Sigma 100-400mm DG DN review VS Sony FE 100-400mm G Master
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- The Sigma 100-400mm DG DN is one of the cheapest teles for Sony mirrorless!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3hyAv5Q // WEX: tidd.ly/521b4bb7
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/...
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/...
The Sigma 100-400mm DG DN is one of the cheapest teles for Sony mirrorless!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3hyAv5Q // WEX: tidd.ly/521b4bb7
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Did Sigma get back to you regarding the teleconverters? Thanks.
@@Errethakbe18 Not yet
Spoke to Sigma this week. unfortunately no plans for e mount teleconverters at moment
This is cheapest? Poor reaserch. What about tamron 70-300?
Just viewed Christopher’s video on this lens and then off to watch Dustin Abbot on this lens. You all do a great job and you have a coffee ☕️ coming!
Cheers!
Don't compare Gordon to that hack.
I've been waiting for an affordable 100-400mm e mount lens!
Same day review of a just announced hotly anticipated lens for my favourite camera system from my favourite Camera reviewer? I'm in heaven!
You're very welcome!
That eye AF on the Sigma looked amazingly fast!
Fantastic video, the comparison is really detailed and I am super impressed by the performance of Sigma. Big ty for the great work you've done!
I cringed when I saw the IBIS tests compared to my G9 and 100-400 and then got upset when I saw the AF tests 😂
That said the AF is kind of jarring how fast it works. Hmm. Maybe a move to Sony is coming. Maybe.
I literally just made the shift from g9 with the leica 100400 to the sony a7iii 100300. The af is fantastic but i miss lumix usability especially the menu and the logical button layout. When panasonic get their af right ill be back with a new lumix
@Test86 One4 Funny how you said the words real and Christian in the same sentence 😂
@Gap pasosonic 100-400 is £300 more expensive (but obvs smaller, more pixel-dense m43 sensor gives you 2x crop)
Comparison to Sony 70-300 FE would be a nice add-on. Super video, thanks!
As always a comprehensive and real user review. Thanks
Thanks!
Excellent video, showing strengths and equalities of both lenses. Sigma price beats Sony hands down at $950 to Sony's $2499.
Sony 200-600 is cheaper at $1900, longer reach, heavier,.
I guess Sigma delivering cost, weight, reach balance for amateurs. Can change Sony A7iii to APSC when greater reach is needed, albeit at loss of pixels.
Thank you, Gordon Laing for a balanced, very well presented sum+-total of these two lenses. A big 👍👍👍 to you!
Thank you, I finally got the Sigma and love it. The price is so cheap and less than 1/2 of the price of Sony.
Nice video!
Small question: Would you recommend the Sigma 100-400mm or the 70-350mm on an APSC camera?
Good question and the answer is I haven;'t compared them side by side yet.
I'm waiting this
I just pulled the trigger on the Sigma.
It’ll be here Friday!
Great video. I would love to see how the Sigma 100-400mm compares to Sony 70-350mm. Thanks
They’re both stellar.
Thank you so much for the comparision. I've decided to try out the Sigma version. Paired up with the a7iii and I'll see how it goes.
Tbh the Sigma is sharper than Sony. Especially in corners. However, the slower auto focus and hunting defeats the entire purpose of the lens.
If this is indeed working as intended, whats the point of a 100mm-400mm if it can't even focus on moving subjects?
That would be frustrating for tracking subjects. For landscape work I don't think it would matter.
Great review, I've been using this lens plus the mc-11 in my a6100 for almost a year and it could be a great alternative for replacement, mostly because now it's native compared to the dlsr version adapted.
The only thing it lost is the custom mode switch for adjusting autofocus and stabilizer behavior.
It would be great compare this lens against the sony 70-350 in aps-c. They are on the same price tag (~1000 us)
I suspect this would match or beat the Sony 70-350 while giving you the opportunity to go full-frame in the future. But I would be happier seeing the Af work more confidently - maybe a firmware issue on my early model.
This is not the same lens as the EF 100-400. They are different optical designs.
I'd love to see a shootout between the Sigma 100-400mm e-mount lens and the Sony 70-350mm OSS on a crop format camera...
I have Sigma on A6400. Hand held shooting is amazing.( I also have full frame A7iii but not yet trying because on A6400, it gives me 600mm.
I am still waiting for some compact primes 300, 400 and 500mm !
I hope they also come out with a 70-350mm alternative on the a6x00 series. Sony's is pricey.
I think this is it.
@@cameralabs Designed for full frame though, so something smaller and lighter would be nice.
