FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Telephotos: 300 f4 G vs Sigma 100-400

Page  12>
Author
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 5346
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Telephotos: 300 f4 G vs Sigma 100-400
    Posted: 20 July 2020 at 02:36
Now that the Sigma 100-400mm for E mount has been out for a few days (ha ha)... does anyone have any idea how it compares at the long end to the Minolta 300mm f4 G?

Looks to be much better with CA and focuses pretty quickly (despite narrower apertures). Wondering how it stacks up on the sharpness front.
a77ii- and some Sony/Minolta A-mount lenses.
a7riii- Zeiss Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm Loxia 50mm, Loxia 85mm, Voightlander 110mm Macro, Sony 24-105mm, Sigma 100-400mm.
 



Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 03:11
Look at the Sigma on this site and then connect to the DustinAbbott review it references. He is very impressed with the lens. I would not even consider the Minolta because of its purple fringe (I have owned/used the 300 f/2.8, 400 and 600 primes). I own the SAL70400 and it is much more versatile than a 300. The main con is that it starts off with f/6.3 @ 235mm.
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 5346
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 03:18
@TomV

Thanks - just a clarification, that I'm not looking at getting a 300 f4 G. I've just sold mine. But it was my wildlife/birding lens (with TC) for years. So its the only thing I have as a comparison point at the moment. Completely agree on the purple fringing btw.

I'd have a lot of change left over if I got the Sigma instead of the Sony 100-400mm, which is an appealing reason to consider it as an alternative. But it still needs to nail that feather or fur detail.
a77ii- and some Sony/Minolta A-mount lenses.
a7riii- Zeiss Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm Loxia 50mm, Loxia 85mm, Voightlander 110mm Macro, Sony 24-105mm, Sigma 100-400mm.
Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 04:28
Originally posted by wetapunga wetapunga wrote:

@TomV

Thanks - just a clarification, that I'm not looking at getting a 300 f4 G. I've just sold mine. But it was my wildlife/birding lens (with TC) for years. So its the only thing I have as a comparison point at the moment. Completely agree on the purple fringing btw.

I'd have a lot of change left over if I got the Sigma instead of the Sony 100-400mm, which is an appealing reason to consider it as an alternative. But it still needs to nail that feather or fur detail.


I owned several A mount Sigmas recently and was very impressed with their optical quality. 50-500, 300 and 500 primes. Also being a birder myself, the AF of the zoom was too slow, the 300 and 500 did not have a focus limiter and that allowed for some hunting if you initially missed your spot. The lenses were sharp and CA was very well controlled, much better than the Minoltas. I also have a Sony 500 f/4. The Sigma 500 was as sharp at that. I sold it and got myself the Sony 300 G2. Fast AF too. They have a variable focus limiter range on both the short and long end.

B&H has about 150 reviews for the Canon mount and almost all 4-5 stars.
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 5346
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 05:02
Originally posted by TomV TomV wrote:

Originally posted by wetapunga wetapunga wrote:

@TomV

...


I owned several A mount Sigmas recently and was very impressed with their optical quality. 50-500, 300 and 500 primes. Also being a birder myself, the AF of the zoom was too slow, the 300 and 500 did not have a focus limiter and that allowed for some hunting if you initially missed your spot. The lenses were sharp and CA was very well controlled, much better than the Minoltas. I also have a Sony 500 f/4. The Sigma 500 was as sharp at that. I sold it and got myself the Sony 300 G2. Fast AF too. They have a variable focus limiter range on both the short and long end.

B&H has about 150 reviews for the Canon mount and almost all 4-5 stars.


Thanks- the Dustin Abbot extended review is very compelling. I must admit that years ago, Sigma put out some quite disappointing lenses but this no longer seems to be the case. Your experience supports that.

The smaller size of the Sigma is also attractive as I have (up until this Covid19 world) been doing a fair bit of traveling and have come to value compactness a lot. Especially if it doesn't sacrifice too much with the optical quality. It looks like it will suit my shooting preferences and budget well.

a77ii- and some Sony/Minolta A-mount lenses.
a7riii- Zeiss Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm Loxia 50mm, Loxia 85mm, Voightlander 110mm Macro, Sony 24-105mm, Sigma 100-400mm.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 10741
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 06:56
Originally posted by TomV TomV wrote:

I own the SAL70400 and it is much more versatile than a 300. The main con is that it starts off with f/6.3 @ 235mm.
I guess you mean f/5.6
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 07:48
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by TomV TomV wrote:

I own the SAL70400 and it is much more versatile than a 300. The main con is that it starts off with f/6.3 @ 235mm.
I guess you mean f/5.6

Sorry, I confused myself. I was referring to the Sigma 100-400, an observation made in Dustin Abbot's review.
Back to Top
Hezu View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 October 2007
Country: Finland
Location: HKI/KSNK
Status: Offline
Posts: 2584
Post Options Post Options   Quote Hezu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 08:08
Originally posted by TomV TomV wrote:

B&H has about 150 reviews for the Canon mount and almost all 4-5 stars.
The new Sigma 100-400 is not available for Canon mounts, only for E and L mounts, so those reviews are for the earlier lens model with the similar specs, which is not available for E mount (and predates L mount release). How different these two are remains to be seen...
Back to Top
Kilkry View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 August 2008
Country: Sweden
Location: ISO1600
Status: Offline
Posts: 2700
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kilkry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 10:07
Originally posted by Hezu Hezu wrote:

Originally posted by TomV TomV wrote:

B&H has about 150 reviews for the Canon mount and almost all 4-5 stars.
The new Sigma 100-400 is not available for Canon mounts, only for E and L mounts, so those reviews are for the earlier lens model with the similar specs, which is not available for E mount (and predates L mount release). How different these two are remains to be seen...


