The 100-400 is actually smaller than a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II/III lens, weighing 2.55lbs compared to the Canon’s 3.28lbs, and the Sigma is 7.2″ long while the Canon is 7.8″. You’ll have to decide based on what kind of work you shoot, but when it comes to bird and wildlife photography, I find that more reach is always better. Size and weight are the only reasons that I’d consider going for the smaller lens, here, though for some people, especially APS-C camera owners, the reach of a 400mm lens is sufficient. Matthew Gore | Light And Matter The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary lens (top) and Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary lens, without their hoods. With a similar price tag ( about $700, now) and identical aperture range, I was initially surprised that anyone would consider trading the extra reach for a smaller lens, but I quickly started hearing from readers that this was the kind of thing that they were looking for, so when Sigma sent me one to test out, I was intrigued to find out which one I’d prefer using myself. Just months after I purchased the lens, though, Sigma announced a new lens: a more compact 100-400mm f/5-6.3. It’s cheap for a 600mm lens, at about $999 (or even less).Ībove Photo: Frank Clark, #55 defensive end for the Seattle Seahawks, shot with the Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm at 2018 training camp. I ended up keeping it in the trunk of my car, permanently, for those times when I’d spot some wildlife from the road, but I also got some use out of it for shooting sports. I don’t photograph wildlife very often these days, but I wanted a lens handy for those occasional times when I needed some extra reach. About a year and a half ago, I bought the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |