Lenses
There are 929 lenses in our database and 476 owners opinions.
You can also
compare lenses side-by-side
Specifications:
| Manufacturer | Sigma |
|---|---|
| Model | 100-300 mm f/4 DG EX APO IF HSM |
| Lens style | Telephoto zoom |
| Focal length | 100 - 300 mm |
| Maximum aperture | f/4 |
| Angle of view | 24.4 - 8.2 o |
| Closest focusing distance | 1.8 m |
| Maximum magnification | 1:5 |
| Minimum aperture | 32 |
| Number of diaphragm blades | 9 |
| Auto focus type | AF HSM |
| Lens Construction | 16 elements / 14 groups |
| Filter diameter | 82 mm |
| Macro | No |
| Available mounts | Canon Nikon KM/Sony Sigma Pentax/Samsung |
| Dimensions | 92.4 x 226.5 mm |
| Weight | 1440 g |
| Additional information |
Average rating (1 owners reviews).
| Build quality | 5.00 |  |
|---|---|---|
| Optical quality | 5.00 | |
| Value for money | 5.00 | |
| Overall | 5.00 | |
| Build quality |  |
|---|---|
| Optical quality | |
| Value for money | |
| Overall | |
Owner since: 2 years
Price: PLN 3400
User profile: Amateur
Cons: - lacks image stabilization - rather big, heavy, draws attention
Pros: - Excellent image quality, particularly at 100-200 mm, even wide-open - Very good image quality at 300 mm, even wide-open - EX finish - Comes with a pouch, a tripod mount and a lens hood - Internal focusing and zooming - Decent, constant aperture of F/4 - HSM - Works OK with Canon's x1,4 converter ( I don't recommend kenko or sigma though )
Summary: Looking for a telephoto lens, I faced the common dilemma of choosing between Canon 70-200/4 L and Canon 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS. I really needed the 300 mm but I felt the 70-300 was not good enough. Then I found the sigma. For me, it is the longer version of 70-200 L. It is one of the best lenses Sigma ever made and it really can be called an L's match. I'm very satisfied with the lens. It's sharp wide-open, it has a fast AF motor, it's sturdy, the front element doesn't rotate. It works with a converter. The only drawbacks I can think are the lack of image stabilization and the dimensions of the barrel. It's pretty heavy and it draws a bit too much attention (at least it's not white). It is,however, expected of a lens this long and fast. Would I buy 400/5.6 L or 300/4 IS L instead? I guess not. First of all, they are (or were, at the time I purchased my sigma) more expensive. They're also less versatile. I must, however, admit that the images produced by them are better than what is offered by Sigma.
