New Sigma lenses include a 100-400

TieuNgao

Senior Member
This tele lens is slow at f/6.3 but if it's light enough for hand-held shooting, sharp at wide open and have good AF, VR then I might want it, but the price must be reasonable! I'm waiting for the review...
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
100-400mm f/5-f/6.3

I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.

Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.

Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.
My thinking was much the same... Something is going to have to "give" in this new lens to make it the logical alternative to the 600mm's. That means weight and price-point if I had to guess.

On another note, I thought I was being sorely tempted by the 85mm Art series, but with that new 135mm f/1.8 on the horizon my plans have changed. If this turns out to be as good a lens as I'm thinking it will be I may just have to have one. Smart move on Sigma's part as well, if you ask me, considering the dearth of 135mm's on the market. Nikon makes the 135mm DC but beyond that?? . *crickets chirp*
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.

Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.

I see it differently there are already two very popular lenses in that range Nikon 80-400 and the Canon 100-400,both sport a f5.6 max and price tags around £2000,f6.3 is no hardship with modern camera sensors and focusing ability so if that keeps the price,size and weight down that could be good.
The pictures i have seen of it show no tripod mount and they say 67mm filter,all the signs of a fairly light lens,if you take the popularity of the 150-600 any other zoom sigma make that ends around 500mm is in my mind the wasted lens,my first long lens;) was a Sigma 120-400 so whilst 500/600 is nice i know 400 is very useable.

It just needs to be followed by a 100-400 f4 sport ;)
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.

Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.

Did I read somewhere that the 100-400mm was a DX lens? That could make some sense, just in smaller packaging, but otherwise I agree!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I don't know what you read but DG, in Sigma parlance, indicates a full-frame lens (vs DC for ASPC glass).

I was a blog post I thought I read somewhere, maybe Nikon Rumors, where they were also wrapping their mind around the 14mm. It was early rumor info, so quite likely wrong and par for the course for me lately. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I was a blog post I thought I read somewhere, maybe Nikon Rumors, where they were also wrapping their mind around the 14mm. It was early rumor info, so quite likely wrong and par for the course for me lately. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blame the media; fake news and what not... It's my Go-To Excuse!
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
Mike just gave me the heads up about this lens and I can see it being a very worthwhile addition.

I love my 200-500mm but it is bloody heavy and the sigma sport 150-600mm is even heavier. That's fine for day trips but it is far from ideal to take travelling due to its bulk and weight. If this lens can produce comparable IQ I'd be happy to compromise on reach for ease of travelling with it.
It could also be a fantastic lens for someone like my wife. She likes shooting wildlife but 200-500mm is far to heavy and the 70-300mm she uses just doesn't quite have enough reach and the IQ is a step down. This could be the perfect lens for her, at least that is what I will be trying to convince her of so I have a better chance of getting my hands on one.
Shame it's not an f4-5.6 but I'm more interested in lower weight and price and as Mike pointed out f6.3 isn't too bad with modern cameras.
 

TieuNgao

Senior Member
I don't have the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. I think they're too big and too heavy for my needs as a casual wildlife/sports photographer.
The Nikon 70-300 is too soft at the tele end and doesn't have enough reach. Nikon 80-400 is too expensive at $2300. So this Sigma 100-400 would fill my bill nicely. It's light enough at 1160 gr, priced at rumored amount of $1000, and the MTF curve at 400mm is very impressive.
Sigma 100-400mm MTF.jpg
 

BeerBelly

Senior Member
I actually expect the price to be around $700. It's a smaller, lighter brother to the 150-600 so the price should reflect that in my opinion.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I liked my 120-400 there was a lot of rubbish talked about it but i found it to be a none too bad lens.

samples from the old 120-400

14286847729_4e0c5c35a1_o.jpg


14286847739_a5f472337c_o.jpg


14320927595_e39a47b47a_o.jpg
 

captain birdseye

Senior Member
The close up performance of the sigma 100-400 may be of interest to those who are in to butterflys and dragonflys (this is where the nikon 80-400 falls short but the cannon 100-400 shines).
 
Top