Sigma 100-300 f/4

[adam]

I take a lot ("http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6386527) of pictures ("http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6214126) of airplanes ("http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6131179). It's sort of like bird photography, but the birds are big and move very predictably. I went through a long process of trying to find a lens I liked for this purpose...the Canon 100-400 L is generally considered the best lens for this purpose. I've rented it a couple of times, but I don't like it...the push-pull zoom isn't intuitive for me, and the image quality is good but I've seen better.


So I got a great deal on a used Sigma 100-300 f/4 a few months ago. I absolutely love it. It has a zoom ring (with internal zoom!) and constant aperture, focuses quickly and accurately on my 40D, and is sharper than the 100-400 at shared focal lengths and apertures, and takes a teleconverter reasonably well.


Does anyone else use this lens and have either good or bad opinions on it? It doesn't seem to be very popular, which kind of surprises me... Bryan, any chance of a review? :) It fits into the "no first-party equivalent available" category.

[Bryan Carnathan]

Thanks for the suggestion Adam - and nice shots. Being from Pennsylvania, I especially like the Steeler's plane. :)


I've heard good things about this lens from others as well. I'll put it on the to-do list. :)

[Matt P]

I've actually been looking into a longer zoom lens as my 70-200 f/4 isn't long enough. I found also that I hated the push pull of the 100-400. How is the size and weight of the 100-300? That was my biggest concern.

[adam]

I've actually been looking into a longer zoom lens as my 70-200 f/4 isn't long enough. I found also that I hated the push pull of the 100-400. How is the size and weight of the 100-300? That was my biggest concern.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





It's pretty similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS...a bit longer, but about the same weight and handling characteristics. And no IS.