Sigma 100-300 F4 EX IF HSM

I've done some searching around on reviews and opinions on this lens and have found mostly good to raving reports on it, very few bad ones.
Just wondering if any one here could comment on this lens.
I'm juggling wether to get it or spend another $400-500 for the Canon 100-400 IS. They're pretty similar opticaly but of course the Canon has IS and a farther reach.
I'd be particularly interested in image quality at f4 @ 300mm.

Thanks!

A good friend of mine recently bought one and immediately got rid of it because it did not meet his sharpness criteria. Of course he could have received a bad sample. He bought the 100-400 instead and is a happy camper. Fortunately he didn't lose much in the deal.

I have two of them and have no complaints. In fact, apart from macro shots, it's pretty much the only lens Carol uses, sometimes with a 1.4TC. If you take a look at any of her shots in Birds or Wildlife (look for CarolC) you can judge for yourself.

I have no experience of the canon 1-4, apart from borrowing one a while back. I don't like the push/pull external zoom of the canon. The sigma has an internal zoom, which is a real bonus in places like africa with lots of dust. Some people don't find it a problem, but each to his own.

I guess it will come down to your definition of quality, what I think is sharp, you may regard as soft

Or E.J.'s friend got a bad lens. The question then becomes, what percentage of lenses are bad coming from Sigma. I've heard good and bad things about this lens but I never used one myself since I didn't want to get another lens with an 82mm filter after I had one that size that I got rid of.

Actually I did hold it in my hand and it felt well made and smooth operating with adequate autofocus speed.

The "dust sucking" push-pull is one reason I'm looking at something else. The internal zoom of the Sigma was attractive as an alternative.

As far as some (Sigmas) being good and some being bad - I've heard the same about the 100-400, some lenses having good optics and some having bad optics.

Regardless of wether I spend $800 or $1300, this "crap shoot" business of some good and some bad is killing me. At either price you would think the manufacturing would be consistant - or am I asking too much? :roll:

Thanks for the info. Keep it coming if anyone has more to add.

Chuck Peacock wrote: At either price you would think the manufacturing would be consistant - or am I asking too much? :roll:

As Dave said Chuck, I shoot with my Sigma 100-300 all the time and the two we have were bought at different times and both are of excellent quality. I have used mine with my EOS30 and now with my 300D (Canon Rebel in USA) and it snaps to AF just as required and produces excellent pics IMHO each time. It has been to Africa twice now and got covered with dust each day but has carried on performing. It even produced a shot of a running Antelope splashing through water which got me a runner up prize in an international competition against 1000 other entries - and that was after 14 days in Africa getting covered in dust. !! It also works well in zero winter temps. over here in UK.

We are going back to Africa this year - and what shall I be taking ????

My trusty Sigma 100-300 of course!! it will fill most all of my needs for our trip again.

I have this lens also and have found it to be excellent. I also bought it based on the many good reviews and feel that if someone was not happy with theirs, then it must be a very isolated case of getting a dud. (not as isolated as a dud 100-400 from Canon, as I'm lead to believe). I have not shot this lens with a 1.4x but have seen pics that are and was quite impressed with the sharpness and overall quality.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that it comes with my hearty recommendation. I have been nothing but happy with it since I bought it.

Al

I dont normally "participate" on Naturesacpes but here are my 2 cents:

I used to have the 100-400 and was NEVER happy with it. The design of the lens is ancient, especially the pull push. If you go to the NPN forum and do a search for Sigma 80-400 OS EX (the Sigma stabilized equivalent to the Canon 100-400) you will find a small test of this lens and overall i was disappointed by it!

I have the Sigma 100-300/4 EX HSM. Its pinpoint sharp, compact (a bit heavy) fast AF and has internal focus. If Canon would have a decent alternative i would go for it but for now the SIgma 100-300/4 EX HSM wins hands down!

Rene de Heer

rene wrote:I dont normally "participate" on Naturesacpes but here are my 2 cents

Thanks for participating Rene. You statements mirror others comments I have heard that are similar. You either get a good or a bad Sigma 100-300. Same can be said for the Canon 100-400. I hadn't heard anything on the Sigma 80-400 OS but your new is disappointing.

Thanks Rene,
I followed your post at NPN as well and the news about the sub par autofocus (relatively) was very disappointing. Then the price went up on that lens by $200 - go figure! So, that one is definitely out.

My question now is - What's the best way to tell if you have a "bad" lens if you don't have several to compare with. Or is it just a judgement thing based on personal experience (of which I have little with pro type glass)?

I really don't mind the push-pull of the 100-400.
I've used it in dusty environments like crawling in 3" of dried Bighorn Sheep doo-doo, and it's just never been an issue.
Some of my twist zoom lenses move air when they zoom too.

Thanks for the input Steve.

Also regarding the Sigma, since a major selling point is the constant f4, is it really sharp at this aperature unlike the canon where f8 to 11 is best?
It would make sense that this were true and if it is then the 2 stop advantage of IS is lessened. ?? Just a thought.

Had the Sigma 100-300, ended up selling the lens. I wasn't happy with the flare (tried several scenic coast shots) it produced. It was fairly sharp, but in testing, no sharper than the 100-400, which I know own (happily). I also wasn't happy with the contrast coming from this lens... Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Hey Craig, you were of course the one I was referring to above. FWIW, flare I think is and has always been Sigma's biggest weakness. Every Sigma I have ever used has had a serious flare issue and that includes there expensive big glass as well as the smaller lenses. The 300 f/2.8 is a great example - while its a sharp, quiet, and well made lens - if you point that lens anywhere near into the sun, the images degrade so severely as to be virtually unusable. I sold a Sigma 300 f/2.8 for exactly that reason.