Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon vs Canon 100-400 mk 2: As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1...

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

I would go with the Canon mkII, I have one with the 1.4 extender, made for each other and it works great. Sigma in many of their lenses has had a focusing issue, I can't say that about this new lens but I know it won't be an issue with the Canon lens.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

Please forget about the Sigma and buy the Canon 100-400 Mark II. You will not be disappointed. If you buy the Sigma, you will always be wondering if it is as sharp as the Mark II. I had the Mark I and now I have the Mark II. I took my Mark II to the zoo with a friend that still has the Mark I and we traded off during the day. She saw such a radical improvement over the Mark I that the next day she had a Mark II in her bag. They are night and day different when it comes to image quality and sharpness.

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

Blurryeyed wrote:

I would go with the Canon mkII, I have one with the 1.4 extender, made for each other and it works great. Sigma in many of their lenses has had a focusing issue, I can't say that about this new lens but I know it won't be an issue with the Canon lens.

Thanks, I appreciate your quick response. The reviews I've seen on both these lenses has me wanting the canon mk2.

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

jeep_daddy wrote:

Please forget about the Sigma and buy the Canon 10... (show quote)

Also thank you for your quick response. I appreciate your comments! Most of my gear is Canon and I use Fuji for compactness when needed.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

The Sigma only beats the 100-400 mk 1 in sharpness at 400 mm, and not by much. The AF of the Sigma is much slower than the Canon, or the Tamron.
Also the Sigma has no tripod collar and no provision to mount one on it.

If you are looking for a 100-400 cheaper than the Canon the Tamron seems to be the way to go. Even with the tripod collar (an extra @ about $150) it is under $1000.

Tamron: http://dustinabbott.net/2017/12/tamron-100-400mm-f-4-5-6-3-vc-usd-review/

Sigma: http://dustinabbott.net/2017/06/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-contemporary-review/

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

robertjerl wrote:

The Sigma only beats the 100-400 mk 1 in sharpness... (show quote)

Thank you for this info, it’s very helpful!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

If you do fast action sports or wildlife, and you are serious, then it is ALL about auto focusing speed and accuracy ! Nothing will beat the Canon lenses in AF !

- The zooming speed of the Canon version I can also be a great asset - especially for BIF.

Strictly optically speaking , the Sigma and Tamron are very GOOD.

..

stenojj

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

I bought the Canon 100-400 L Mark II refurbished from Canon. Even though I can't compare it to any of the other 100-400 lenses, I wouldn't trade it for the world.

(Download)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

Is this a trick question? The Canon 100-400 MKII is one of the finest lenses produced. It will leave the Sigma in the dust. And, the Canon is currently on sale, what could be better. And I'm a dye in the wool Nikon Guy. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, buy this lens.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

Or if you're bit daring eBay prices extra $200 less then bhphoto.
I've warranty registered my Canon products purchased via eBay and saved several hundreds....

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

I shoot Nikon and Olympus. For me, the best comparable focal length lenses for my bodies are those produced by the manaufacturer of the body I am using. It seems logical to me, maybe not others, that Canon would know how to produce superior lenses to fit their bodies and work at their optimum. Third party manufacturers are improving all the time, but so are Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. In the odd case where a third party manufacturer produces a focal length lens that’s not manufacturered by the OEM of the body I am using, I will read reviews and choose the one that fits my needs best. Based on my personal thoughts, I would think the Canon would be the best choice, especially when others have said the lens you are considering is currently on sale.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

DavidM wrote:

As someone else noted that this Sigma lens is on sale today at B&H. I have the Canon 100-400 mk1 version and wondering if anyone has compared the sigma to the canon mk1 vs canon mk 2 lenses? Is it worth the upgrade and if so would you consider the Sigma over the canon mk 2 version? I'm considering a trade with my canon mk1 lens.

Thanks

Dave M.

You may care to chack out Dustin Abbott's YouTube Channel. He reviews and compares both the Sigma and Tamron 100 - 400mm lenses with the Canon 100 - 400mm f4.5/5.6L IS II. Though I owned that particular Canon lens, if I still used Canon kit I reckon I might choose the Tamron 100 - 400mm over the Canon version. I believe that Dustin Abbott still favours the Canon, though.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Also consider the Tamron 100-400 version at 800 $ is a great value and very sharp over the full range....tripod collar is optional i believe.

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

Thanks all for your responses! They are greatly appreciated!