Sigma 120-400 vs Canon 100-400 for Birds

[Lance Warley]

Does anyone have actual experience with both, please, especially re AF speed and sharpness?

When I google it, there are plenty of threads, but most of them have speculation and pontification on the same old baloney rather than actual experience.

I've been using Canon's 400 5.6 for birds. As everyone knows, it's sharp and fast. However, I find myself missing shots because of too much glass, so I want to get a zoom that reaches to 400mm. I really dislike switching lenses back and forth.

I know I'll be giving up AF speed and some sharpness, compared to the 5.6 prime, but that's the trade-off I'll have to live with.

Here's a shot from Wako that I made with a 70-300mm at 240mm. You just can't make this shot with a 400.

[Bogdan Coltea]

There is an interesting review on Juza's website about various telephoto zooms:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...500_50-500.htm

Seems Canon's 100-400 is still 'king of the hill'.

[Lance Warley]

Thanks for the great link. That answers it.

It's amazing that an 11-year-old lens beats the newer technology.

[Michael Pancier]

beautiful image Lance. I'd opt for a 70-200 2.8L and a T/C