Does anyone have any experience with the new Siggy 100-400. I have a Nikon AFS 70-300 and would like a bit more reach and sharpness on the long end. The 200-500 5.6 seems to me to be a bit too much on several different fronts. Size and weight foremost.
Comments
as far as i know the 2 main weaknesses are
1) the aperture at 400 is a bit dark and evening shoots will mean that you will have to pack up earlier.. or switch lenses
2) although acquiring focus with static subjects is quite good.. it really falls over with moving subjects .. so BIF or action sports is not what you will be using this lense for.
Not to sound negative but those 2 weakneses are very minor if you consider all the uses this lense could be used for.. and its weight and size..
Yea i am still considering it but the new afp 70-300 may be a better choice in some cases in-spite of it being shorter. Its your own personal subjects and interest that you will need to consider.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
I also found the 100-400 Sigma was fairly slow in attempts at very fast focus, so BIF outdoors be pretty tough, just saw some D7200 shots of Blue Heron taking off and those were done with the 150-600 Tamron, so,it can be done, but it like always depends on who, where and how. The new 70-300 AF-P FX lens is the only one Nikon has ever made I do not yet own.