Sigma Announces the 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens

[-1]

isnt 400mm f6.3 little slow? they could have made 400mm f 5.6, we should wait and see for the pricing compared to Canon/Nikon.
have they published MTF chart?

Why yes they have.
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_100_400_5_63/data/

This thing is a BEAST!

Without a lense collar!!!

 

[Random Orbits]

40.9oz/1160g. Is that with or without the hood? 100-400 II is 54.7 oz (TDP) without hood and tripod foot and 60 oz with hood and foot. So approximately 1 lb lighter, but you lose on max aperture, and the tripod attachment point. Will be interested to see how it AFs at f/6.3, but the thing is heavy enough that a lot will use a strap system. I'm not sure if it's worth 1 lb to be darker and possibly take a hit on AF, esp. at the long end.

 

[9VIII]

isnt 400mm f6.3 little slow? they could have made 400mm f 5.6, we should wait and see for the pricing compared to Canon/Nikon.
have they published MTF chart?

Why yes they have.
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_100_400_5_63/data/

This thing is a BEAST!

Without a lense collar!!!

Normally I would say the lack of a tripod foot is a negative thing, but in this case I'm not so sure.

The Sigma 100-400C is only 3oz heavier than the Canon 70-300.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
That lens does have the option for a collar, but most reviews put it in the role of a highly versatile walk-around lens. Probably at the top of the weight range of what people would consider for that role, but if there's less than 10% weight difference between the two then the stated focus of making a 400mm zoom handle like a 300mm zoom seems reasonable.

Now we just have to hope that the price drops in proportion to the weight in comparison to the 150-600C.

 

[Bennymiata]

I woner if Sigma will come out with an M mount?

As someone else said, it might be good on my M5.

 

[AvTvM]

I woner if Sigma will come out with an M mount?

As someone else said, it might be good on my M5.

not o this one. Using the EF/EF-M adapter will give it a nice tripod mount. 8)

 

[Cory]

Kind of nice that it has 67mm threads to match my other main lenses.
Good chance that this will soon end up in my arsenal.

 

[AlanF]

I woner if Sigma will come out with an M mount?

As someone else said, it might be good on my M5.

not o this one. Using the EF/EF-M adapter will give it a nice tripod mount. 8)

+1 and more flexibility to use on EF mounts as well.

 

[FECHariot]

I'm not sure of the attraction of a lens in this focal and fstop range. Wouldn't a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter give you more flexibility for around the same price? Just asking, not trying to start a war.

$2000 for a 70-200/2.8 II and another $500 for a canon TC3. This is going to have to be cheaper than the $960 150-600C else why would anyone buy it?

 

[9VIII]

I'm not sure of the attraction of a lens in this focal and fstop range. Wouldn't a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter give you more flexibility for around the same price? Just asking, not trying to start a war.

$2000 for a 70-200/2.8 II and another $500 for a canon TC3. This is going to have to be cheaper than the $960 150-600C else why would anyone buy it?

Size is still a negative factor on the 150-600C.
"Reach" is what people judge supertelephoto lenses by.
The Super Zooms generally have sharpness fall off beyond 450mm, the Canon 100-400 was already nearly as good as those lenses when using a APS-C at 400mm vs Full Frame at 600mm.
If the 100-400C has extraordinary sharpness then effective reach will be similar to the Superzooms, while being physically much smaller.
"If" Image Quality is high enough.
Don't forget that Nikon also sells a 200-500mm lens for less than their own 100-400.

 

[Ah-Keong]

a potential travel friendly telephoto zoom....

:

 

[AlanF]

I'm not sure of the attraction of a lens in this focal and fstop range. Wouldn't a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter give you more flexibility for around the same price? Just asking, not trying to start a war.

$2000 for a 70-200/2.8 II and another $500 for a canon TC3. This is going to have to be cheaper than the $960 150-600C else why would anyone buy it?

Size is still a negative factor on the 150-600C.
"Reach" is what people judge supertelephoto lenses by.
The Super Zooms generally have sharpness fall off beyond 450mm, the Canon 100-400 was already nearly as good as those lenses when using a APS-C at 400mm vs Full Frame at 600mm.
If the 100-400C has extraordinary sharpness then effective reach will be similar to the Superzooms, while being physically much smaller.
"If" Image Quality is high enough.
Don't forget that Nikon also sells a 200-500mm lens for less than their own 100-400.

The fall off in sharpness above 450mm is less than putting a 1.4xTC on a good 400mm. I regularly use a Sigma 150-600mm C, Canon 100-400 mm II and 400 mm DO II. My copy of the C at 600mm is sharper and more contrasty than the 100-400 mm II with a 1.4xTC and is nearly as good as the DO with a 1.4xTC. Its drawback is being rather slow AF at 600mm. The AF is fast at 400mm. I'll be getting the 100-400mm C in the full knowledge that it will be more limited than my longer lenses but has the advantage of weight and size for some purposes.

