I fell in love with the Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN

[dirk]

Hi,

after some of you discussed the Sigma 100-400 DG DN, I became more and more curious. Normally I do not need the long tele zoom. Only for sports of the kids. For this I use normally either my MFT set up or the Lumix 70-300 on my S5ii.

After you put this virus in my veins, I decided to give it a try and ordered it. Yesterday was the first opportunity to try it out in the field. And it really delivered. The reach up to 400mm is exactly these 100mm more than my Lumix 70-300, which I need on the hockey field in that age-class. The image quality is very good maybe even excellent (have to shoot more with it to be objective). Even in the corners.

AF is fast. Fast enough for field hockey, which is a sport you can not predict in which direction the kids move in the next second and many kids are in the way. Tracking was good.


I hate the weight and size of that lens, but it is a keeper. I will sell my Lumix 70-300 for it. No need for both.

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Contemporary 020
• 270.0 mm
• ƒ/6.2
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 320

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Contemporary 020
• 187.0 mm
• ƒ/5.8
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 800

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Contemporary 020
• 377.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 800

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Contemporary 020
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 1000

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Contemporary 020
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1000 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 800

I can not post more close up shots and for the AF more difficult shots, because then the face of the kids would be visible too much.

 

[dirk]

Strange, I do not see the exif data...

 

[Pete_W]

Looks really good Dirk.

I was shooting with the S5 when I purchased my 70-300 and avoided the Sigma 100-400 as I knew the DFD pulsing would be annoying in AF-C. Of course now that I have the S5II that problem has gone away.

Even so, for my use with train photography the atmospheric conditions at longer focal lengths is already a problem at 300mm for half the year here in Australia. So 400mm might be just too much.

 

[dirk]

I think if you do not need the extra 100mm, it does not make sense to carry the extra weight and bulk of the Sigma 100-400 DG DN.

I mean this zoom is something like 1.5kg vs. 800g of the Lumix 70-300 and 20cm long vs 15cm (see our lens overview at the top of this forum).

I would rather then wait for a future telezoom in the 70-200mm range which will probably lighter than the Lumix 70-300.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

At that weight... a Sigma 70-200/2.8 dg dn sport, with a 2x converter would be appealing. Only a "bit" more pricey

 

[dirk]

At that weight... a Sigma 70-200/2.8 dg dn sport, with a 2x converter would be appealing. Only a "bit" more pricey

But then your zoom range starts only at 140mm. With 100mm it is already almost too far away in some situations.

An advantage of the 70-300.

It all depends on where you can stand at the side of the hockey field and how much space is between the photographer and the field. Each Hockey club built these dimensions differently.

There is no time during the match to swap lenses or converters. For my use case with field hockey, the Sigma 100-400 is the best compromise for fullframe.

For MFT are other lens options available, especially the Olympus 40-150/2.8 pro and Leica 100-400 for MFT. I own neither of them.

In case Panasonic will bring out a good successor of the Lumix GX9, I might reconsider these 2 MFT telezoom lenses.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

That is why I had the XC50-230 el cheapo on Fuji. Lighter and 50mm zoom start, (but still very nice picture quality)
When I had my G80 mft camera I had the Lumix 100-300 (4-5.6) lens. Liked that one a lot. In 2020 I was looking for an upgrade and the G9 was expensive and big for mft. That is what drove me to Fuji, X-S10 body + 16-80 was just 80gr "heavier" but smaller overal, and the G9 was no question, heavier and bigger. But looking back to my 100-300 pictures, that is the lens I liked the most for mft, and my PanaLeica primes. (15/1.7 and 25/1.4)

But after using S5ii and GR3, there is no way to go back to either Fuji or mft.

 

[D_Ch]

But looking back to my 100-300 pictures, that is the lens I liked the most for mft, and my PanaLeica primes. (15/1.7 and 25/1.4)

I had the 100-300 for years, but never really liked it or used it much... Probably I'm not into long telephoto. Agree about the 15/1.7

But after using S5ii and GR3, there is no way to go back to either Fuji or mft.

Indeed for the S5ii, but for small size i kept the gx-80, and will probably get the 15mm again for it. Not a gr3, but has a VF and says Leica on the lens!

 

[dirk]

Although I really like my L-Moubt system, it can not replace my MFT system for my use cases. I am not talking about tele zooms only.

But same is true vice versa. I need both systems, although the focal ranges are overlapping 99%.

My Fuji system on the other hand has problems to see the daylight since around a year or so, although I even tried an XT5.

Nikon Z system is sold already 100%. L-Mount suits me better. Especially the Sigma i series lenses with aperture rings and metal housing. Fuji X100V sold too. Totally overhyped.

Ricoh GR3/GR3x will never part. Each has its place.

 

[Pete_W]

But looking back to my 100-300 pictures, that is the lens I liked the most for mft, and my PanaLeica primes. (15/1.7 and 25/1.4)

But after using S5ii and GR3, there is no way to go back to either Fuji or mft.

I am the same. I really liked my mft 100-300mm and have kept in in case there are situations where I want to go longer than FF 300mm.

But I like the output of the S5II so much I rarely take out the mft gear these days.