So, Ben, you have three lenses and refuse to buy more of this brand because you came to a rather weird verdict. If that would be close to reality, Sigma would not sell anything.
I have 12 Sigmas (plus some I already sold) and only had the problem, that the APS-C cameras (D7000 was very bad, D7100 not much better) had the problem to separate a small enough focus area with the 18-35. Within the focus “points” were too much things at different distances. According to DPReview, Canon’s dual pixel AF does a better job with this particular lens. Am I guessing right: You’re a Nikon shooter?
On some Sigma lenses I had to use the dock extensively, namely the 85 Art. Others were spot on fresh out of the box. Most, if not all were better than their Nikon counterparts. Missed focus I also know from Nikon lenses and is not really a miracle if you consider all the error sources in an indirect AF system like DLSRs are.
Yes, Joachim, you’re absolutely right and if you google: « Sigma lenses autofocus problems », you’ll see plenty of people that fully agree with you. The dock fixes front or back focus issues, not focus inconsistency (unfortunately). Yes I have nikons (D500 and D810) and Nikon lenses focus more accurately than Sigmas. That’s reality. I wanted to love Sigma, you know haha…
I can’t say anything about D500 – I don’t think that is the source of the inconsistencies, but I can say about my D810 that it’s not always spot on – with my few Nikon Lenses as well as with Sigma lenses – some are more of a surprise bag, others less. The D850 focuses more reliably in my book, but it also depends which focus points I use. The main reason I was waiting eagerly for a mirrorless body was, getting rid of the centerish AF-points which so often led to “too much headroom” for portraits.
Anyway, I don’t want you to love Sigmas, I’m just interested in an answer to the question why some Sigma owners appear to have bad luck and others are happy? What is the lens part, what is my AF skills part, what is the cameras AF-limits part? I can understand you prefer Nikkors – if you make better pictures with them, that’s your way to go.
Ben
March 3, 2019 12:44 am
Sigma lenses autofocus performance SUCKS. I’m not buying any Sigma lenses anymore. I had the 18-35mm, the 50-100mm for my aps-c, the 35mm for my full frame. Sigma lenses focus when they want to. It’s a disaster for professional photography which is why you never see any pro using them
Martin_G
March 1, 2019 8:05 pm
It is kind of annoying to have a review of a lens but no Imatest charts. For the review to offer useful comparisons you need Imatest results like all the other reviews. Sorting out this inconsistency in the site should be a priority.
I agree. Assertions and impressions are obviously relevant however comparative scientific data would certainly be helpful to this occasional reader (me)!
DarrenM
March 1, 2019 5:43 am
I haven’t owned other lenses like this so based only on my experience with the Sigma 100-400 I couldn’t be happier for the cost and my standard and type of photography I shoot. For larger / medium size wildlife with good lighting conditions it’s very good and I even enjoy and get pleasing results of some small close-ups of flowers. It’s light enough to carry around with you all day especially with the Nikon D3400 it’s attached too, so for your beginner / enthusiast this I would say this lens is great value for money. But it is worth me noting that when good lighting starts to drop, the focusing really does suffer and i have really struggled.
Hi Darren, I just want to confirm that you can use the new sigma 100-400mm contemporary lens on the Nikon D3400
Jim Thomas
February 28, 2019 6:10 pm
My main gripe with this lens is the lack of a tripod collar. I can hand-hold it for short time periods, but without the ability to mount it on a tripod it is not very useful for me. I tried it but sent it back for this reason.
It has no place to attach a collar so there can be no third-party alternatives.
Yes, that is one of my main issues with the lens and it really is a shame Sigma didn’t do what Tamron did and at least offer the option of a paying extra for the tripod collar.
I have the Tamron and it’s collar. But as it is rather light weight, I wouldn’t hesitate to use it without a collar, even extended to 400 mm. It depends a bit on the tripod head. The collar’s benefit is an easy turn from landscape to portrait orientation. Else than that, it’s often in the way and useless extra weight.