 

[-1]

There are more specs on the Sigma global site. It's dust and splash resistant. The MTFs on paper look good, better at 400mm than the 150-600mm C at 600mm.

Yeah all right and shobidoah but were is the lens collar?

According to the specs, there isn't one. As I've mentioned in another thread, that is a pain as I like to have both the camera and telephoto mounts attached to a Black Rapid strap. Nevertheless, this will be on my shopping list as lightweight for me when I am travelling (most likely with the M5) and for my wife who finds the 100-400mm II rather heavy. The M-mount adapter has a tripod foot.

The M adapter does have a tripod foot but it is about as far off the point of the weight balance as the tripod mount on any FF camera, unfortunately... Well, If one ain't afraid of ad hoc solutions then there might be some third party thingys down the road.

 

[andrei1989]

There are more specs on the Sigma global site. It's dust and splash resistant. The MTFs on paper look good, better at 400mm than the 150-600mm C at 600mm.

Yeah all right and shobidoah but were is the lens collar?

According to the specs, there isn't one. As I've mentioned in another thread, that is a pain as I like to have both the camera and telephoto mounts attached to a Black Rapid strap. Nevertheless, this will be on my shopping list as lightweight for me when I am travelling (most likely with the M5) and for my wife who finds the 100-400mm II rather heavy. The M-mount adapter has a tripod foot.

The M adapter does have a tripod foot but it is about as far off the point of the weight balance as the tripod mount on any FF camera, unfortunately... Well, If one ain't afraid of ad hoc solutions then there might be some third party thingys down the road.

I was also thinking of this...but there is no space on the lens to put a collar...on the tamron 70-300 VC there is space over the focus scale and the collar for the 70-300L fits from what i read..

 

[-1]

There are more specs on the Sigma global site. It's dust and splash resistant. The MTFs on paper look good, better at 400mm than the 150-600mm C at 600mm.

Yeah all right and shobidoah but were is the lens collar?

According to the specs, there isn't one. As I've mentioned in another thread, that is a pain as I like to have both the camera and telephoto mounts attached to a Black Rapid strap. Nevertheless, this will be on my shopping list as lightweight for me when I am travelling (most likely with the M5) and for my wife who finds the 100-400mm II rather heavy. The M-mount adapter has a tripod foot.

The M adapter does have a tripod foot but it is about as far off the point of the weight balance as the tripod mount on any FF camera, unfortunately... Well, If one ain't afraid of ad hoc solutions then there might be some third party thingys down the road.

I was also thinking of this...but there is no space on the lens to put a collar...on the tamron 70-300 VC there is space over the focus scale and the collar for the 70-300L fits from what i read..

Well... I'm a T6i and you a mere SL1 but don't you think that there could be space between the focus and the zoom rings? ;-))

 

[andrei1989]

Well... I'm a T6i and you a mere SL1 but don't you think that there could be space between the focus and the zoom rings? ;-))

no..the lock switch is there..also..too far away..

 

[AvTvM]

yes, foot on EF-M adapter is too far back for good weight balance ... but at least it takes mechanical stress off mount on small EOS-M bodies and is very compact and light. it would probably work for me since i would inly use it occasionally.

 

[ahsanford]

See below.

Specs from Sigma on the 100-400 C: 3.4" X 7.2" / 40 oz
Specs from Canon on the 70-300L: 3.5" X 5.6" / 37.1 oz
Specs from Canon on the 100-400L II: 3.7" x 7.6" / 56.1 oz

So I clearly pooched the scaling a small amount. Lining up different mounts from different photos is a decidedly less-than-ideal setup.

So the Sigma appears to be the weight of the 70-300L but the size (more or less) of the 100-400L II. Both make sense based on the 100-400 (length) + different max aperture (weight).

- A

 

[AvTvM]

@Ahsanford: Thanks for the data and overlay image! 8)

 

[ahsanford]

@Ahsanford: Thanks for the data and overlay image! 8)

Not my finest work. The pictures and the published specs don't line up very well. My overlay of the Sigma must be a bit on the larger-than-it-is side of things.

But thx

- A

 

[AlanF]

@Ahsanford: Thanks for the data and overlay image! 8)

Not my finest work. The pictures and the published specs don't line up very well. My overlay of the Sigma must be a bit on the larger-than-it-is side of things.

But thx

- A

Yes, the manufacturers claimed sizes are 182.3mm long x 86.4mm diameter for the Sigma and 193mmx94mm for the 100-400mm II. That actually works out in terms of volume of the Sigma being 20% smaller or the Canon 25% larger. I don't recommend testing my calculations of volumes using the method of Archimedes, despite the claims about being splash proof.