Hello, i'm looking to start doing some surf photography and i was thinking about getting the sigma, but according to your review the autofocus of the GM is way better. Would you recommend getting the GM over the sigma for surf photography?
I have used the 100-400 Sigma on Nikon gear before moving to Sony. It is a back-up lens for me and light weight travel lens. My main lens now is the 200-600 that I use with a TC1.4 in good light. Going back on past experience with Nikon and how I use the lens, the money difference makes no logical sense. But if the 100-400 is our main lens and you want to use it with the 1.4 or 2.0 TC's for extra reach take the Sony. The G master lenses are very good, pricy but very refines. For those on a tighter budget or for a use case as described the Sigma is incredible value and optically very good. Like with every lens, understand the good and the limitations and you will have great results.
you prolly dont care at all but does anybody know a way to log back into an instagram account?? I was stupid forgot the account password. I love any help you can offer me
I have had the lens for a few days. Unfortunately, the front lens barrel extends automatically when the lens is held down. Is that the same with your example? It's quite annoying, unfortunately. Many thanks in advance!
You have to carry two extra lens if you have sigma. Because you lose macro capabilities, range of teleconverters and most important super fast focusing.. And you also fps if you own a A1 or A9.
I got the Sigma last weekend and shot my daughter's soccer game on Sunday. For humans running it was spot on with AF on an A7III. Images are sharp with great contrast. Great for casual amateurs. Very happy with it for 40% the price of a GM.
I have had the lens for a few days. Unfortunately, the front lens barrel extends automatically when the lens is held down. Is that the same with your example? It's quite annoying, unfortunately. Many thanks in advance!
I second Alvaro’s emotion. I’d love to see a showdown between sigma 100-400 and Sony 70-350. I think a lot of people I’ve read are stumped on this. Thanks Stefan. Great review 😊
I have the GM. For me is the best telephoto lens i have ever owned. With the teleconverter it reaches 560mm (840mm crop mode), the magnification makes it an" almost "macro. I believe it is one of few GM lens at today that is worth every extra penny you pay.
This is a great comparison, the best I've seen! Its such a tough call.. HUGE price difference. But the extra close focusing macro capability and the ability ot use Teleconverters are pretty big wins for the Sony.. If I still had my 90mm macro I wouldn't care. But the fact that the GM can perform a bit like a macro lens, plus be awesome for landscape and wildlife, is swaying me towards the GM. I might just sell my 70-200 F4. Although, the extra few hundred grams of weight savings on the Sigma is a win for backpacking/hiking....
Already have the GM and love love love it. Easily my 2nd most used lens. BUT - had the Sigma been around when I got it, I might have opted for that one instead.
@@orlandorolon6139 Friend of mine got the Sigma and has zero regrets. For the money it is a lovely lens. The main things the Sony will buy you (but at a much higher cost) are that it has much closer focussing distance of only 3 feet (1 meter), it's a stop brighter, and can take Sony's excellent teleconverters (which I love for portability reasons). If you don't mind 1 stop less light, don't need the short focus distance, and don't foresee needing the converters, then you won't regret the Sigma.
Thanks Stefan. Another great comparison. I have the Sigma 100-400 DG version for EF on an MC11 adaptor for the last 4years and from commercial to sport to action to nature it has surprised me so much with its AF speed and accuracy and its image quality at max aperture, at all focal lengths. I think its the perfect compromise in weight and features but really performs. I would like to try the Sony but its not an off the shelf product. But for me, the updated sigma should be amazing from family, golf, tennis, football, conference, landscape, anything outdoors, it performs. Focal range and weight is just right. I might however checkout the coming Tamron 50-400 as replacement. Looking forward to a comparitive review on that.
I've been using the Sigma here in Florida paired with the a7riii. I'm really considering the Sony. I've been using it for some wildlife and BIF and have lots of misses. Also, I get a lot of noise in my shots, I've played with various settings. Also, I believe the Sony is sharper, faster to focus, minimum focus distance is attractive and I like option for the 1.4x TC. I've seen the lens with EDU discount at $2148. May continue to look for even better bargain, but may return the Sigma.
Let's keep in mind the only "weather sealing" the Sigma has is the rear rubber seal. I had the Sigma, shot it a few times at the zoo (about 400 shots) and it is already full of dust. I may have been unlucky and got a bad copy but you do get what you pay for. If you shoot outdoors a lot, save up for the GM. Had the GM for a while and there's not a single speck in it. For those who claims a few specks doesn't affect IQ, no it doesn't in the short term but overtime it will. Sigma is perfect for those on a budget and/or doesn't shoot outdoor often, if you want a reliable telephoto to take literally anywhere, get the GM.