But to me this lens type is the largest off-tripod lens to handle and I like it for that reason.
Marcin
February 28, 2019 8:48 am
“the choice comes down to whether you want the extra 100mm . . . in most cases, the answer is an unequivocal yes” The 70-100 mm range is VERY important, I can crop the image to get from 300 to 400 mm, but I can’t recover what I couldn’t frame below 100 mm.
Marcin, your point is indeed valid, though I disagree that the ability to crop from 300mm to 400mm somehow lessens the importance of the extra 100mm as cropping degrades image quality quite a bit. I think the context here is important. This lens is mainly aimed at a photographer who already has a mid-range kit zoom that came with his camera and is looking for their first telephoto lens. Say you have an entry-level camera plus the 18-135mm Kit zoom, but you want something with a more extended focal range for nature and wildlife photography. In this general situation, having the extra 100mm focal length at the telephoto end is much more useful than the extra 30mm on the wide end because many cheap lens options already cover the 70-100mm focal range while only the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm can get nature photographers on a budget to 400mm.
Dvir, like you said, a 100-400 mm lens is for those who specifically need an extended reach, like in wildlife photography. The majority of users, who use their gear in mixed-case scenarios, will be better served by a 70-300 mm because of the all-important wider angle of view, shorter minimum focus distance and lower size and weight. Even if someone has a 18-135 mm at hand, there’s not always time to swap lenses.
You *can* get a wider FOV than 100 with a 100-400 lens, you simply stitch a panorama. With a 28mm I could get as much as a 19mm FOV by stitching, I have no doubts that it’d be far easier with a 100 to 70 considering that the FOV difference is, by comparison, ridicolously minute.
On the other hand, if you crop you lose a lot of resolution, even if you’re using a high mpx body. By stitching you don’t lose any image quality whatsoever, if anything, you gain quite a bit of it.
Tomáš, that is a good point, especially because I think many photos taken at 70mm will be of the landscape variety (at least in nature photography) where you have an opportunity to use a tripod and take your time with the photo. On the other hand, many photos taken at 400mm are of the wildlife photography variety and that will often involve faster shutter speeds and higher ISOs (Especially given the f/6.3 max aperture) and in such situations even moderate cropping can have a big impact on your final image quality.
The majority of my shots in the 70-100 range involve people, pets, outdoor flora in the wind, and moving vehicles, so stitching is out of the question. In fact, I take more static shots at longer zoom ranges (architectural and landscape details). The same is true for a lot of other photographers.
Joachim
February 28, 2019 4:17 am
I tried the lens back in 2017 and was very surprised about price and performance, so I set it on my wishlist – but the preferred the Tamron, which has a couple of real advantages. Unfortunately a bunch of super lazy firmware programmers drives me nuts: The Canon R system compatibility is given since two weeks, but we Nikon users still have to wait. I’ve already seen owners of the Tamron selling the otherwise fantastic lens and change ship towards Sigma.
However. As you said, this lens category fills a sweet spot. I use the 300/4 E PF when I like to go very light. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 which remains at home often in favor of the 100-400. Very well to handhold and the quality is better than one could guess after seeing the price tag.
Joachim, indeed the price/performance ration is excellent with the Sigma lens. I remember when I first started with my photography and I would have loved to have had such an option at the time as it really does give you a very convincing performance at an accessible price point. I have used both the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mm lenses on the EOS R the past few weeks and I feel that they make for excellent companions to mirrorless cameras thanks to their size.
Fiatlux
February 28, 2019 1:21 am
I would support that this lens is a capable daylight outdoors sport photography lens. I had rented a Nikon 80-400 AF-S VR and also tested my 70-200 VRII with a TCE20 III and the Sigma is better than both options in terms of IQ at 400mm, and AF remains usable, including in AF-C on my D750.
Yes, the Sigma is undoubtedly capable of satisfactory AF results in good light, with fast AF speeds and reasonable accuracy. In low light environments it is quite challenged and more so than the Tamron 100-400mm lens and especially the Canon 100-400mm. As you also noticed, the image quality at 400mm is very nice indeed, especially at f/8 where it competes strongly with lenses that are three times as expensive.
