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

[ahsanford]

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.

Appreciate the volume numbers, thanks.

Everyone reads these things differently, but I see this principally as a retracted length + weight consideration and leave volume behind. Consider that in comparing the 70-200 f/4L vs. the 70-200 f/2.8L, everyone loves the weight reduction and I see zero comments about "what a delightfully small diameter it has".

Unless there's a massive difference in front element diameter or hood size, the only thing that really bosses how I will pack the lens is length. And I think we'd all agree that weight absolutely matters.

Same thing goes for mirrorless vs. SLR, IMHO. The volume reduction looks sexy on paper, but with a lens attached if it goes in the same bag in the same slot taking up the same space, I'll keep the mirror and a 5D-sized grip for now.

- A

 

[AlanF]

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.

Appreciate the volume numbers, thanks.

Everyone reads these things differently, but I see this principally as a retracted length + weight consideration and leave volume behind. Consider that in comparing the 70-200 f/4L vs. the 70-200 f/2.8L, everyone loves the weight reduction and I see zero comments about "what a delightfully small diameter it has".

Unless there's a massive difference in front element diameter or hood size, the only thing that really bosses how I will pack the lens is length. And I think we'd all agree that weight absolutely matters.

Same thing goes for mirrorless vs. SLR, IMHO. The volume reduction looks sexy on paper, but with a lens attached if it goes in the same bag in the same slot taking up the same space, I'll keep the mirror and a 5D-sized grip for now.

- A

Weight is related quite closely to the volume: the weight of the 100-400mm II without the tripod foot is 1549g according to TDP so the Sigma at 1168g is 25% less, close to the 20% lower volume. The length is only 5.5% less. So, whether you realise it or not, the diameter is important to you as volume is proportional to diameter squared, and weight, which you consider to be important, changes far more significantly with diameter than length.

 

[Plainsman]

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.

 

[andrei1989]

yeah...it would have been nice if it had a tripod mount.. :/
but space is limited though..only something integrated in the body of the lens would have worked...and not rotating..

 

[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.

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.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
I know that TDP isn't the pinnacle of testing, but in this instance the 7D2 on the 100-400MkII is sharper than the 150-600C at 600mm with the 1Ds MkIII.
Technically the 7D2 at 400mm has a narrower field of view as well.
Basically the whole thing is a wash, the SuperZoom lenses are good value for money, but they don't really improve on anything that was already available.
Brian at TDP has noted in some of his reviews that he will sometimes order multiple copies and pick the best one, and he probably only does that with Canon lenses so it's possible that we're looking at a "best vs. worst case" scenario here, but again, the minor differences in sharpness across all these lenses amounts to practically nothing, each option is basically equal, except the 400mm lenses maintain much better Autofocus.


As soon as you put the 7D2 on the 400f5.6 Prime it's just no contest (unless you're in a colour fringing competition).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
The Sports version does look a bit better in the center: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Edit: And here's the Sigma 150-600C stopped down just in case anyone is curious. Yes the center sharpens up nicely, but it still also weighs 50% more and sacrifices AF speed.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

The Tamron 150-600G2 is a bit closer (actually with all the CA I'm tempted to say I like the G1) but again, we're just matching the IQ of a cropped 400mm lens, that's not saying much.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
140-600G1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


The point of all this being, there is nothing to say that the Sigma 100-400C won't be their best Supertelephoto lens outright (barring only the 500mm f4 Prime of course).

 

[AlanF]

When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay.

There are some glaring oddities on the TDP site, such as the performance of the Tamron 150-600mm. He must have bought the worst copy ever sold. When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use. It came as a huge surprise to me that my Sigma performs as well at 600mm as my uber expensive whites at 560-600mm. I borrowed it to test from the local shot for amusement and then kept it because it was so good.

Another factor is that lenses give different performances in practice on different bodies.

 

[dufflover]

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.

Not a chance. It's not that weak. It's the sort of unfair reputation that seems to go around with lower end camera gear, like weak mounts, crappy plastic bodies, zero weathering ability, flaky flippy screens and onboard flashes, etc.

 

[masterpix]

Same level of weather sealing as 100mm L macro(better than nothing). ~33% lighter than Canon 100-400mm L II lens. Now will wait to know how much does it cost and how sharp it is at tele end? That lens will nice for occasional bird/mammal shooting I do but more importantly perfect for shy lizards.

