Mr.Ft Loc: Central New Jersey

Hi, I'm looking at these 3 lens and am torn on which one to go with. I'm hoping someone may have experience with them. There are some obvious differences such as The Sigma does not offer a lens foot, weight, price ect. Any real life experience would be appreciated.

Thanks
Tom

travisdeland Loc: deland, FL

I use the Sig 100-400mm on Canon 7Dmkii and 5Dsr bodies, and have been very happy. I especially like how light it is for the reach. A company called IShoot, makes an after-market tripod collar for this lens(model SM140). The collar does not allow for rotation within the collar(for shooting vertical), but it is well made. I use my 100-400 with extension tubes for shooting Macro, so the collar has been very handy. I've been impressed with this lens since I bought it 2 yrs ago and it has become a part of my "normal" kit when I go out for general shooting. It also does well for BIF, though the reach is often too short.

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

The Canon 100-400 II lens is the best and sharpest on the market. You will not be disappointed.

ggab Loc: ?

Which Canon Version, I or II?

Bill_de Loc: US

I have the Sigma 100-400 Contemporary. It is easily hand holdable but can feel a bit heavy after a while. I got an aftermarket lens foot that lets me use it on a monopod just to take the weight off. It is not rotatable.

The results from the lens are quite satisfactory.

---

ggab Loc: ?

Regarding the Sigma, it is lightweight. I always shoot it hand held.
It is, I believe, the lightest of the 3 and IMHO provides the second best images.
If the Canon Lens you are talking about is the version II, it is a bit heavier however is a much better lens than the other two.
Before I bought the Canon II, I researched and tried the Tamron and Sigma. I bought the Sigma.
It now stays in my closet as a back up to my Canon.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The Canon 100-400 II is in a different league. The other two are reasonable alternatives for those not requiring the best image quality or have cameras with lower resolution. Wide open performance goes to the Canon without question.

I only have a little first hand experience with the Canon 100-400 and the 100-400 II - and no experience with the Sigma or Tamron. I am relying on the Canon owner's own experience with all 4 lenses. She is an accomplished bird photographer who has recently upgraded to a Canon 5D MkIV

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

If price is no object, the Canon 100-400 II. Otherwise the Tamron is faster than the Sigma and WAY less expensive than the Canon II (or even a refurbished I).

ELNikkor

Get the Canon Version II. That way you will never have to wonder if any problem with a photo is because of the lens or the photographer...

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

If you can comfortably spring the extra cash (3x+ cost of the cost of the Sigma), yes, by all means, buy and enjoy the Canon II. However, the Sigma is reported as almost as sharp wide open at 400 as the Canon, but loses a 1/2 stop and can be had for less than $650. The Tamron is typically available for about $800. Despite rumors to the contrary, collars are available for the Sigma. The most secure being non-rotatable. Weight is a little more than the Tamron, but is shorter. Both the T and S are lighter than the Canon and can be comfortably handheld. The Sigma price normally includes the USB adapter. The below was taken with the Sigma mounted on a Canon 6d2 in Costa Rica a couple weekends ago. In simple words, IMHO, it comes down to $$$$.

(Download)

bleirer

I think you can see a clear difference on these test shots, especially at 400. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1178&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

If on a budget you might also consider a used version of this one for about the same price as the Tamron. No IS is the only downside.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Gampa

The Canon EF 100-400L IS Version II is simply amazing!

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

I just sold my Tamron 100-400 mm lens. I picked it over the Sigma version because it had a fitted collar/foot available. I was overall satisfied with the lens. The focus was reliable and reasonably fast in decent light, it is relatively light (but still 2 1/2 pounds), it produced sharp images and I got pictures that I wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. It can also be shot wide open with nice bokeh.

I have wanted the Canon version (II) but the price was just too high- until it dropped 400.00. The Canon is a little faster than the Tamron, it's about a pound heavier but still in the "relatively" light status, can still be handheld using a pistol grip attached to the collar balancing the lens and an extender can be used- another purchase. But what images it can produce!! They POP with very little post processing! I am simply amazed!

I am pairing it with the Canon 90D and it has been a learning curve for sure especially if you are new to the Canon system. But worth it considering the end result !

PS- I still have the Tamron collar and dock for sale if anyone is interested.

Gampa

Agree wholeheartedly with your comments suntouched

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I buoght the Canon I from KEH used. Looks brand new, for $750. Only difference is that the lens is not pure white. But it's light tan; But I am not addicted to white lenses.