Chefneil

I have been doing a little bird photog lately. The Audubon Society has a chapter in my area and they go for some walks on the weekends. So I have been joining them, see my posts on my blog https://thewonderinglenzofolc.blogspot.com. Well, I have been feeling a little inadequate with my measly little Canon 75-300. Some of those guys have these big long things that nearly touch the bird. LOL! So I have been trolling the web and my local Camera shop trying to find an implant to reduce my inadequacy.

They had a Sigma 100-400F5-6.3 DG. Well, lets say "HAD." Now I do!

I took it out for a spin and was a little underwhelmed by it. When I looked at the images I had taken with it on my iPad nothing seemed to be sharp and the colors where kind of flat. I took a deep breath, reminding myself that I had 30 days to return this thing and get my money back. I went out this morning to the local Power plant cooling lake, Lake Julian, and shot a few more images. This time I used my tripod to mitgate any hend held blur. You wanna know the 75-300 seemed to be sharper throughout.

This went against everything I thought would be true. My world is shaken. I reread the reviews I looked at. I looked at the images posted from the camera. THEY were sharp. Then I relooked at my images. Consistantly the images at the lower range were sharper. So I scratched my head and tried to figure out if maybe it was user error. The truth is, a couple of images were not so bad at the longer range.

I ticked through the sentient facts:
1. I know my camera and how to take good pictures with it.
2. I had a new lens, but it had no tripod mount. I had to mount my camera body, maybe causing some wobble.
3. I was using a light tripod.
4. Low light and high ISO to compensate

Perhaps....Naw, that could not be the case. It had to be the lens. I could not be the issue.

Well, after a heavy lunch, of lamb shanks and Baklava, thanks to the local Greek Festival, I was not going any where. I needed to sit down and digest! Not being a football fan (the the Pats rule!), setup shop in the backyard to try again. I used my studio tripod for stability and waited.

After a while, some LBJs came by and picked at the bird feeder. Here are the best of what I got over the weekend.

Now, you can comment on my picture composition all you want. But, I really want to know what you think of the IQ, Color Aborrition, Noise, Bokeh, and so forth.

Thanks olc

(Download)


(Download)

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Yeah, based on these I would not be impressed either. Best get that Canon.... :)

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

The Sigma is a MUCH better lens than the 75-300 Canon.

The files you posted are 0.5M files. Were they cropped significantly?
The first looks noisy and mushy (heavily backlit and fringed ...but not out of focus.) What was the ISO? What shutter speed and which camera? (on the 7D at full 400mm is equivalent to over 600mm, you will need to be running at least 1/800 or higher to be sure you have minimized camera shake...
I know others on the forumn are absolute low heartrate snipers but for me, on my 600mm sigma on a crop camera (ie 7D), anything less than 1/1600 ss never yields sharp results handheld .
You mentioned these were taken on a tripod...The cantilever effect of not having a tripod mount may have some impact....I am suprised they are not sharper for the 100-400mm SIgma lens based on reviews.

If you are getting better results on the 75-300, then something is wrong either on the 100-400 or the combo of that lens with your camera...or your technique, and the reason why the 75-300 looks better is all related to getting less shake at 300mm than at 400mm...

Hard to say from the info at hand.

Good luck in your investigation. Post back when you finalize your conclusion !!

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Both images are out of focus, not sharp, and noisy. Pretty much everything you do not want. I vote for sending it back.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Who's talking about a 75-300? Since the Siggy in question is a 100-400, it's logical to assume the reference to a Canon would be a 100-400. So are you saying the Sigma 100-400 is much better than the Canon of the same zoom range?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

For an alternative, consider the Canon 100-400L (MkII if it fits your budget). I feel sure, especially if it's calibrated to your body and your technique is good, that you won't be disappointed in the IQ.

Btw, the EXIF data shows it is a crop and the shutter speed is 1/200, which is too slow for that FL.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This seems like a buzz post, how much did you drink at that festival? Creating this post was not worth the effort given the inferior quality of the images.

Plieku69 Loc: The Gopher State, south end

Chefneil, thanks for your post. I really had the hots for this lens but after testing it at a photo seminar last weekend I saw no improvement over the older, and really heavy, Sigma 120-400. I will not be upgrading, just learning better technique.
Ken

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

The OP is. He is questioning why his current Canon 75-300 seems to be better than the Sigma 100-400.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If it is the older EF 75-300 and the camera is fine tuned to that lens then a big maybe but if it's a newer EF 75-300 then either there's something wrong with the Sigma or, well, I really don't know because the newer EF 75-300 is probably the weakest zoom Canon currently makes.

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

Your first image is ok, and about what one would expect from a 10 yr old crop sensor camera. It seems to be in focus, but the posted jpeg does not do it justice. If you took this as raw, I'd love to see the raw file.

Second image is blurry and soft, but more from camera AND subject movement. At 1/200 sec on an underdesigned tripod, I wouldn't expect any better. You may have been better off shooting hand-held and relying on the lens' optical stabilization for a fairer test. This is not a lens that is intended to be used on a tripod. The lack of a tripod collar should drive that home.

I don't know what "Color Aborrition" is, or what noise has to do with a lens, other than needing to use a higher ISO due to smaller max opening. Bokeh is pleasant enough, but just inside the limit of becoming a little distracting. Hard to tell from a single shot.

If you are looking for an answer for why this lens is not producing the results your other lens is producing, be a little more scientific. Take and post some images of non-moving objects in decent light, at higher shutter speeds, preferably at similar focal lengths, and then at 400mm with the Sigma, to see what the lens is capable of. Your 75-300 is not a great lens, but the Sigma should be better than what you are experiencing.

I have not handled the lens, but I have a student with the 75-300.

These reviewers seemed to have gotten results totally different than you did. Their approaches are a bit more comprehensive, and definitely worth reading.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-100-400mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx

https://www.lenstip.com/502.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_100-400_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

I suggest you try the lens with OS turned on, and at shutter speeds between 1/200 and 1/500. You may be surprised.

OldTxun

Unfortunately, I had a similar experience with this lens a while back on a Nikon. Made many shots on tripod all across the aperture range, VR on, VR off, etc. Result was always the same- soft images. Sigma wanted me to send both the camera and the lens to them, but I have multiple camera bodies so that was not an answer. I wound up trading it in for about half what I paid for it on a Nikon 70-300.

Archboo3 Loc: Central Florida

I have a sigma pro 120-300, and it had to be programed to my camera. It comes with a computer lens dock to do just that. I think it gives great pictures. Is it possible that your lens can be reprogramed to match your camera, if not I would take it back, and look at getting a sigma pro that can be programed to work with my specific camera.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Which isn't saying very much. In 1995 I switched from Pentax to Canon because of the lenses; in 2015 I switched back because of bodies. Canon makes really good lenses.

IBM

I have ever seen a Sigma that range of zoom compare as well as a Canon nikon in the approximately same zoom power .
Take it back , and save or pay later ,