I had the 80-400 and returned it for the 100-400. I liked the ring zoom but I disliked the weight (is and feels heavier than the Canon). I also disliked the IS. The IS on the Canon is much better.

Image quality- I did some extensive comparisons vs. the 300F4 + 1.4 extender and concluded that both zooms lost out to the prime + extender. I did not do any direct comparisons between the zooms because I sold one for the other but my impression is that both zooms are probably very close in sharpness as they both lost out to the prime by equal observable margins.

When I got the 100-400, I realized I hate the push pull design, I much prefered the ring zoom of the 80-400.

I did like the colors on the 80-400, seemed a bit warmer and more contrasty than the 100-400 which seemed flat by comparison.

The Sigma is only slightly less inexpensive so if brand name and resale value are important, Canon wins there.

Would I trade the Sigma for the Canon again after using both? Tough question but I'd have to say yes. Biggest reasons for me being the sub-par IS, added weight of the Sigma, and the fact that all my lenses up to that point were Canons, I decided to stay loyal to my brand name. Many people would balk at this reason but I just felt better about having a Canon again.











karellen wrote:
> Just stumbled upon yet another post of someone choosing between
> 100-400L and the Bigma.
>
> Guys, I still don't understand why 80-400 OS is not getting the
> attantion is apparently deserves. Yes, no HSM. But I for one can
> live w/o it (not surprisingly for someone been using MF of
> rangefinders for 20+ years), and the only two things that concern
> me in THIS particular case are:
>
> 1) Sharpness and picture quality in general.
>
> 2) OS: is it on par with IS (at least its 100-400L generation).
>
> Is anything bad with these two items? I tried to find anything I
> could on the subject, was pointed to Adam-T's hands-on report
> (quite insightful, as always), who whom lack of HSM was a deal
> breaker.
>
> OK, I understand. But if NOT lack of HSM -- is there anything that
> bad about that lens that would justify... well, almost ignoring it
> by those considering 400+ zooms???
>

--
When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - despair.com