@@jenesuispasbavard sure, I understand. Hopefully cheaper too. But they still only have three native APSC mirrorless lenses, so i wouldn't hold your breath.
@@cameralabs for me this will be the alternative for the 70-350mm. The fact that it is FF is just an advantage in i want to go fullframe
I have the new Sigma and other Sony GM OSS lenses and Tamron 150-600mm. I do like the light weight of the Sigma as compared to the Tamron. The Sigma OS doesn't seem to be as smooth as the Sony OSS on both apsc and FF Sony cameras (for video work). The Sigma edge sharpness on stills is a bit strong that pics of deer in the grass don't seem as natural as other lenses. Welcome your experience with the Sigma vs Sony GM lens. Thanks
Hi Gordon. Thanks for the review. I'm curious to know if the Sigma's IS shuts off while mounted on a tripod. The Sony 100-400 has an issue (at least it did when I tested it) that when mounted on a tripod, the lens will eventually turn off IS in the lens if it doesn't detect vibration. This can be an issue when shooting video and a gust of wind comes up after a period of no vibration. I'm not sure if this was an issue with the lens or firmware in the camera. It was rather annoying. I'm curious to know if Sigma's lens experiences this same phenomena.
I don't think it does shut off as it seemed to be linked to the body's stabiilsation
Great review, Gordon.
I am looking for a zoom telephoto for my Sony A6000. I had almost settled for the Sony 70-350 recently brought out for the APS-C, but today the curiosity got renewed. Now I have an option. Which one should I go for?
Two good choices, but without them side-by-side I'm not sure. I feel I ought to do a comparison. My gut would be the Sigma for the length and full-frame compatibility BUT maybe the Sony will focus better on moving subjects...
@@cameralabs Thanks indeed. I will wait for the comparison review.
@@cameralabs - I also finalized A6400 for purchase (going to purchase as soon as lockdown eases bit more) and also decided about Sony 70-350 for bird photography, which I mainly do. However, now I'll hold this purchase for a while till you make a comparison of these two.
Your lens review are my favorite. I love the sample footage and photos.
Thanks!
always a big dilemma for me to buy a Telephoto Lens.........sometime i really need it and the other time i was so rare to using it......
Thanks for the review, I'm considering this lens for my A7C, or the Sony 70-350 in aps-c mode, but I'm afraid I may loose too much definition in aps-c as i will be cropping.
I rented the Sony 200-600 a few weeks ago. I wish Sigma or Tamron would make native E versions of their 150-600 lenses...
I had the Tamron 150-600. The Sony is just better. Lighter, faster focusing, better optical quality. Of course, I had the 150-600 on an A77II, but I really like the 200-600. And it's actually priced decently - not low, only slightly more than the Sigma Sport (new). This looks like a nice lens, but for birding and wildlife photography, the 200-600mm range is probably more useful to some people. I do wish there was a cheaper alternative to the 200-600.
Winston Llamas thanks for that insight, it’s really useful to see!
I use the Sigma 100mm 400mm on a Panasonic S1R it’s only average on birds in flight but that could be the cameras AF system as well but for wildlife portrait shots the lens is really sharp
It's the camera, panasonic can't track a person walking let alone fast moving birds.
As long as the AF isn’t terrible and the sharpness is there it’s good for me. I want it for landscapes, they don’t tend to move too fast
And that's also why i included comparisons down to f16.
Hello , If you want to choose between Sony 70-350 vs sigma 100-400 dg dn for Sony aps-c , which one you choose ? 😋
I've made a separate video about this lens on APSC, have a look!
Great review, hard to justify the GM lens despite how great it is. Now I wish Sigma and Tameron would make these lenses for M4/3 with stabilization for both Olympus and Panasonic. I do shoot in bad weather and I wonder if that's the one thing these third party lenses sometime fall behind in. Now if some rich reviewer would just get on that for us, lol. Your reviews are always well done, thanks.
how about a review with the Tamron 150-500 Sony E mount I'm torn between them both. Right now the Sigma in $100 off and the Tamron is $1,399 so about $500 difference. HELP!
I'd like to review the Tamron - my review may appear at cameralabs.com first
Thinking if I need 100-400mm or if I can cheap out and crop my Tam 28-200mm when required. Once these start to show up used, I might have to bite =)
Referring to the slight hunting of Sigma (7:44), did you check if it was corrected in the final production version ? You have mentioned in your APS-C video that focus tracking has been improved, but what about the smoothness of focusing?