So, Ben, you have three lenses and refuse to buy more of this brand because you came to a rather weird verdict. If that would be close to reality, Sigma would not sell anything.
I have 12 Sigmas (plus some I already sold) and only had the problem, that the APS-C cameras (D7000 was very bad, D7100 not much better) had the problem to separate a small enough focus area with the 18-35. Within the focus “points” were too much things at different distances. According to DPReview, Canon’s dual pixel AF does a better job with this particular lens. Am I guessing right: You’re a Nikon shooter?
On some Sigma lenses I had to use the dock extensively, namely the 85 Art. Others were spot on fresh out of the box. Most, if not all were better than their Nikon counterparts. Missed focus I also know from Nikon lenses and is not really a miracle if you consider all the error sources in an indirect AF system like DLSRs are.
Yes, Joachim, you’re absolutely right and if you google: « Sigma lenses autofocus problems », you’ll see plenty of people that fully agree with you.
The dock fixes front or back focus issues, not focus inconsistency (unfortunately).
Yes I have nikons (D500 and D810) and Nikon lenses focus more accurately than Sigmas. That’s reality. I wanted to love Sigma, you know haha…
I can’t say anything about D500 – I don’t think that is the source of the inconsistencies, but I can say about my D810 that it’s not always spot on – with my few Nikon Lenses as well as with Sigma lenses – some are more of a surprise bag, others less. The D850 focuses more reliably in my book, but it also depends which focus points I use. The main reason I was waiting eagerly for a mirrorless body was, getting rid of the centerish AF-points which so often led to “too much headroom” for portraits.
Anyway, I don’t want you to love Sigmas, I’m just interested in an answer to the question why some Sigma owners appear to have bad luck and others are happy? What is the lens part, what is my AF skills part, what is the cameras AF-limits part? I can understand you prefer Nikkors – if you make better pictures with them, that’s your way to go.
Sigma lenses autofocus performance SUCKS. I’m not buying any Sigma lenses anymore. I had the 18-35mm, the 50-100mm for my aps-c, the 35mm for my full frame. Sigma lenses focus when they want to. It’s a disaster for professional photography which is why you never see any pro using them
It is kind of annoying to have a review of a lens but no Imatest charts. For the review to offer useful comparisons you need Imatest results like all the other reviews. Sorting out this inconsistency in the site should be a priority.
I agree. Assertions and impressions are obviously relevant however comparative scientific data would certainly be helpful to this occasional reader (me)!
I haven’t owned other lenses like this so based only on my experience with the Sigma 100-400 I couldn’t be happier for the cost and my standard and type of photography I shoot. For larger / medium size wildlife with good lighting conditions it’s very good and I even enjoy and get pleasing results of some small close-ups of flowers. It’s light enough to carry around with you all day especially with the Nikon D3400 it’s attached too, so for your beginner / enthusiast this I would say this lens is great value for money. But it is worth me noting that when good lighting starts to drop, the focusing really does suffer and i have really struggled.
Hi Darren, I just want to confirm that you can use the new sigma 100-400mm contemporary lens on the Nikon D3400
My main gripe with this lens is the lack of a tripod collar. I can hand-hold it for short time periods, but without the ability to mount it on a tripod it is not very useful for me. I tried it but sent it back for this reason.
It has no place to attach a collar so there can be no third-party alternatives.
Yes, that is one of my main issues with the lens and it really is a shame Sigma didn’t do what Tamron did and at least offer the option of a paying extra for the tripod collar.
I have the Tamron and it’s collar. But as it is rather light weight, I wouldn’t hesitate to use it without a collar, even extended to 400 mm. It depends a bit on the tripod head. The collar’s benefit is an easy turn from landscape to portrait orientation. Else than that, it’s often in the way and useless extra weight.
There are third party alternatives, if you insist on tripod use: www.gumptrade.com/14010…m_store=de
But to me this lens type is the largest off-tripod lens to handle and I like it for that reason.