It cost me $5 more to rent the GM so I tried both and for the price I’m definitely getting sigma since I don’t make that much money with photography it’s mostly just a hobby
Thanks for the comparison.Long time waited,and finally the video is on.I will definitely buy g master,because I like to have atleast one sony lens g master series and my choice is this 100 400 g master.I can't wait when my lens will arrive.Great video as always.Keep doing good job 😎👊👍
Some more advantages for the Sigma you might consider: Handling size is more manageable (esp in tight spaces), black color is less conspicuous, push pull zooming is incredibly fast, smooth, and responsive (and works well with the lens hood facing forward or back), and the sigma includes a close focus range switch and 3rd mode for stabilization, neither of which are featured on the GM. If Sony hadn't inked in a deal to prevent Sigma from selling E mount teleconverters this would be the superior option for many...
@@shadowboxing2922 Sigma has two optical stabilization modes, not 3. The third is 'off'. The GM has this separated into two switches: "mode 1 or 2" & "on or off". Exactly the same features, but in different switch configs. The (only) additional thing Sigma has is a close focus limiter option on the AF range switch. GM range is only 3m-full or full. Sigma has 0-6m, 6-full, full.
I would love to see a comparison between the Sony 70-350mm and the Sigma 100-400mm E Mount. Those are the best value telephoto lenses available for APS-C Sony cameras.
Funnily enough I’m in the same boat trying to decide. I want a full frame eventually anyways so I’m leaning Sigma, but as a dedicated APS-C that 70-350 looks pretty great.
@@erwinvarelanunez2371 70-350, and no regrets. Want an idea how much I love that lens? In the past 2 years my photography has exploded. I’ve invested into 2 full frame cameras with close to a dozen different lenses. And at the moment I own only 2 APS-C lenses: an ultra compact 10-20mm f/4 that renders my A6600 a pocket camera and that 70-350. The size and weight of it are impossible to replicate, it’s SO small. The stabilization isn’t half bad. The image quality is pretty great. I’m not exaggerating when I say my APS-C’s entire existence is justified by this one lens. It’s not something you really appreciate though until you find yourself with larger lenses and wondering how the heck you’re supposed to fit an A7IV with a 200-600 onto a carryon backpack with all your other stuff. Or go on a hike with the stuff. Or just want to not really stand out as the guy with the huge camera.
@@zacharymoran7596 HAHAHA thank you very much for taking the time to answer large an plenty, i really needed a real experience and not the bunch of videos where rely only in fast review game. i would like to follow on ig to see your work!
at 4:45 the moon shots are labelled as 100mm and 400mm yet the moon diameters had about a 2:3 ratio instead of a 1:4 ratio so something went wrong in production.
Hi Stefan! i love your videos but in this one, I think you were not fair in size comparison to Sigma. As you say in other categories, it is splitting hairs, but you still give advantage to Sony, I think size-wise it is even more of a difference than for example features. I own the GM and it is an amazing lens, but I have a friend that owns Sigma, and the weight difference, although not huge, is noticable, but even more important than that - the width of the lens. I have decently sized hands and fingers (I am 6'2) and even after more than a year of owning GM, I wish it was a bit narrower because turning the zoom ring or just holding it is not the most pleasant experience. Sigma on the other hand is just right, something like 70-200 GM. Tiny difference on the paper, but huge in long term holding in reality. It also has smaller filter thread. When you add all that up (weight, width, filter thread size...), it deserves a win there. plus have to say after a year, I still find that tightening ring pointless. Lens creeps on any setting and I put it all the way to smooth every single time because it allows me for fast twists. I think for carrying it, zoom lock is much more useful. Can't understand Sony's oversight on that matter, or at least really locking the barrel on tight setting. Anyway, good comparison, just give the credit to Sigma on the size category, it deserves it :)
Oh man, this is definitely a big video I was hoping for. Hopefully it’ll help make some sense of the pros and cons between the two, I just want the Sigma to have decent AF and Sharpness, on par with Sony’s 50 f/1.8 (which isn’t the most accurate or sharpest). BTW, I feel like there’s no discernible difference between the 400 and 540 crop, the bird doesn’t get bigger and the background doesn’t change in size either.. the horizon just gets bumped upwards slightly
Stefan....this is probably the best direct comparison video between these two lenses but I wish you had touched on which lens might be better for landscape photography though. I also wanted to say that Category #3 - Performance; in my mind at least the Sony was not a clear winner - it won, yes, but I think that the Sigma proved it can hold its own against the Sony. Overall, I enjoyed the video...and I'll probably purchase the Sigma.
