After my 35-350 has been dropped in VicFalls and can no longer be repaired, I needed for another trip to Africa especially for my 1DMII urgently a replacement in the area around the 400mm. I tested one week the Sigma 120-400OS against the Canon 100-400IS. The Sigma is an excellent workmanship and was likeable to me right away, even though I'm really zeroed in on sliding zoom. The OS of the Sigma and the Canon IS take little or nothing, while the AF Canon has something - for me but not decisive - in the lead. Dimmed the Sigma with the Canon is quite on a level, even with maximum aperture ists to 300mm useful. And it then cost about half as much as the Canon. BUT: Nevertheless, I myself then decided rather quickly to get the Canon. The Sigma is simply too bad at 400mm and maximum aperture. I need it for Safari and that interests me at such low-light lenses exclusively Endbrennweite with open aperture. And since the difference is quite simply too great. Of course it is not in the existing quality control of Sigma, the question of whether one has not caught a cucumber. I can not completely exclude it, I've done no laboratory tests but photographed with two lenses simply. But as the Sigma me would have been no help. It's a shame, a lens that brings about much of good to excellent performance, just right there, at least what I so need a lens because fails's unfortunately completely.