The 100-400 is not a macro lens, but with 1m shortest distance it may serve as one. I did not focus on the bee (a you can see) but the sharpness of the 100-400 clearly caught the shadow of he wing on the flower.

 

[andrei1989]

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.

Not a chance. It's not that weak. It's the sort of unfair reputation that seems to go around with lower end camera gear, like weak mounts, crappy plastic bodies, zero weathering ability, flaky flippy screens and onboard flashes, etc.

true! i shot with my old 1000D in the rain and put it in the not-waterproof bag. when i got home the camera was wet on the outside (like water on it, not just some condensation). worked perfectly.

i would say this lens would need a tripod mount for better balancing ON the actual tripod, even if it were close to the mount...also for attaching some strap to it

 

[AlanF]

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.

Not a chance. It's not that weak. It's the sort of unfair reputation that seems to go around with lower end camera gear, like weak mounts, crappy plastic bodies, zero weathering ability, flaky flippy screens and onboard flashes, etc.

Even a 5DIII mount can fail - see http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/23634/how-strong-is-the-tripod-mount-on-the-bottom-of-a-dslr

I always use both the camera and lens mounts on a Black Rapid for proper security.

ps the mount on the 100-400mm II is fixed to the ring by 4 tiny, teeny weeny, screws. I had to buy a Japanese compatible screwdriver to tighten mine when they worked loose/

 

[AJ]

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.

Not a chance. It's not that weak. It's the sort of unfair reputation that seems to go around with lower end camera gear, like weak mounts, crappy plastic bodies, zero weathering ability, flaky flippy screens and onboard flashes, etc.

Drebels are made out of ABS plastic. They make car bumpers and whitewater kayaks out of ABS plastic. It's tough stuff.

 

[andrei1989]

...small it may be but it might still be to heavy to carry around on the end of small bodies like the 750/760/upcoming800D i.e. risk of damage to the camera mount.

Not a chance. It's not that weak. It's the sort of unfair reputation that seems to go around with lower end camera gear, like weak mounts, crappy plastic bodies, zero weathering ability, flaky flippy screens and onboard flashes, etc.

Even a 5DIII mount can fail - see http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/23634/how-strong-is-the-tripod-mount-on-the-bottom-of-a-dslr

I always use both the camera and lens mounts on a Black Rapid for proper security.

ps the mount on the 100-400mm II is fixed to the ring by 4 tiny, teeny weeny, screws. I had to buy a Japanese compatible screwdriver to tighten mine when they worked loose/

i think the discussion is about the lens mount, not the tripod mount..

to eliminate your worries..use this

 

[Ah-Keong]

the 100-400mm poison looks yummy!

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4711801152/cp-2017-hands-on-with-sigmas-newest-lenses

 

[9VIII]

When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay.

There are some glaring oddities on the TDP site, such as the performance of the Tamron 150-600mm. He must have bought the worst copy ever sold. When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use. It came as a huge surprise to me that my Sigma performs as well at 600mm as my uber expensive whites at 560-600mm. I borrowed it to test from the local shot for amusement and then kept it because it was so good.

Another factor is that lenses give different performances in practice on different bodies.

If you really care so much about what Roger says you should know that the implications of your own testing don't have any application beyond the lenses in your own hands.

I already pointed out the bias that you can pretty safely assume is happening with TDP, even if you were to flip the results and give all the 600mm zoom lenses the same advantage over the 400mm lenses on crop as the charts currently give to the 400mm lenses, that would still be a pretty mediocre result from a 600mm Full Frame lens competing with a cropped 400mm lens.

 

[andrei1989]

the 100-400mm poison looks yummy!

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4711801152/cp-2017-hands-on-with-sigmas-newest-lenses

that 14mm is HUUUGE

but the 100-400 will look good on my 70D

 

[AlanF]

When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay.

There are some glaring oddities on the TDP site, such as the performance of the Tamron 150-600mm. He must have bought the worst copy ever sold. When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use. It came as a huge surprise to me that my Sigma performs as well at 600mm as my uber expensive whites at 560-600mm. I borrowed it to test from the local shot for amusement and then kept it because it was so good.

Another factor is that lenses give different performances in practice on different bodies.

If you really care so much about what Roger says you should know that the implications of your own testing don't have any application beyond the lenses in your own hands.