“the choice comes down to whether you want the extra 100mm . . . in most cases, the answer is an unequivocal yes”
The 70-100 mm range is VERY important, I can crop the image to get from 300 to 400 mm, but I can’t recover what I couldn’t frame below 100 mm.
Marcin, your point is indeed valid, though I disagree that the ability to crop from 300mm to 400mm somehow lessens the importance of the extra 100mm as cropping degrades image quality quite a bit. I think the context here is important. This lens is mainly aimed at a photographer who already has a mid-range kit zoom that came with his camera and is looking for their first telephoto lens. Say you have an entry-level camera plus the 18-135mm Kit zoom, but you want something with a more extended focal range for nature and wildlife photography. In this general situation, having the extra 100mm focal length at the telephoto end is much more useful than the extra 30mm on the wide end because many cheap lens options already cover the 70-100mm focal range while only the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm can get nature photographers on a budget to 400mm.
Dvir, like you said, a 100-400 mm lens is for those who specifically need an extended reach, like in wildlife photography. The majority of users, who use their gear in mixed-case scenarios, will be better served by a 70-300 mm because of the all-important wider angle of view, shorter minimum focus distance and lower size and weight. Even if someone has a 18-135 mm at hand, there’s not always time to swap lenses.
You *can* get a wider FOV than 100 with a 100-400 lens, you simply stitch a panorama. With a 28mm I could get as much as a 19mm FOV by stitching, I have no doubts that it’d be far easier with a 100 to 70 considering that the FOV difference is, by comparison, ridicolously minute.
On the other hand, if you crop you lose a lot of resolution, even if you’re using a high mpx body. By stitching you don’t lose any image quality whatsoever, if anything, you gain quite a bit of it.
Tomáš, that is a good point, especially because I think many photos taken at 70mm will be of the landscape variety (at least in nature photography) where you have an opportunity to use a tripod and take your time with the photo. On the other hand, many photos taken at 400mm are of the wildlife photography variety and that will often involve faster shutter speeds and higher ISOs (Especially given the f/6.3 max aperture) and in such situations even moderate cropping can have a big impact on your final image quality.
The majority of my shots in the 70-100 range involve people, pets, outdoor flora in the wind, and moving vehicles, so stitching is out of the question. In fact, I take more static shots at longer zoom ranges (architectural and landscape details). The same is true for a lot of other photographers.
I tried the lens back in 2017 and was very surprised about price and performance, so I set it on my wishlist – but the preferred the Tamron, which has a couple of real advantages. Unfortunately a bunch of super lazy firmware programmers drives me nuts: The Canon R system compatibility is given since two weeks, but we Nikon users still have to wait. I’ve already seen owners of the Tamron selling the otherwise fantastic lens and change ship towards Sigma.
However. As you said, this lens category fills a sweet spot. I use the 300/4 E PF when I like to go very light. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 which remains at home often in favor of the 100-400. Very well to handhold and the quality is better than one could guess after seeing the price tag.
Joachim, indeed the price/performance ration is excellent with the Sigma lens. I remember when I first started with my photography and I would have loved to have had such an option at the time as it really does give you a very convincing performance at an accessible price point. I have used both the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mm lenses on the EOS R the past few weeks and I feel that they make for excellent companions to mirrorless cameras thanks to their size.
I would support that this lens is a capable daylight outdoors sport photography lens. I had rented a Nikon 80-400 AF-S VR and also tested my 70-200 VRII with a TCE20 III and the Sigma is better than both options in terms of IQ at 400mm, and AF remains usable, including in AF-C on my D750.
Yes, the Sigma is undoubtedly capable of satisfactory AF results in good light, with fast AF speeds and reasonable accuracy. In low light environments it is quite challenged and more so than the Tamron 100-400mm lens and especially the Canon 100-400mm. As you also noticed, the image quality at 400mm is very nice indeed, especially at f/8 where it competes strongly with lenses that are three times as expensive.