Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Fuji X-Mount Review | The Affordable Telephoto Zoom

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This video is sponsored by Ridge Wallet. Visit ridge.com/dustinabbott and use code "DUSTINABBOTT" to get 10 bonus entries and 10% off

[@justpray365]

I have this lens for the Sony E mount. I purchased the Haoge LMR-SM140S Lens Collar for less than half the price of the Sigma mount. I’ve had it for over 3 years with many trips to the beach and mountains. Everything is holding up well. Locks on my tripod without any issues. You can also rotate the lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's great.

[@dan.allen.digital]

The Fuji 100-400 has been out for a long time so you can usually find an excellent used copy in the $1100 to $1200 range. That puts it at the same price as the Sigma with the optional tripod collar. I would choose an in-focus shot on the Fuji over an optically better out of focus sigma shot 10 times out of 10. Great video Dustin.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's fiar.

[@pierrelaviolette670]

I have the Fuji 100-400 and I am impressed with the Sigma IQ, I expect the focus issues will get fixed unless it’s a motor speed issue. fuji does have an issue finding focus sometimes and sticking to the background which is totally blurred, you would think that when nothing is in focus it would try the full range to find a target so I call this a bug but it’s been there forever. Anyway I love my Fuji gear, the quirks don’t usually hamper me

[@stpetal]

Really hoping for a firmware update to correct AF performance similar to what Sigma did with its 56mm 1.4. If it gets fixed this would be a tremendous lens for the system.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Agreed.

[@ryanbeer5262]

I'm seriously torn between this & the 70-300 which has better cf. But with a telephoto i love to work on a tripod so the optional T collar is welcomed. If I'm honest .25x is perfectly fine, most days there's a macro in my bag anyway. ly

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I wasn't blown away by the sharpness of the 70-300, though it does have nice color and bokeh.

[@NeXMaX]

I feel like it wasn't that long ago when Fuji's lack of third-parties was a main criticism of the system, especially with the performance of many third-party lenses (optically) matching/surpassing the Fujinons for similar prices, or less. Now that it's been a good while since Fuji opened up the mount for licensing, and the options have taken their time to come through, the overall system is definitely much better for it. Happy that this lens made it onto the system, although it *really* needs firmware fixes for the autofocus.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It is very welcome to see so many third party options coming to X-mount

[@cy9nvs]

Wow, that comparison to the 150-600 is pretty awkward. In general, I feel like Fuji lenses are way too expensive for what they are. Especially the 100-400 and the 150-600 are just seriously overpriced. You really have to stop down the XF 100-400 to f/7.1 at 400mm in order to get a decently sharp image, unless you're properly filling the frame with the subject.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This is why the newer competition is welcome. I'm hoping it will push Fuji to step up their game.

[@ArkCullberg]

Nice to see such good performance. I have just preordered mine!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hope you enjoy it!

[@aungaoo]

According to B&H, it has dust- and splash-resistant construction. I heard from you differently at 8:50. I'm not sure who is right.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It has a gasket at the lens mount, but no further seals…and that is confirmed to me by Sigma.

[@aungaoo]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply. Cheers!

[@christophergibbons8748]

Great review, the difference in sharpness at 400mm between the Fuji 150-600 is shocking considering how much Fuji charge fir that lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's true.

[@robertoalfalla256]

Well another great review.. I just came back from B&H and got my hands on the Tamron 150 500..its absolutely beautiful, however the weight was a deal breaker not just for me but I feared for my My Xt4 mount. The sales person showed me the Sigma featured here and I was quite surprised. This works for me in that regard. In addition your review on the optics made my decision easier. For the new this works. What do you think? I was looking at the fuji 100-400 used but it was in poor shape at 895.00 USD

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would say this is a new value alternative to the Fuji 100-400.

[@vukhuat4251]

Thank you very much for the great video. I hope you can make a video to compare this Sigma and Tamron 150-500 for Fuji. I really appreciate that.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Unfortunately that would require me getting a loaner of the Tamron back, which I don't have right now.

[@scottallen6172]

Thorough review, as always. So, naive question. Why doesn't Fujifilm develop lenses as if they were for full frame to improve image quality? Too bad about the sigma autofocus. But, if they can improve it via a firmware update, for half the price, it's a no brainer.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The typical problem with overengineering for the sensor size is that the lens ends up being unnecessarily large. Sigma had done a good job in keeping the size reasonable on this lens, so it worked. And yes, I'm hopeful that firmware updates will improve things on the AF side of things.

[@janis679]

Nice one Dustin! Hmm, autofocus is quite critical for the targetgroup of these "wildlifetelezooms". And XF100-400 just got even better with the latest FW.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's true. I'm hoping a firmware update brings some improvement to the Sigma as well.

[@e3446]

Having a hard time choosing between this, a used fuji 100-400 and the Tamron 150-500. Mix of stationary birds and BIF on a X-T3. Suggestions?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

how important will weather sealing be for you. The Fuji and Tamron are better in that regard. The Sigma is the lightest of the three by a bit.

[@e3446]

@@DustinAbbottTWI weather sealing is not a must, being light is a plus, but sharpness is king. Thank you for your response, love your videos.

[@chrisjames1924]

Ouch, I got the Fuji 100-400 last month. Could have bought the XF 90mm f2 with how much I’d have saved with this Sigma.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Exactly. That's a tough pill to swallow.

[@richyw959]

Would be good to know how it compares to the Tamron regarding sharpness and autofocus. Thanks for doing the Sigma.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the Tamron on hand right now.