I definitely would have given the win to the Sigma on the weight category. That half a pound really does make a big difference in long handheld shooting sessions. Other than that, great review - really helps with decision-making.
Nice review. Already have the Sony, but I've noticed a massive designflaw. It suffers from quite heavy vignetting. If you shoot towards a relatively flat background at like f/14 at anything between 200-400mm and increase the contrast or dehaze that vignette becomes very visible as a ring in your photo. That vignette ring changes at different apertures. I've tried two different Sony 100-400 and it was the same in both. Do you also get that ring/vignette with your Sony and maybe the Sigma?
i've noticed there's an image quality difference between the sony and sigma. The sigma constantly reminds me of the cheap canon lenses whereas the sony is just better quality overall. The difference is noticable
Thank you for the next comparison video. Somehow I prefer such reviews over single-lens-reviews :-) These are a great times for Sony shooters. But at the same time it is soooo difficult to make a decision before buying the lens. I am still in the middle of the decision-making-process between Sigma 100 400 DN, Sony 70 300 G and Tamron 70 300. And what is even worse: Sigma, Tamron and Sony are announcing the new lenses to come in 2021 but there is no detailed road maps from them ... Nevertheless , it is better to have too many options then too less :)
I'm having the same same sameeeee issue D: I currently have the Tamron 70-180 and I love it, but it falls short at 180mm. I really think all 3 lenses will be great for what I want D,:
@@Francisco_Otero yeah ;-) regarding Tamron 2.8: I would love to have Sigma 70-200 2.8 for aperture plus 2x converter (140-400 5.6) for a reach. But I am afraid it will be never an option...
@@JonathanAkosah I have a 6400 and just purchased the sony 70-200mm F4. I want to mostly shoot surfing and landscapes. I am probably going to return the 70-200mm for its lack of reach and am torn between the sigma and the sony 100-400. Have you been able to test the sigma at all for anything fast moving yet?
@@danielcotter9202 Not yet, but I'd still stick with this sigma over the sony. Personally. 1) I just prefer sigma, I have the 56 & the 24-70. 2) the price difference 3) I like the push pull design. 4) i sold the 70-300 I had For this lens & the 70-350 would Also be a waste b/c it's the same Final aperture but I'm losing the 50mm at the end when I Wanted more reach for my sports shooting in the first place, & I felt the 70-100mm in the front was negligible from my metadata of my previous work. So all in all I'd still go with the sigma, and I'm still waiting for sports so I can shoot/test
Great review again bro! Loving my viltrox 85mm btw! Could you do a comparison on the 70-300 sony vs tamron?? I own the sony version but im thinking about selling it and buying the tamron. Would love to see your comparison!
It's easy for me, Stefan. I chose the Sigma and using it on an old Nikon d7000 for birds mainly because i believe i don't hold on to my lens for long and I can't tell from your images from which lens it came from..lol. Photography is just a hobby for me and playing with different cameras and lens is also part of that hobby, therefore always changing and upgrading. However if I was making money off of these equipment go pro-level because it will pay for itself in due time anyway. Thanks for sharing!
The biggest knock against Sigmas were their propensity to suck dust into the lens. I don't know if it's still the case. You'll just have to ask people who own this lens.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Of course the Sony is going to win in nearly every category, it’s the superior lens and it’s Sony native to boot. This comparison is like comparing a Mercedes to a VW. Great video format though. Your videos aren’t so long that I lose interest, I’d say they’re just right.
I've got the Sigma 100-400DN on a A6600. Haven't tried the Sony but have tried the 200-600. Anyways I shoot BIF a lot and do find the AF accuracy could be better. Now I have to wonder how much better the Sony AF is because my budget is Sigma orientated :/
Thanks for the overview. The Sigma is indeed a great option but Sony’s minimal focus distance, f-stop and better/faster focus are bigger of a deal then most people would think. Unfortunately Sony knows what they have built and wants real money from their customers :(
Not to mention GM's full weather sealing. If you dig into Sigma's website, they only mentioned "Mount with Dust and Splash Resistant Structure The mount features a special sealing to make the lens an excellent choice in a wide variety of conditions". Only the mount gets the seal, the rest of the lens is not. My Sigma took around 400 shots at a zoo before it was full of dust.
