Sigma 120-400 ??

[Todd Caswell]

Anyone have anything good or bad to say about the sigma 120-400??

Was planning on getting the cannon 100-400 but after reading reviews on the Sigma i may change my mind. One negetive that comes to mind is the resale on the Sigma, I would guess that you would have a harder time reselling the Sigma over the Cannon when the time came.

[Jim Almquist]

Most of my shooting is birds or I should say wildlife. I have owned the Canon 100-400mm and had the Canon 400mm at the same time. While there will be times when it would have been nice to have the 100-400, I really do not miss it all that much. The 400 is a very sharp lens and if it has one downfall that would be no IS but I do most of my shooting off a tripod or out the window. The guys I know that shoot Sigma turn out some really nice stuff and if you plan to hang on to the lens, who cares about the resale as longs as it takes great pictures.

[Todd Caswell]

Most of mine is too and my 70-200 is sharp but also is non IS and 200mm for the most part is always too short. During the summer i shhot alot at retriever FT's and it would be nice to have a longer lense for that as well, but still have the shorter focal lenght for at the line shots. My concern with the Sigma is sharpness, and AF speed compared to my 70-200 F/4. Always trade offs isn't there?

[Jim Almquist]

If you take a look a ShawnZ bird shots, he shoots a Sigma 50-500mm and they are very sharp and I know a couple of other guys that shoot Sigma with great results. I believe the shots that I get from my 400mm are better then most all of the shots that I took with my 100-400 but it might be that my technique has just got better. One has to be careful when you blame the equipment when the person holding the camera makes most of the errors

I have made more then enough errors and continue to do so with less frequency

[Todd Caswell]

Thanks Jim thats what I was looking for ShawnZ's photo's are really sharp, and i'm sure alot of that has to do with goood tech. as well, wost case if I don't like the lens I can always buy another 70-200.

[Dbl]

I have not had the best of luck with Sigma, numerous focus issues. I've owned the 120-300/4 and with at least three copies never had one focus properly. I've not been a big fan of the 100-400 either but I require fast focusing glass in lower light conditions. Many members here love them so I will stay out of that discussion other than say it never worked for MY uses.

I've done a fair amount of they type of shooting you do with dogs and I will say my go to lens is the 70-200/2.8. I own both the IS and non-IS. For my longer work I use a 300/2.8 but I would give strong consideration to keeping your 70-200 it is such a versatile lens! There is nothing I don't use it for! Consider looking at the Canon 300/4. Fast focus, sharp and if you use it with a 1.4 tele converter it will still work well for trial shooting under good light! You can also use the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC with very nice results under good light. Just another thought.

[Spearing Machine]

If memory serves me right Todd is shooting a 30d.. with a 70-200 and a 1.4 TC does he not loose the auto focus and then is restricted to using only manual focusing?

[Jim Almquist]

Jeremy

Unless something has changed only a "1" Series body will autofocus with the 1.4 or the 2.0 teleconverter.

[Dbl]

Quote:

Jeremy

Unless something has changed only a "1" Series body will autofocus with the 1.4 or the 2.0 teleconverter.

non-1-Series Canon camera bodies need a minimum wide open aperture setting of f/5.6 for autofocus to work so no problem shooting with an f2.8 or f4 lens and a 1.4TC and retaining autofocus. 1-Series bodies can AF with a maximum aperture of at least f/8. There are also cross-type focus considerations with the 1-series but not applicable to this disscussion.

You might be thinking of the 100-400 which has a variable aperture with zoom at f5.6. That is why autofocus with a TC on that lens is not possible unless you tape the contacts on the lens or use a third party tele converter that doesn't report aperture information to the camera.

Keep in mind shooting with a TC will result in a slight loss of quality and focus speed but I've used the 70-200/2.8 many times with the 1.4TC combination with very nice results. For around $300 you get a nice option that can help you in a pinch.

[Spearing Machine]

You might be thinking of the 100-400 which has a variable aperture with zoom at f5.6. That is why autofocus with a TC on that lens is not possible unless you tape the contacts on the lens or use a third party tele converter that doesn't report aperture information to the camera.

Thanks for the clarification, Dan! I learn something new all the time.

[Jim Almquist]

Thank for the info Dan

Yes I owned the 30D with the 100-400 and found out that there was no auto-focus. i did the tape trick but it was still too slow.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Consider looking at the Canon 300/4.

The 300f4 IS is a lens I've always wanted to own,but it never seemed to happen. I shot a water ski tournament with my 300 2.8is,and another guy their had the 300F4is. We swapped for awhile,and when I downloaded the images at home,the F4 images were extremely good. Good enough to make me consider selling the 2.8 and pocketing the $2500 difference!

According to Arthur Morris,the new 70-200 2.8II with the 2X converter is better (sharper) than his 400DO prime,and miles better than a 100-400L. Check the pics on his site.

This is the versatility set up I've been dreaming about and now it's here. Just waiting for the prices to stabilize before I order.

Who wants to volunteer to tell my wife?

[MN Shutterbug]

Although I love my 100-400, Dan is right in that it isn't the greatest in low light. That lens loves light.

[finnbay]

I have to agree with you, Mike. With good light I get some great shots with the 100-400, but it does suffer in low light conditions.