[@richyw959]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I believe you already reviewed the Tamron, I was just hoping for your opinion one way or another. Like if you had to make a purchase decision which way would you lean.

[@josemanuelnovo725]

Hola Dustin, estoy dudando entre esta lente y el tamron 150/500, tengo una sony apsc (6700) y no me doy decidido, seria para fauna y paisaje, echame una mano maestro, gracias mil.

[@85mattia]

Hi Dustin!! You should do the rewiev of Olympus OM1 and Pro lenses like 150-400 !!! Please !! I'd be curious to know your opinion on mft system ...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks for the request, but I just don’t have the time to add another platform

[@ronchiu2118]

Thank you for the review. It's really informative. 1. Isn't the tripod collar a must have to keep the lens weight off the camera mount? 2. How were the Fuji subject trackings with this lens? Thanks

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I wouldn't call it a must for the tripod collar, as the mount is definitely designed to support that weight and more. When you say "Fuji subject trackings", are you referring to how the Fuji 100-400 did in a similar setting? If so, expect fewer dropped shots. I would estimate about a 20% improvement in keeper rate under similar conditions.

[@9Mtikcus]

Really good video, I need to watch the Tamron lens for fuji video. I work with a fuji wildlife photographer who uses the XF100-400 and gets good results with the X-T5, he got good results with an X-T3 too. But I know from editing the photos the X-T5 and the XF 100-400 is not perfect. I doubt he would swap the Fuji for sigma now he already has it, but for a new Fuji shooter or someone that wants to get into wildlife photography it is very intriguing. Worse AF but better detail at half the price, as a portrait photographer I'd be thinking I can get the Sigma 100-400 and the Sigma 56mm F1.4 + the Sigma 23mm F/1.4 (or 30 or 16 or the 18-50 F/2.8) for the same money as the Fuji 100-400 lens. If anything it may make Fuji up their game if they release new versions of their telephoto lenses, I will admit I have never personally shot with any Fuji Red badge zoom lens, but I was never happy with the detail quality of other zoom lenses from Fuji (the 18-55, the 18-135 and the 16-80) the 10-24 on the other hand I love. Even with the Prime lenses the original lenses have character and I do love shooting with the 35mm F/1.4 but it is not the sharpest lens, Fuji have massively improved with their new prime lenses, but they are not cheap, so if Sigma can give me 90%+ of the quality at 50% of the price then I will keep buying their lenses.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This competition should be good for lens design. Sony has been very open source, and it has pushed Sony to be perhaps the best lens designer on the market right now.

[@matt88169]

I can assure you that in the world of Fuji the Red Badge Fuji zooms are all, on the whole, amazing lenses and unquestionably on another level vis-a-vi the more affordable zooms in terms of everything - build, optics, AF performance (and also size, weight, and cost!). They are pro grade lenses that prioritize more than just sharpness (which is usually excellent end-to-end and at whatever apertures), and you generally get what you pay for. I have 0 interest in 3rd party zooms so far - the Tamron 150-500 and 17-70mm have been the most tempting, but the former is ultimately a FF lens adapted to Fuji and the latter I am just not quite convinced - I'd have to rent it. The Red Badge lenses challenge my best primes in terms of image quality, IMO, and I own two of the best primes. And by challenge, I mean that I could live without my primes if it wasn't for the fact that 1) its nice to have smaller lenses, and 2) its nice to have wider apertures in the f/1.2-f/1.4 range and 3) closer focus capabilities. Other than that, the zooms are overall a better value IMO, being so versatile and typically with OIS. There is also definitely a sort of "look" to the zooms (as with my primes), that is hard to describe but which gives me some variety in terms of the look I can get. All that said, the 100-400 is probably the worst Red Badge lens Fuji made (sorry if anyone loves it). It can get the shot, for sure, but I think the optics could have been better, and Fuji should update them. On APS-C it would potentially be faster, lighter, and smash the Sony 200-600mm with an even broader zoom range. Overall a perfect zoom range for most sports/action/wildlife. The XF zooms are capable lenses. The 18-55 has stunned me, at times, with the quality of images+sharpness it can produce. But on the whole, I think the AF is simply less accurate, typically, and it misses too often for me to rely upon it when nailing the shot is paramount. I get a lot of focus misses with that lens and can't predict them. While I think it has a great render overall, it just doesn't have that extra pop/color/contrast/OIS you get by upgrading. But, btw, sometimes I like its slightly muted presentation and every time I'm sure I'll sell it I just use it and then can't let it go. Pixel peeping, however, I can tell it is just less capable in challenging light. I do like it for casual/travel duty but think of it as an outdoor, not so much indoor lens, where I think it performs a bit worse. Someday I plan to pick up a 16-55, probably. In terms of editing photos, no lens is perfect, of course. Certainly, I can't match in-camera edits to C1 or LR in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness-they all do things a little differently. To my knowledge the 100-400 has a pretty narrow sweet spot at 400mm, and likes to be shot at f/8. So it rewards stronger light and centrally-focused subjects but if you want to shoot f/5.6 you have to tolerate some slight softness relatively speaking. The 150-600mm is more flexible, I find, and slightly faster at 400mm since it already looks great at f/7.1.

[@markusworsdorfer4432]

Thank you for the great review. This lens is indeed tempting. Would you say the Sigma 100-400 is optically better than the Tamron 150-500 ?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Perhaps marginally, but they are pretty close.

[@markusworsdorfer4432]

And what about AF? Do you think the Tamron is better?@@DustinAbbottTWI