Good review, but I am confused about the comparison at 8:46. To me the Sigma is definitely sharper in the corner, but in the written review you mention that they’re delivering essentially the same detail in the middle, and in the corners too. Is the focus off? Can you clarify?
somehow I didnt know this lens is coming and just bought the GM ...facepalm. I was hoping to see that there's somewhat noticeable IQ difference that wont make me feel like a fool but nope, 1.5k pretty much wasted. im surprised with your verdict that sony is not redundant, autofocus didnt seem like significant issue, maybe hardcore birders would want to have GM over sigma but they probably would skip 100-400 and go straight for the 200-600. hopefully the contrast of GM is indeed unmatched, I do love the vibe of these 100-400 GM pictures, especially its b&w photos seem to amaze me, there's something about that glass, but man 2.5x more money? thanks for the review, well made.
I own GM and I hate it sometime. OSS on this lens is so lame compared to VR lets say on 200-500 Nikkor.
Dear Gordon, Is the Sigma 100-400mm still shakes after turn on stabilization so much as on 400 mm for example in the range of 200 mm ? Anyway thats the vid which I was looking for ! Thank you !
this sounds amazing, i would use it on an a6300 to get farther reach with such clear optics. however i cant justify any money for lenses right now, but def will be in the bucket list
This lens makes a great pairing with the tamron 17-28 and 28-75. All three are reasonably small and share 67mm filter threads.
Hi Gordon great video as always I have an A7iii and was about to buy the 100-400 GM but for similar money I can get an A7Riii & the sigma 100-400 shooting mainly birds wildlife bit of Astro & landscape
Which do you think is the better option?
Well the A7r III will give you more pixels for cropping, which will be useful for birding, but the AF on the GM may be more effective!
go with the riii and the sigma.. i've used and tested both and yes the sony native 100-400 is slightly better but is it worth 2500 dollars NO absolutely NOT especially when the sigma is 800 dollars that's a 1700 dollar price difference which is a lot
i've tested so many lenses over the years from prime luxury canon and sony gm to regular non L and non GM prime lenses and zoom that the L and GM are slightly better but still way overpriced not worth it unless you're one of those weirdos who pixel peeps every square millimeter or are getting paid A LOT of money for a photoshoot and by A LOT I mean in the thousands where an L or GM would be worth renting or buying. For those who aren't getting paid for their photography and do it as a hobby or getting paid a couple hundred a photoshoot the L from canon and GM sony aren't worth it and way overpriced and the difference especially with prime lenses and sometimes zoom just aren't worth the price difference. If you're comparing prime to zoom then that's an entirely different situation. The primes even cheap kit primes are still way better then zoom but for wildlife you're kind of stuck with zoom. Just remember the more glass you have in your lens the harder and worse the picture will be when the light reaches the camera sensor. Go with the sigma the price of the sony just isn't worth justifying 2500 dollars over 800 dollars as i've used both. You'll notice a slight difference if you've worked with both like I have but there's no justifying a 1700 dollar price difference
I don’t think anyone will come back for that bike chained up lol. Great comparison, just what I was looking for.
Great Review Gordon .. I am debating between this sigma 100-400 mm e mount len and sigma 150-600mm and will need a MC-1. I have A6000 and planning on getting a full frame by the end of the year.... I like to shoot landscape and moon... Should I get the 600 mm or hope that Sigma will release teleconverter for 400mm or bite the bullet and get the 600mm... or do you think that sigma will release 600mm for e mount.... Thanks
Thanks!!. Even is another cup of tea..., how compared with Panasonic Leica 50-200? Just in case you know...
thanks for the review, I have a question I don't think was covered in the review. There are two stability modes, one for general and one for panning, just how much better is the panning mode for panning? is it even worth using?
Hi Gordon, thank you for your review. I don't know if I must buy the lens for my A7III or for my S1.
Do you know if the L mount version has better stabilization since the S1 IBIS is better than the A7III ? And do you think if the CAF of the L mount version is as good as on the Sony version ? Thanks.
Man I appreciate this review so much 😍😍
Great review .... as always Gordon .
Here in Australia , the sony 100/400 is actually more expensive than sonys recent f4/5.6 version 200/600(which itself is about 3.2/3.4 k ish give or take ).
Sonys F4 ? 100/400 goes for around about 3.6 k to 3.8k australian (ouch ).
Sony`s super dooper 2.8 pro zoom models , i do not even talk or dream about ,
They are sort of ..... hang on i`ll just go and rob bank for a down payment :) ..... one of the high up models rrp here is around 21 k :) seriously :) ..... my car only cost 24 k and it has a heater :) .
