100-400L vs Bigma for action shots with 1D Mk II

[dulvariprestige]

I had the 100-400 for a couple of months, but sold it and bought a sigma 100-300 f4, f4 gave me twice the SS over 5.6, so when the light isn't great, I'm able to keep my SS's up without having to push the ISO too high.

As for dust, both the canon and the bigma's barrels extend out a fair bit, so whether you're twisting or pulling to zoom, the lens barrels are still moving in and out, plus I would've thought the canon would have better sealing than the sigma.

I've since added a sigma 1.4x TC to the 100-300, so now I have the option of a 140-420 5.6, and while the AF speed does drop, IQ still seems good at 5.6, and gets better when you start to close it down.

Here are a couple with the 100-300 and 1.4x TC, both shots have been slightly cropped.

This one @ 420mm and 5.6


snapper rocks by dulvariprestige, on Flickr

This one @ 210mm and 6.3


seagull sigma 100-300mmf4 by dulvariprestige, on Flickr

[Arg]

.....
This one @ 210mm and 6.3


seagull sigma 100-300mmf4 by dulvariprestige, on Flickr

Looks like you were holding a hot chip over your head with your left hand......

[amsm]

Thanks to everyoe for their input and their samples. I'm currently leaning towards sticking with the Canon, mainly because a friend of mine has recently bought the Sigma and i not altogeher happy with it. I do know though, that for everyone who isn't happy, there's probably at least one who is.

I have also noticed a $200 or more price drop at D-D recently, so I may pounce soon !