One rather significant difference should be the AF speed. Granted, I had it adapted via the MC11 on an A7rii ..but I read nowhere that it was particularly fast on a native camera either. Though that was the main bad thing I ever read about it, truly sympathetic lens elsewise if you like the range.

Edited by Kilkry - 23 July 2020 at 10:18
-
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 5346
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 July 2020 at 22:56
I believe from the Abbot review the new E-mount version is faster and more accurate with the AF than the (slightly) older Canon version.
I picked one up last night on the way home from work. It seems pretty nimble with the focusing in combination with an a7Riii, and image quality is good. Obviously I haven't had a chance to give it a thorough testing, but it does appear to deliver a very competitive performance at a low price.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Post Options Post Options   Quote macronut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2020 at 07:27
@TomV

You seem rather down on the Minolta G lenses. Iíve seen some CA and PF complaints around both of the 300ís, but the 400 and 600? Complaints about those are few and far between.
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2020 at 16:49
Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

@TomV

You seem rather down on the Minolta G lenses. Iíve seen some CA and PF complaints around both of the 300ís, but the 400 and 600? Complaints about those are few and far between.


The 400 was much better than the 600 for PF. I am a birder and live near water (Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River). I had the lens/body dialed in well for focusing. Many water shots had purple, either on the wet bird or in the water. Any sky shot would have purple wing edges.
I have very good shots when light conditions were good such as birds with a grassy or tree background. Golden hour shots were good, the problem worsened as the sun rose up overhead.
There was just too much editing for the number of shots I take, especially when compared to the Sigma lenses and Minolta 400 I used.
I now have a Tamron 150-600 G2 and PF is almost non-existant with it.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Post Options Post Options   Quote macronut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2020 at 22:14
@TomV

I probably have one of the largest Minolta lens collections on Dyxum, though I only have three of the six white Gís. The 400, 600 and 300 2.8 are still on my wish list. When it comes to the primes, Iím sure the 400, 200 and 300 f4 are the most relevant in the digital era and provide the most value for money spent. Ive heard the 300 2.8 has the worst PF of the lot and the 600 is over priced nowadays (not to mention heavy as hell). I think the 400 is one of the most revered Maxxum lenses. There are a few lenses with almost no bad comments to be found and it is one of them.

I recently bought the Tamron 150-600 G2. Have not had the time to use it much. Preliminary findings were somewhat of a let down in the sharpness department, especially at 600mm. But this was with an A580. Iíve read that it performs better on full frame. Have not tried it on the A900 yet. What have your finding been?

Edited by macronut - 26 July 2020 at 04:06
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
TomV View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 July 2020 at 02:43
Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

@TomV


I recently bought the Tamron 150-600 G2. Have not had the time to use it much. Preliminary findings were somewhat of a let down in the sharpness department, especially at 600mm. But this was with an A580. Iíve read that it performs better on full frame. Have not tried it on the A900 yet. What have your finding been?


I also bought a Tap-in console to fine-tune the lens. Look it up to see what it can do for this lens. I have it well-tuned for shorter distances at the moment. I also took some nice red-headed woodpecker shots from about 100 ft away. I had it set up using the camera values but have determined that those numbers are not enough for the lens. I adjusted my camera in the field to -3 from the original 0. It appears that is more resolution for each number in the lens, offering more refinement in the adjustment. Thus I am not using the camera values (set my a99ii to 0) and using the Tap-in console only. This makes for a more time-consuming adjustment. The Tap-in distances are 2.2 m, 20 m, and infinity. You adjust those for 8 different focal lengths.

For reference I also just purchased a second copy of the Tamron. My son shoots as well, thus the second copy. Additionally, I have the Sony 500 f/4 that I can use for comparison. Once I have the Tamron adjusted to my liking I will then bang it against the Sony. It will be interesting to see if the single value at the lens center works for the shorter distances as it does for the 60 ft I normally adjust this lens to. The zoom shows a need for different MFAs for shorter distances and longer ones.

You mention the a580 and a900. The 580 does not have the MFA that the 900 has. This alone may allow for an improvement in sharpness.

My initial testing shows that there is not much improvement stopping down the lens from the max apertures. The max aperture changes to 5.6 @ 200mm and 6.3 @ 375mm.

I plan on finishing up my Tamron (copy 1) calibration tomorrow and then test it against the Sony. I use a herringbone test pattern for the shorter distances. I use a stop sign/street sign at 500 ft away for the infinity testing.

Your observation of the Minolta 400 is a valid one. I reluctantly sold mine to purchase the Sony 500.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.