As you have shown , sonys 100/400 does seem to have a bit of slight edge , but i could see my hands seriously shaking and my bottom lip quivering to fork out nearly 4k here for the sony 100/400 model when there is a very close in quality sigma for about ..... a hell of lot less :) .
Thanks Gordon ;) .
You're welcome, hopefully prices will settle soon. And yep, the 200-600 is typically cheaper than the Sony 100-400!
I am swithering between the 200-600 or 100-400 for my Sony A7 iii and like the fact I could now perhaps get both but one sigma. Did you test compatibility of the sony 1.4 teleconverter. I recently got this for my 70-200 2.8 GM after returning the 2x converter as too slow AF. Great review, looking forward to a more indepth one when the new lens is available.
Nope I didn't get to try it with any TCs - I mentioned that!
Gordon Laing Yep heard you talk about Sigma bringing out their own equivalents, but was hopefully there may have been a mention of them being compatible. We know how temprimental Sony can be when starting to chase focus sometimes. But looking forward to trying a combination.
I bought the 200-600, used it on my A7III and found that for photos it did not focus fast enough. But I shoot fast action sports. The 200-600 is a beautiful, sharp lens but for fast action sports it was too slow for me at least on the A7III so I returned it. I have not tried the 100-400 though. The close focusing distance on the 100-400 is much better then the 200-600. Mark Galer has an excellent video comparing the 100-400 and the 200-600. It is worth checking it out.
@@Sam-mc2dk My 200-600 focuses extremely fast on my A9! Only problem is it's a bit long and heavy for long-term hand-holding!
Duncan McInnes I have both the 100-400 and 200-600 Sony on the a9 and A7R4, both lenses perform well, focussing was good and fast when the operator got their act together! Agree with Gordon about the close focusing on the 100-400. Both are ok with the 1.4 x tc, the 2x is ok in good light. Why not hire them both and see how you get on? Sigma I’ve not had such a good experience with. My 70-200 Nikon dslr fit had to go back for repair twice as the aperture blades stuck, and my 150-600 some times will just not focus, of course when there is some perfect wild life just flying by.....
Excellent review Gordon, thanks.
I'm not overly impressed from what I've seen from this lens in terms of sharpness. I will say that this video appears to have the best images that show this. Maybe if there is some sort of firmware update it may correct some of these issues "particularly birds in flight I haven't seen any real sharp examples"
Gordon, you are fantastic!
Why thankyou!
Great detailed review. This looks to be a great option. Curious to know what the teleconverters will cost
This is the biggest downside, looks like no TC for the FE mount sigma lens.
Will the sigma 100-400mm DG DN work with the sony alpha 6400 (mirroless) ??
Yes and I use that combo often - in fact I made a video about it
Wonder how this compares to the 70-200 w/ teleconverters.
Excellent news in these days with both this lens and the tamron 28-200....
I really like the Sony GM, the only thing I really don't like is the zoom ring. Even on full loose it's still too stiff, and when you compare it to the absolutely sublime 70-200 GM Zoom Ring it feels all wrong lol
It's got the same optical formula as the DSLR version right? Been considering this over the 70-200 f4
I do mention the optical construction and what's different in the video! Spoiler - not much different, but it's not the same either.
While the Sigma is a very nice lens, on something like the a7riv the sony will perform noticeably better. On the a7iii you'll be fine.
Another Marvellous Demo
Just a question
Tele converters, how does this go with Sonys tele converters
the Sony Tele converters doe not work on all their lenses
Cheers
Did you hear the part in the video where I said I didn't know yet?
12:47 you say "higher contrast" with GM. Can you say a bit more about this difference?
Hi, thanks for the video, have you tested the lense with the crop sensor new sony cameras? I wonder how good the magnification would be compared to the Gmaster version on a full frame. I bought the gmaster before and loved it,,,,,I wonder how would this sigma new lens pair with my a6500 for or up to a6600, same sensor side but different focusing system, would be nice to de a comparison of focusing and magnification ,,,,,,thanks again,,,,i have learned a lot from your videos. Best regards
I'm thinking of doing an APSC test...
I wonder what this lens would be like with Astrophotography? I know 6.3 is kind of slow but with a star tracker that is not really a problem. What I would be interested in is the star quality, especially near the edges. If any of you have tried this I would love to know the performance. The Sony lens is a 5 year old design that was built before the modern mirrorless Sony camera's and I wonder if that makes a difference in quality of the optics (the Sony 100-400 exhibits star distortion near the edges).
A very comprehensive review, thanks
excellent review, thank you!
Thanks!
