Comparing Apples to Apples (or Lenses to Lenses, I guess…)
I’d been eyeing the Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary Telephoto Zoom for my camera (an older Canon T5, for anyone who cares) for a while now. But, there were some nagging questions I had that I couldn’t seem to find answers to… or at least ones with a frame of reference I could relate to.
I eventually just took a leap of faith and bought one based on the good press they seemed to be getting out there, and these are the answers to those couple of questions just in case anyone else is wondering for themselves and can’t find the answers…
First a couple disclaimers. I don’t consider myself a “professional” photographer. I’ve had some lucky shots and I’ve sold a few images here and there from time to time, so not a super novice, but… a professional, debatable. Next, the shots in this review are lacking, but not the lenses’ fault. The lighting was far from ideal it was a dark cloudy day and I was rushing with the sun going down. Lastly, obviously too much caffeine today, because I was having a hell of time keeping my hand steady (wasn’t using a tripod).
Reach: How close does 400mm actually get you?
My Canon T5 is an 18-megapixel camera and has a CMOS crop sensor so the images shown have an approximate 1.6x factor applied to the lens’ focal length (so, technically the question could be “How close does 540mm actually get you?”). For sake of ease, I’m just going to say 400mm and if you have a different sized sensor, I’ll leave it to you to do the math.
So, for frame of reference… I stood a measured 20 feet away from the subject matter for each shot. Why did I choose 20 feet… because I couldn’t find my longer tape measure and it was a nice round number (I’m OCD like that). Yes, I probably should have used a distance more in line with how close you can safely expect to get to a wild animal. I took photos of what I hope we all have a common frame of reference to for size… a Lego figure. Now, if you do not know the size of a Lego figure, first, let’s take a moment of silence for your difficult Legoless childhood… Okay, done? A Lego figure stands 1.75 inches tall and about an inch wide, so roughly, let’s say, thumb sized.
I used three lenses, a kit 18-55mm Canon lens, an entry level 55-250 mm Canon zoom lens and finally the Sigma 100-400mm zoom lens. I took shots at 18mm, 35 mm and 55mm with the kit lens. Then, 55mm, 100mm and 250mm with the entry level Canon zoom. And finally, 100mm, 250mm and 400 mm with the Sigma. This hopefully gives you an image at a “mm” range you have and it gave me a couple of common points (100mm and 250mm) to compare the Canon Zoom to the Sigma Zoom which I’ll touch on later.
Canon 18mm Kit Lens
Canon 35mm Kit Lens
Canon 55mm Kit Lens
Canon 55mm Entry Zoom
Canon 100mm Entry Zoom
Sigma 100mm Sigma C Zoom
Canon 250mm Entry Zoom
Sigma 250mm Sigma C Zoom
Sigma 400mm Sigma C Zoom
So, just to recap (for those of us with short attention spans)
From this (Canon 18mm Kit Lens)…
To this (Sigma 400mm Sigma C Zoom)…
Focal Lengths: Is Sigma’s focal lengths equivalent to Canon’s Focal lengths
This next question only surfaced as I read other people’s review and comments. One thing I encountered were people saying that the Sigma 400mm focal length was an overstatement of the lens’ true range and that a Canon lens at 400mm would get you closer to your subject matter than the Sigma would. This is why I made the comment about having two common points at 100mm and 250mm earlier.
I can’t compare these lenses at 400 mm, because I’m a nobody and big companies aren’t sending me equipment for free to test out and post my thoroughly riveting views on… But I’m not about to look a gift horse in the mouth if you’re so inclined. And from a budgetary point of view, I would need to be a damn site better off before I buy a second 100-400mm lens just to do a comparison, so we’ll use what we have at hand.
Here’s what I can say (and you can compare for yourselves with the images above), the last two shots from the Canon Zoom and the first two shots from the Sigma Zoom look pretty damn close to my eyes. Maybe these things get weird at 400mm… but, Sigma seems like a fairly reputable company to me, and I’m pretty sure these things are based on actual mathematical calculations… so, I am sceptical that there is any difference at the 400mm point as some are suggesting, but no, I guess I cannot prove that.
Auto-Focus: How are the auto focus speeds?
I had heard some complaining about the Sigma Auto-focus speed, but while researching the lens as well… I really don’t think I’ve experienced a huge difference in the Sigma lens compared to the two-canon lenses... sometimes I think maybe it is a hair slower, but seeing as you can’t take the exact same shot, in the exact same conditions, at the exact same time with two different lenses… it’s kind of hard to say with any real certainty. Yes, I have had a couple cases where it searched back and forth trying to get the AF to lock on, but the Canon 55-250mm does this too. I think it is more a case of trying to lock auto focus onto a flying bird in a mostly monotone sky at a decently zoomed in degree doesn’t give your camera’s system much contrast to lock onto… but I’m more guess than know this for a fact.
Size: How big is it?
I want full recognition for the restraint shown by not outwardly making any “does size matter” innuendos, after all, I have the intellect of an average adolescent boy… and I wanted to. Seriously though, I had a real problem with deciding if the 100-400 Sigma Zoom was what I wanted or if I actually wanted the 150mm-600mm. Some said 400mm wasn’t enough reach, other said the 600mm is too unruly size-wise. Here’s the problem… I think they may both be right. Problem is I don’t have the 150mm-600mm to compare the 100mm-400mm with.
Again, for frame of reference, here are a couple images to give you some idea what we are talking about here:
Shake: Do I need a tripod to take decent shots?
I don’t think the average person will need to use a tripod with the Sigma 100-400mm C Lens. Obviously, so does Sigma seeing as there is no shoe for attaching to a tripod built into this lens. But, third party ones do exist and they are pretty reasonable (starting around $70 dollars Canadian on Amazon at the time of writing this, but try to support your local store if your budget and their stocking habits allow). I suspect I will pick one up at some point down the road, but I wouldn’t say one is a necessity.
If I had gone up to the 150-600mm Sigma I suspect a tripod may be beneficial. And I have a tripod, so no big deal there but I hardly ever travel with it, so not only would there be the additional weight of for the further reach, but there would be the addition of strapping a tripod to my kit bag, and truthfully, I find tripods a bit of a hassle and only use them when they are a must.
Overall: How did I decide and am I happy with that decision?
I looked at it this way… Yes, I wanted the extra 600 mm reach, but not the extra weight or more to the point the need to have a tripod with me all the time. So, I figure the 100-400mm was the best option for me, and I can get a teleconverter to extend my reach at a later date, which will fit in my kit bag way easier than the 150-600mm and strapping a tripod to the side full-time. One other point, I noticed that the 100-400mm was also listed as a “Macro” lens. It may not be a true “Macro” specific lens, but with 400mm it was another tick in the pro column for me.
As far as choosing Sigma over Canon this was simple, it was made for me. The price tag on the Canon put it decently out of my present budget range, as I suspect it is for a lot of people. At basically a third of the price even if you had the budget for the Canon 100-400mm Lens, the Canon Lens a higher quality lens, probably (Canon Glass is pretty good) is the Canon 3 times better though? Judging by the comparisons I’ve viewed online in my quest for information, no it’s likely not 3 times better. Let’s say it is 3 times better… do you need a lens that is 3 times better to be happy with your shots.
It’s early days for me with only one practical trip out using this lens, but I definitely like the results I see so far. An aside here, this lens is compatible with the Sigma USB-Dock (I found some contrary data online for that, but I contacted Sigma directly and they double checked an assured me it was) and I ordered one, not so much because I thought it necessary, more because I figured I was in this far, for an extra $85 dollars Canadian… why not. As I refine the lens and use the Dock calibration system I will post more of my thoughts as I become more acquainted with the new lens.