Thanks for the great review! I already have the Sigma but going to the tropics for a few months and worried about the humidy, would you suggest upgrading to the Sony for the purpose of the trip and maybe swapping back after maybe?
If you are serious about your photography then 100%. You could add the 1.4x tc if needed for extra versatility. The biggest difference will be in fast moving subject keepers.
@@StefanMalloch Thank you! Most my shooting will be of surfing action so that will certainly come in handy. I think that plus the better weather sealing makes it worth the investment. It seems photo quality is not that much different though and the Sigma is way lighter which makes handheld usage more appealing. I won't have the tripod to hand much as will be travelling light on a moped..
Great comparison....I find the price difference is a huge factor here for me. Just like you said for the price point the sigma is an outstanding lens. I think I will go with the Sigma esp since I don't wanna fork our an extra $1000 😳🙏
I recently bought a new 100-400 GM and when mounted on my A7IV and A7RV there is a slight rotational wobble (clockwise-counterclockwise) which I never experienced in another lens. Also tried it on my good old A7III and on that it does not wobble. I notice the wobble when holding the lens and the body handheld and rotating the zoom ring (smoothest setting) Anyone else noticed this? Is it normal?
I guess the question to ask is......"Is the Sony $1500 better than the Sigma?" I think only for those that are tracking birds and need the auto-focus to be near perfect. IMO.
Easily yes. Not everyone is in need of professional lenses though. Heck phones take good pictures these days so its all about what you're capable of doing with it.
I would like to see a comparison between the Sigma 100-400mm and the Sony 200-600mm especially with a Sony a7RIV. I think the Sony 200-600mm is a dog for the price and the Sigma will outshine it.
The Sigma unfortunately falls apart when it comes to fast moving subjects so it gets ruled out as a birding lens for me. The 200-600 although a great birding lens, is hugely big and heavy. Trade offs.
Guessed all but one right. Too bad most lens tests these days are all about sharpness alone. To be honest - i just hate that warm sigma rendering to the guts. It's lacking contrast and is looking so washed out. Idk - maybe it's just me, but i felt the same way about most recent Sigma releases. Anyone can relate?
Exactly the same here. Despite me owning and loving this particular Sigma lens (it's a bargain for what it does so well!), I've never bought a Sigma lens for its rendering. They are all sharp and technically good for sure and/but that's pretty much the end of the story. Voigtländer, Zeiss and even GM lenses give notably more tactile images, in my experience.
From all the pictures I see, the Sigma always seems a little soft around the animal's eyes compared to the GM. This is a big deal. It's possible that there isn't a big sample size.
If you Have the money then go for de GM, but you will get almost 95% of the GM with the Sigma. The Sigma Is smaller, lighter and much cheaper, and also a very good lens.
Not at all. The GM is way more consistent, sharper and better built. The Sigma and tamron definitely won't stand up to 20+ fps. It depends on your needs. For the average hobbiest, the budget options should do just fine.
This is an apples to oranges review. That sigma doesn’t even come close to touching the Sony glass. I made the mistake of listening to reviews like this when the Sigma lens first came out and I purchased it… I’m here to tell you it was a huge mistake. I’m not inexperienced and the sigma lens will net you soft images every time.
I’ve never experienced “soft”. Perhaps your Sigma was defective. Mine is unbelievably sharp from corner to corner. I have GM’s, this Sigma competes well. Their “Trio” on aps is also phenomenal.
@@keystonebrotherb That’s interesting I’ve tried everything to get my 100 to 400 to produce a sharp image. Mind you I’m pixel peeping to 300% Maybe it is time to look at calibration or something along those lines with my lens.
Stefan you need to work on the thumbnail. It took me alot of time to click on this video, coz that thumbnail made it look like this is some cheap on paper comparison video.
again the usual error about autofocus , the lens does notg do any autofocus it only translates the data from the camera for the focussing motors and sony is known for purposefully make 3rd party lenses work not as good as their own , canon and all the others too btw ,need to have an excuse to sell those lenses for more. you can test it with older cameras where they didn`t fear the competition , use original and third party and you will have the same af performance (that of the camera) and if you use the more modern ones where competition became more important you will see a significant difference in performance for the exact same 3rd party lens. canon simply limits 3rd party lenses so they don´t need to resort to that yet.