[Todd Caswell]

You know I never thought of the 300f4 IS, might be an option, and again if I didn't like the fixed lens, resale of this lens seems to be good. After sleeping on it for a couple of nights the Sigma makes me uneasy, the Sigma has been for sale for 3 weeks and is a good price and no one has touched it, makes you wonder. I'm shooting a 50D now

[Dbl]

AS I previously mentioned I have the 300/2.8 but will be adding a 300/4 just for a second body lens for field sports. It is light, sharp and has quick focus. Frankly with the exception of the 70-200 I have gone to all primes. Zooms do indeed have many strengths but a fast focus, low light, high IQ zoom is frankly hard to come by. I guarantee you will have no problem selling the 300/4 lens if it doesn't meet your expectations. It is in fairly high demand because I find it, and obviously many other do as well as one of Canons best bang for your buck lenses. Oh and MM I am looking at the II version of the 70-200 as well, it takes VERY nice photos!

[Todd Caswell]

Thanks Dan,

Spent most of the night reading reviews and looking at photo's from the 300 f4. Some say the non "IS" is sharper and some say the IS is sharper. I don't own a IS lens but have borrowed a couple and believe I would like it. Any thought on IS VS non IS in the 300 f4

[Steve Foss]

What follows is not meant to upset anyone who disagrees. Simply the way I see the photographic world.

Todd, apparent differences in image quality between versions of the same lens series tend to be quite small, and often disappear when the image is printed. Almost all the online reviews you read use images on a computer screen for gaging IQ differences, and while that works to some degree, there are limitations to that type of comparison. An image looks a lot different on paper than it does when magnifying to 200 percent and pixel peeping.

Any decently sharp lens when shot with solid technique will produce images that look smashing on a computer screen with a little post processing. It's when they're printed that it really matters, and I've had a very hard time distinguishing between prints made from various lenses that are close together in sharpness, etc.

You also tend to see people magnifying small differences in those reviews. This lens "blows that one away" regarding sharpness, for example, or this lens focuses "much faster" than the other one. When in fact the differences are small.

Far, far more important to pick the best lens you can afford, and work hard to get to know it well, develop a rock solid technique, and put a lot of time into interpreting one's art. Lenses don't create art. Photographers do, and the huge majority of photographers fail to produce excellent images because of problems in technique or a lack of imagination, not because of their lenses. This is exactly what I emphasize to my photo excursion clients.

I'm not saying that there aren't IQ differences from lens to lens. Clearly there are. I AM saying those differences tend to be exaggerated. Back when I was shooting the much maligned 100-400, I captured many sharp images, some good enough to be published in high resolution color glossy magazines. Yep, the 70-200 series is a bit sharper, and the f2.8 acquires and holds focus faster, but gol darn if that ole 100-400 doesn't shine in the right hands (and not just in bright light).

As for the 300 mm series, if you can afford the IS version, by all means buy it. IS is a godsend, and with good technique can take a marginal light situation, one that's got "epic fail" written all over it, and produce sharp images. As to minute differences in IQ that might or might not exist between the IS and non IS versions? So what?

Again, just the way I look at it, and not meant to offend anyone who sees importance in the fine grit of lens comparison.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

The 300F4 non is may be marginally sharper off a tripod,but in real world situations the IS lens will get more keepers.

[Jim Almquist]

Todd

Now you have another choice- 300mm F4 with IS or the 400mm F5.6 with no IS.

I was able to pick mm Canon 400mm used for a $1000.00 shipped to my door with 11 months left on the warranty. Now you might not find a deal like that but you never know.

[Dbl]

Thanks Dan,

Spent most of the night reading reviews and looking at photo's from the 300 f4. Some say the non "IS" is sharper and some say the IS is sharper. I don't own a IS lens but have borrowed a couple and believe I would like it. Any thought on IS VS non IS in the 300 f4

The IS might be more versatile but if you found a great deal on a non-IS version I would think about it. Again for the stated purpose of shooting dog trials I would look at the 300/4 over the 400/5.6. My experience has shown it is a nice focal length. You can always add a 1.4TC to the 300 to get you out to 420 and still retain autofocus. So you get 300mm, 420mm and IS with that combination. If you are looking primarily for BIF than I would give more consideration to the 400/5.6.

The 400 will not work with a TC and retain autofocus unless you shoot a one series camera. I have not shot the 300/4 with a TC on it but understand it performs well in both the IQ and focus speed. Just more options to consider. Only you can say what will work best for you.

[MN Shutterbug]

I do have to say, my 2 best selling images, although shot with the 100-400, were both shot at under 300mm. One was an eagle at 270mm and the other was a loon at 240mm. My best fox pic was at 340mm. This is why I'm really glad I chose the zoom over the 400 prime. The eagle pic wouldn't have happened at 400mm and I would have had to stay farther back from the loon and back pedaled when the fox came towards me, which may have frightened him.

[Todd Caswell]

Thanks for all the help everyone, I pulled the trigger on a 300 F4 IS used. Seller claims it's mint and it looks mint as well, it's a little over a year old, got it for $950. There were 3 others for sale for a little less but sold befor I could reply. Bottom line I know I can get my money out of it if i don't like the fixed focal length. If I look at my photo data almost all of my outdoor pictures with the 70-200 are at 200mm and 99% of the time I would have rather had a 3 or 400. still going to hang onto my 70-200 for awhile.

[Steve Foss]

Pick up the 1.4 TC for that extra reach, as mentioned. Canon is redesigning both TCs. They'll be the Mk3 version. They are on the market now but, at $500, are disgustingly expensive. They are supposed to be noticeably sharper than the Mk 2 versions.

I've had great luck with the Mk 2 ones, and since the new versions are out, keep an eye open for used 1.4 Mk 2 TCs for good prices.