I already pointed out the bias that you can pretty safely assume is happening with TDP, even if you were to flip the results and give all the 600mm zoom lenses the same advantage over the 400mm lenses on crop as the charts currently give to the 400mm lenses, that would still be a pretty mediocre result from a 600mm Full Frame lens competing with a cropped 400mm lens.

Have you actually read the post you have replied to? I wrote as now highlighted in bold "When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use.", which is my stock mantra as individual copies of lenses vary widely, and is what Roger repeatedly says and which I have learned from him.

Have you yourself directly compared a Sigma or Tamron at 600mm on FF with a 400mm on crop?

I am going to start a new thread on inconsistencies between lens review sites.

 

[andrei1989]

still no prices or availability were announced?

 

[9VIII]

When I first started seriously reading about lenses some years back I thought TDP was the bible. Now, thanks to lensrentals, who do things properly, use the best equipment and measure the variation and range of MTFs for a large number of copies of the various lenses, I take all of the other sites as providing a rough guide only to performance. Most importantly, I have done my own measurements on the Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, 100-400mm II (2 copies), 300mm F/2.8 II, 400mm DO II, 400mm f/5.6 and the. 100-400mm Mk I on several FF and crop bodies, and know directly for myself how those copies of lenses behave, and don't have to rely on hearsay.

There are some glaring oddities on the TDP site, such as the performance of the Tamron 150-600mm. He must have bought the worst copy ever sold. When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use. It came as a huge surprise to me that my Sigma performs as well at 600mm as my uber expensive whites at 560-600mm. I borrowed it to test from the local shot for amusement and then kept it because it was so good.

Another factor is that lenses give different performances in practice on different bodies.

If you really care so much about what Roger says you should know that the implications of your own testing don't have any application beyond the lenses in your own hands.

I already pointed out the bias that you can pretty safely assume is happening with TDP, even if you were to flip the results and give all the 600mm zoom lenses the same advantage over the 400mm lenses on crop as the charts currently give to the 400mm lenses, that would still be a pretty mediocre result from a 600mm Full Frame lens competing with a cropped 400mm lens.

Have you actually read the post you have replied to? I wrote as now highlighted in bold "When deciding the performance of lenses, the only thing that matters is that of your copy of the lens on your camera under the conditions that you use.", which is my stock mantra as individual copies of lenses vary widely, and is what Roger repeatedly says and which I have learned from him.

Have you yourself directly compared a Sigma or Tamron at 600mm on FF with a 400mm on crop?

I am going to start a new thread on inconsistencies between lens review sites.

Your post is debating the validity of TDP tests, positioned as a rebuttal to my assertion that a 400mm lens could be the best Supertelephoto lens that Sigma makes.
Regardless of what you said directly, the implication is that your hands on testing is worth more.
It is to you, but not to anyone else, and acknowledging that it isn't valuable to anyone else just makes the entire post pointless, except that it's a fancy way to say that you don't think your favorite lens isn't an outlier.
Practically speaking you may as well have just said the Sigma 150-600 makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Lensrentals' own testing confirms the poor 600mm performance of the Tamron 150-600G1 (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout/), and I can't seem to find any more recent testing from Lensrentals on any of the other Superzoom lenses at 600mm.

(I get the impression Roger is specifically trying to avoid posting that sort of information, he did test them at 400mm, but we're still just judging these lenses as 400mm lenses at that point https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ and another one just for fun: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons/).


The only logical way for a consumer to navigate this space is aggregate scores, unfortunately you're lucky if you can find three decent reviews of any given model, but at least by posting results from all four Sigma and Tamron Superzoom lenses we have more than three samples there, it's not a good average, but it is "an average".
Again, if we had Lensrentals data on the more recent Superzooms (maybe there is but I can't find it) then there would practically be no discussion to be had, but as is we just have the one Lensrentals test of the Tamron 150-600G1, which shows poor results at 600mm and that Canon's 400mm lenses are very sharp.

It's far from ideal but it's the best information we have to go on.
My conclusion is that anyone is practically just as well off using the 400mm lenses as the 600mm lenses, they all seem to offer roughly the same price to performance.

 

[Ah-Keong]

that 14mm is HUUUGE

but the 100-400 will look good on my 70D

yeah! in my opinion, its a good travel telephoto zoom.
the 14mm looks huge in the small hands.

: