Sigma 100-400 F5-6.3 DG DN

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Guys,

I have 100-400 and using (well, trying at least) it on TL2 and SL.

On SL it is perfectly fine, however on TL2 Stabilisation in menu is off every time I switch camera off and have to manually enable it every time.

Anyone has the same issue?

[Shawn30]

SL2 Sigma 100-400. Mule deer passed out after consuming mass quantities of crabapples. Not a great picture, just thought people might like seeing one of our North American city deer…

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Serjey]

SL2-S + Sigma 100-400. My copy has no sharpness issues. Autofocus after Sony is so-so, but it is quite possible to shoot birds.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[tritentrue]

After reading some time ago about a firmware update for this lens that came out not too long after I ditched my previous copy, on a whim I decided to give it another try.  The main thing I noticed is that with the updated firmware, the spotty OS that previously plagued some shots is no longer an issue.

The main problem I had with the lens before was that it seemed to start getting softer on subject matter outside 10-12 meters, and declined progressively with distance.  Improved OS seems to help that, as does shooting in AF-S mode whenever the subject matter allows.  Using AF-C on closer subject matter, the CL's focus jitters necessitates clicking several shots on moving subject matter in order to get a few focused with critical accuracy.

Fortunately, the optical qualities of the lens helped by the improved OS now give it superb performance at near to moderate distances, and decent performance at longer distances, provided one has the patience to shoot multiple shots to ensure some critically-focused ones.  Again, this is a limitation of the CL, not the lens.

For my purposes, the firmware update took the lens from being undesirable due to its limitations, to being a relatively lightweight, good-handling, all-distance option for the CL; still far from perfect, but much improved.

Common Gliding Lizard at about 5 meters . . .

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Brown-Throated Sunbird, around 5-7 meters . . . 

 

White-Throated Kingfisher, 100% crop, this one at about 18 meters . . . 

 

[SJH]

On 4/18/2022 at 12:53 PM, tritentrue said:

After reading some time ago about a firmware update for this lens that came out not too long after I ditched my previous copy, on a whim I decided to give it another try.  The main thing I noticed is that with the updated firmware, the spotty OS that previously plagued some shots is no longer an issue.

The main problem I had with the lens before was that it seemed to start getting softer on subject matter outside 10-12 meters, and declined progressively with distance.  Improved OS seems to help that, as does shooting in AF-S mode whenever the subject matter allows.  Using AF-C on closer subject matter, the CL's focus jitters necessitates clicking several shots on moving subject matter in order to get a few focused with critical accuracy.

Fortunately, the optical qualities of the lens helped by the improved OS now give it superb performance at near to moderate distances, and decent performance at longer distances, provided one has the patience to shoot multiple shots to ensure some critically-focused ones.  Again, this is a limitation of the CL, not the lens.

For my purposes, the firmware update took the lens from being undesirable due to its limitations, to being a relatively lightweight, good-handling, all-distance option for the CL; still far from perfect, but much improved.

Common Gliding Lizard at about 5 meters . . .

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Brown-Throated Sunbird, around 5-7 meters . . . 

 

White-Throated Kingfisher, 100% crop, this one at about 18 meters . . . 

 

Thanks for posting this and given all the noise about people moving to the 150-600 when it came out (the serious wildlife shooters) I'd rather dropped the idea of getting this lens. However, it does seem to offer a decent performance now looking at your shots and do people feel it makes for a good relatively lightweight alternative to the 90-280 now with better reach, plus the option of an extender to go to 560 if needed? For hiking and a general super zoom it seems to be a better option than lugging the 150-600 around if your not an out and out wildlife photographer?

[tritentrue]

1 hour ago, SJH said:

Thanks for posting this and given all the noise about people moving to the 150-600 when it came out (the serious wildlife shooters) I'd rather dropped the idea of getting this lens. However, it does seem to offer a decent performance now looking at your shots and do people feel it makes for a good relatively lightweight alternative to the 90-280 now with better reach, plus the option of an extender to go to 560 if needed? For hiking and a general super zoom it seems to be a better option than lugging the 150-600 around if your not an out and out wildlife photographer?

The 150-600mm is an all-around superb lens if one doesn't mind the weight.  Handling on the CL was not ideal for me, and it went once my SL2-S was gone.

Yes, for an all-purpose zoom that can do a pretty good job on birds as well, the 100-400mm is now a great option.  CL with grip, lens, tripod collar, and hood weigh in at just a hair over 1.8kg, making the whole setup almost a pound lighter than the 150-600mm alone.   

[michali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/18/2022 at 1:53 PM, tritentrue said:

After reading some time ago about a firmware update for this lens that came out not too long after I ditched my previous copy, on a whim I decided to give it another try.  The main thing I noticed is that with the updated firmware, the spotty OS that previously plagued some shots is no longer an issue.

The main problem I had with the lens before was that it seemed to start getting softer on subject matter outside 10-12 meters, and declined progressively with distance.  Improved OS seems to help that, as does shooting in AF-S mode whenever the subject matter allows.  Using AF-C on closer subject matter, the CL's focus jitters necessitates clicking several shots on moving subject matter in order to get a few focused with critical accuracy.

Fortunately, the optical qualities of the lens helped by the improved OS now give it superb performance at near to moderate distances, and decent performance at longer distances, provided one has the patience to shoot multiple shots to ensure some critically-focused ones.  Again, this is a limitation of the CL, not the lens.

For my purposes, the firmware update took the lens from being undesirable due to its limitations, to being a relatively lightweight, good-handling, all-distance option for the CL; still far from perfect, but much improved.

Common Gliding Lizard at about 5 meters . . .

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Brown-Throated Sunbird, around 5-7 meters . . . 

 

White-Throated Kingfisher, 100% crop, this one at about 18 meters . . . 

 

Great shots Rob.

Best,

Mike

[tritentrue]

Following are two 100% crops taken at 20+ yards using AF-C, posted here to illustrate what I wrote about needing to take multiple shots to ensure focused ones.  My supposition is, as previously mentioned, it's due at least in part to the CL's focus jitters, which I experienced to a lesser degree with each of the SL series bodies.  If someone has a different idea, I'd love to be proven wrong by any idea that leads to a solution.

The first shot is not critically focused, something I've seen in many of my own shots as well as some shots posted by others with the Sigma 100-400mm and 150-600mm lenses.  I noticed it occurring, but not nearly as often with the SL 90-280mm and Lumix 70-200mm (both f/2.8 and f/4, with and without teleconverters).  The second shot is focused optimally. Each had the same amount of sharpening applied.  Click on images once for best view.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by tritentrue

[jaapv]

That second shot is excellent!  In would say the first on is not so much out of focus, but generally softish. Maybe a vestige of motion blur or shutter slap?  In any case, Topaz Sharpen AI will bring it up to the level of the second one easily.

[tritentrue]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That second shot is excellent!  In would say the first on is not so much out of focus, but generally softish. Maybe a vestige of motion blur or shutter slap?  In any case, Topaz Sharpen AI will bring it up to the level of the second one easily.

The second shot is what the lens is optically capable of 100% of the time.

I used electronic shutter and shot at 1/800, which is fast enough to freeze pretty much any perched bird in motion in these parts, with the possible exception of sunbirds and flowerpeckers.

If it were practical to post the whole series of shots I took of the Yellow Bittern, the issue with AF might be more obvious.  At any rate, with a better-stabilized image in the finder since the last firmware update, the issue with subject matter further than 10-12 meters away is much improved.  The lens is capable of really good imagery, as can be seen in other shots I posted in the CL image thread earlier today.

 

[SJH]

1 hour ago, tritentrue said:

The second shot is what the lens is optically capable of 100% of the time.

I used electronic shutter and shot at 1/800, which is fast enough to freeze pretty much any perched bird in motion in these parts, with the possible exception of sunbirds and flowerpeckers.

If it were practical to post the whole series of shots I took of the Yellow Bittern, the issue with AF might be more obvious.  At any rate, with a better-stabilized image in the finder since the last firmware update, the issue with subject matter further than 10-12 meters away is much improved.  The lens is capable of really good imagery, as can be seen in other shots I posted in the CL image thread earlier today.

 

Thanks for this really appreciated - great image in the second shot. I think it looks like a good viable option now if you want longer reach than the 90-280 SL (with adapter options as well) and not the bulk off the 150-600. I'm warming more and more to the Sigma DG DN lenses now, I've just acquired the 35mm 1.4 and 85 1.4, whilst my SL lenses are excellent the margins are now very close. 

[macromatic]

On 4/18/2022 at 12:53 PM, tritentrue said:

After reading some time ago about a firmware update for this lens that came out not too long after I ditched my previous copy, on a whim I decided to give it another try.  The main thing I noticed is that with the updated firmware, the spotty OS that previously plagued some shots is no longer an issue.

The main problem I had with the lens before was that it seemed to start getting softer on subject matter outside 10-12 meters, and declined progressively with distance.  Improved OS seems to help that, as does shooting in AF-S mode whenever the subject matter allows.  Using AF-C on closer subject matter, the CL's focus jitters necessitates clicking several shots on moving subject matter in order to get a few focused with critical accuracy.

Fortunately, the optical qualities of the lens helped by the improved OS now give it superb performance at near to moderate distances, and decent performance at longer distances, provided one has the patience to shoot multiple shots to ensure some critically-focused ones.  Again, this is a limitation of the CL, not the lens.

For my purposes, the firmware update took the lens from being undesirable due to its limitations, to being a relatively lightweight, good-handling, all-distance option for the CL; still far from perfect, but much improved.

Common Gliding Lizard at about 5 meters . . .

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Brown-Throated Sunbird, around 5-7 meters . . . 

 

White-Throated Kingfisher, 100% crop, this one at about 18 meters . . . 

 

Nice photos.

I've just purchased the SL 100-400 5/6.3 and I'm disappointed to be honest.

It is most definitely Sigma performance in a Leica body.

It isn't a bad lens, nor is it a great lens. It's just okay, and I think my copy is probably okay.

I reply to you because you found the same thing I did about the distance limitations.

Close to mid distance is decent, after that it get's a bit iffy.

I think I was spoilt by the Canon 100-400 MKII 4.5 which is frankly a superb telezoom lens, even adapted onto my l mount camera with the sigma smart adapter it worked reasonable.

The reason I wanted the SL 100-400 to be at least very close was because I wanted a native l mount lens for my camera to drop the need for the adapter. 100-400 is a useful size but a bit small for wildlife, but the 150-600 and 60-600 sigmas are heavy and too bulky for me.

The Canon at 400mm 6.3 (wide open) is very sharp, even at distance beyond what you would expect, and get's a bit sharper as you stop down.

The SL at 400mm 6.3 (wide open) is poor at the same distance, half that distance is soft and not great, but useable with some post processing. Closer again is acceptable and detail is enough that it can be used SOOC if need be.

I haven't done any scientific shots, but I did shoot some chimneys and walls... pointlessly no doubt.

For the price point of £2000, the SL 100-400 5/6.3 is in my opinion, an overpriced Sigma, which is what it is.

For £2300 you can have the Canon 100-400 4.5/6.3 and is an absolute bargain at that price, it also works extremely well with the 1.4 mkiii teleconverter which is £500. The SL 1.4 teleconverter is ~£700 ?

No comparison I don't think, the Canon is out and out a better buy. But, I often use it in manual even though the smart adapter allows for okay AF, I'm used to manual lenses.

The SL 100-400 AF works very well on my L mount camera. It is fast an accurate. No complaints. AF-C is junk thanks to CDAF on the camera.

As I'm often pushing the limits of the lens in respect of distance, I'm not sure I can keep this SL 100-400. 

It almost gets close to the Canon but I need to stop it down to around F9 / F10 to give the same sharpness as the Canon at 6.3. I haven't even tried both lenses at F5 but I suspect the Canon will blow the Sigma... I mean Leica away.

A chimney, junk test.

On the left: Canon F6.3 (wide open @ 400mm)

On the right: SL F6.3 (same)

 

Anyway, aside the aforementioned, I really wanted to like this lens. In fact I do, the weight is good (lighter than Canon) the zoom and focus is good (actually the focus throw is better than the canon in my opinion) and the build quality is okay, though I don't think it feels all that premium... The front lens cap is a bit loose and naff fit.

I was hoping the Leica dealer will say it's worth considering calibration, but in all  honesty I just don't think this Sigma... oh I did it again. I don't think this Leica has what it takes to be all that sharp.

 

[jaapv]

Not seeing the second shot...

If you parse this forum you'll find that quite a few users get results that do not merit your negative opinion; In my experience every lens needs a few weeks of experience to get a feeling for its use. The long Sigmas need Electronic Shutter to get rid of the softness, for example - at any shutter speed.

Disclosure: after a few months I traded the 100-400 for a 150-600 which is clearly the better lens. The 60-600 seems to be at least as good, maybe slightly better (but not so much that it is worth trading up and it is a bit of a lump). 

I use the  CL, SL 601 and Panasonic S5 for mainly wildlife and birds with these lenses. Disclosure: In the past I sold the Canon 100-400 after one trip into Africa. Not only was the IQ considerably less than the Vario-Elmar R 105-280 (+ Apo-extenders), it was a nasty dust pump. Canon L prime long L lenses are excellent in my experience, the zooms less so. I understand the 100-400 II is somewhat better.

So my advice: persist or get the 150-600 which is nice and compact for its specifications.

[macromatic]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Not seeing the second shot...

If you parse this forum you'll find that quite a few users get results that do not merit your negative opinion; In my experience every lens needs a few weeks of experience to get a feeling for its use. The long Sigmas need Electronic Shutter to get rid of the softness, for example - at any shutter speed.

Disclosure: after a few months I traded the 100-400 for a 150-600 which is clearly the better lens. The 60-600 seems to be at least as good, maybe slightly better (but not so much that it is worth trading up and it is a bit of a lump). 

I use the  CL, SL 601 and Panasonic S5 for mainly wildlife and birds with these lenses. Disclosure: In the past I sold the Canon 100-400 after one trip into Africa. Not only was the IQ considerably less than the Vario-Elmar R 105-280 (+ Apo-extenders), it was a nasty dust pump. Canon L prime long L lenses are excellent in my experience, the zooms less so. I understand the 100-400 II is somewhat better.

So my advice: persist or get the 150-600 which is nice and compact for its specifications.

Oops, I should clarify.

The image is merged together so the Canon on the left of the chimney and the SL on the left.  You can see they aren't aligned properly. 

Further.  Images were all the same that I took,  probably in access of 20 test images.  I used electronic shutter on all shots, I used iso 100, I used a tripod, and I used a 4 second shutter delay, and ibis was turned off.

The original Canon 100-400 was significantly inferior to the mark ii version,  I've never seen a bad complaint about the IQ of the mk ii.

I'm also familiar with shooting longish lenses handheld.  My go to lens until recently was a 30+ year old Canon FD 500 4.5 L. Which of course,  was fully manual and I used successfully for wildlife including BIF. So if say that if I can't get results from the SL then it's likely the lens. 

I will do more tests,  but I honestly think it's just not up to the standard of the Canon. If I have to stop down to F9 to get similar results of the Canon at F6.3, then it's not a great deal of use.  

 

Thanks

[jaapv]

That is quite possible. I think we are on the same track. I started wildlife with a  Telyt 400 V on Visoflex  3 and M 4   In  1988… 

As you see I got rid of mine as well  I wonder how much sample variation there is. 🥺

[macromatic]

22 hours ago, jaapv said:

That is quite possible. I think we are on the same track. I started wildlife with a  Telyt 400 V on Visoflex  3 and M 4   In  1988… 

As you see I got rid of mine as well  I wonder how much sample variation there is. 🥺

If I knew there was a better copy out there I would be looking for it as it could solve my current dilemma. Sadly I don't know whether this is as good as it gets or if my copy is junk.  Most shots I've seen look OK but aren't testing the lens particularly and are reflectively near shots rather than far shots.  I would like to think Leica have at least a tighter margin for tolerances on these lenses if nothing else.