Well, ... DUH!

sidknee wrote in post #18315500
The only reason to buy the Sigma would be price. The Canon is such an outstanding lens the Sigma would need to phenomenal for there to be any other reason!

Bassat wrote in post #18315508
Well, ... DUH!

The MKI 100-400 isn't all that outstanding of a lens. It is an old design that really suffers under the current pixel densities we are shooting with. That is the price point of this Sigma lens. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the MKI and MKII lenses to see whether this pricing is really reasonable or not. If the IQ is close to the current MKII, despite being a 1/3 stop slower, at that price it will do very well.

Weird lens.

I can't imagine paying $800 for a 400mm F6.3 zoom, when the Sigma 150-600 C is $989 from BH and $989 From Sigma Amazon.

I would think a F6.3 lens like this would be closer to the $500ish range, to compete with everything less than 600mm, because the "cheap" 600mm is still under $1k, where you have to consider... F6.3 for 400mm or F6.3 for 600mm. Weight isn't all that much different honestly either, these are not heavy lenses.

400 F6.3 for $799
400 F6.3 & 500 & 600 F6.3 for $189 more? 2lbs doesn't matter much when talking big telephotos to me.

Very best,

size is also a big thing and weight. I am kinda interested in this lens to maybe replace my 150-600C. I like the smaller size being able to travel more with it and its almost 2lbs lighter. plus the 150-600 turns into 6.3 at 390mm so the 150-600C is a 6.3 400mm to. waiting to see reviews on IQ and focus speed might make the switch for more comfortable shooting.

I feel that the Sigma offering is at the right price point in relation to the Canon 100-400 II offering, mainly for the fact that the f/6.3 aperture disqualifies it from AF w/ 1.4 TCs (at it's longer FL). Another huge plus with the Canon is the MFD and magnification. I'll go on record and state that the 100-400 v2 is probably Canon's best lens, but I digress...

I could see the Sigma doing OK for a photographer who is alright with staying in the 100-400 range and values lower weight and bulk (and saving money). The aperture differences b/w it and the Canon are negligible for regular use, and I'm betting IQ will be typical Art-awesome. The weight savings and size are a big selling point (I hate bulk more and more).

I don't do much hiking + photography, but if I did I'd be very interested in the Sigma for its size/weight; I can also see this being a great lens for airshows, kids sports in good light, general purpose walk-around.

Am looking forward to some image samples!

I thought all of Sigma's EF-mount f/6.3 zooms reported f/5.6 to the camera. If so, AF should work on most/all bodies. I may be mistaken, though.

Bassat wrote in post #18315669
I thought all of Sigma's EF-mount f/6.3 zooms reported f/5.6 to the camera. If so, AF should work on most/all bodies. I may be mistaken, though.

They do. AF still works.

Bassat wrote in post #18315669
I thought all of Sigma's EF-mount f/6.3 zooms reported f/5.6 to the camera. If so, AF should work on most/all bodies. I may be mistaken, though.

That would be awesome.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18315622
Weird lens.

I can't imagine paying $800 for a 400mm F6.3 zoom, when the Sigma 150-600 C is $989 from BH and $989 From Sigma Amazon.

I would think a F6.3 lens like this would be closer to the $500ish range, to compete with everything less than 600mm, because the "cheap" 600mm is still under $1k, where you have to consider... F6.3 for 400mm or F6.3 for 600mm. Weight isn't all that much different honestly either, these are not heavy lenses.

400 F6.3 for $799
400 F6.3 & 500 & 600 F6.3 for $189 more? 2lbs doesn't matter much when talking big telephotos to me.

Very best,

I wouldn't take a 150-600 on vacation with me but the 100-400C is sized/weighted just right and if the IQ is there I'd be willing to throw that lens in the bag so I could have a tele option for vacationing.

24-105, 100-400 and a 35mm would suite me just fine for travel.

Talley wrote in post #18315702
I wouldn't take a 150-600 on vacation with me but the 100-400C is sized/weighted just right and if the IQ is there I'd be willing to throw that lens in the bag so I could have a tele option for vacationing.

24-105, 100-400 and a 35mm would suite me just fine for travel.

exactly why i want it..We went to Disney last year and I took my 150-600C to animal kingdom and was a PITA. I bought the tamron 70-200G2 for that this year at disney smaller and lighter. But that 100-400 would be an even better option there

MatthewK wrote in post #18315661
I feel that the Sigma offering is at the right price point . . . mainly for the fact that the f/6.3 aperture disqualifies it from AF w/ 1.4 TCs

The above is incorrect information.

.

Bassat wrote in post #18315669
I thought all of Sigma's EF-mount f/6.3 zooms reported f/5.6 to the camera. If so, AF should work on most/all bodies. I may be mistaken, though.

The above is correct information.

.