What is the short tripod you use to hold the Sony and do you recommend it?
www.cameralabs.com/feisol-tt-15-mark-ii-mini-tripod-review/
Please test the Sigma 100-400 L-mount on the Panasonic S1 if possible!
It's not yet available in L-mount for review, but even then, there's not a lot extra I could show you or demonstrate. It's lower res than the Sony body here and doesn't have phase detect AF.
I'm looking to shot video which of these lenses would be better? Primarily sports
I'd like to see a comparison of focus accuracy and speed as well as image quality between the Sony 70-350mm OSS lens and this Sigma 100-400mm... I realize that there are differences in both the minimum and maximum focal lengths as well as a difference in weight and size as well as in price. I'd like to see comparisons at the same focal lengths between both cameras...
I always shot my Canon 100-400mm lens on my Canon APSC 7D2 camera so shooting this lens on an APSC A6600 camera is no problem for me...
I'd like to see that too
Correction: the lens is NOT dust and splash resistant. Sigma states that only the mount is resistant (due to the rubber gasket). Therefore not really a good lens to take on a safari.
During your stabilisation test, the difference in aputure in reality was a difference of around 1000 iso between the two.
It's a 1/3 stop slower. But you won't se any difference in real world between iso 5000 or 6000..
It Is a great lens !
Awesome pictures you can take with this Sigma 100-400 e
Looking good... that first corner crop at 100mm on the Sigma was actually considerably better than the Sony or perhaps it was just a slight focus variation because the leaves to the right behind the chimney looked sharper on the Sony shot as if focus was a little further back. Anyway good comparison 👍
Thanks, it may have been slight focus variation
Which one would you advise to get, mainly for sports photography? Is really sigma sharp enough at 400mm?? I’ve just seen prices of both and there’s a massive difference between sigma and sony
Only you can decide if something is good enough for what you want. I show you how sharp they are and provide sample images, so if they look good enough for you, save some money!
depends if you're getting paid for your work or not and if you can see justifying spending an extra $1700 dollar price difference between the two lenses. $800 vs $2500
Absolutely superb review... a great 1000 yard, Clint Eastwood type stare in the eye detection autofocus test. So that’s another £899 you owe me!
No no, I've SAVED you money compared to buying the Sony!
@@cameralabs Your genius knows no bounds! I'll tell my wife that Gordon says I am saving £1600 by buying the lens. Now I could say I am actually saving >£4000 using that argument as I now shoot on Leica SL and their 90-280 costs a bomb. My wife already uses words "Marcus Maths" and "your deluded" when I make my cases for more gear. Keep up the excellent work, be in no doubt you bring great joy, especially in these dark times.
Hi, I just got this lens a week ago and I am noticing that the autofocus when shooting in video mode is veeeery slow compared when shooting photos. I mainly do videos and this seems to be an issue for me. I tried it both on my a7iii and a6600 and had the same experience. Have you had similar issues? I also haven't updated the firmware of the lens from 1.0 to 2.0 since I have to ship the lens for that. Thanks!
Yes it's not particularly quick for video AF.
The sigma 100-400 was never really built specifically for video it was more so for photography which is why the image stabilization and autofocus aren't the greatest on that particular lens but in all fairness it's not that great on the sony gm 100-400 either for video as both of those lenses were primarily designed for photography wildlife and outdoor sporting events in mind
I'm impressed with my old (film) Sigma DL 70-300, 40 Euro of eBay, to throw on to my DSLR so I bet this would be great...
The sigma should really be compared to the 70-300mm or even the 70-350mm
Why? 100-400mm versus 100-400mm. $850 versus $2500.
After seeing the test I can guarantee you that the sigma is way better than the 70-300 from sony. I tried that one a while ago and it is not a good lense, lacking in terms of sharpness at pretty much every focal length (and I only tested it on an a7 III)
Gordon, excellent video! However, the title really doesn't do it justice. Should titled it a comparison video as it is...
Thanks, yes, I was thinking that, I may change it
Out of interest did you try it on APS-C?
No, but the A7r III is so high res, you can just crop the APSC shape from my samples and end up with between 15 and 20mp.
@@cameralabs Don't think it's as simple as that, inexplicably, some full frame lenses work better on APS-C than others. I've an A6500 and an A7II and would be interested in the lenses extra range on that crop sensor for added versatility.
Christopher frost tested this on a a5100 and he got the same excellent results, even wide open!
@@fernandoatorre a crop sensor will always be more forgiving - I'd expect the results to be v good on ASPC.
any updates with the continuous autofocus that you mentioned was a bit slower than the sony 100-400? firmware improved it all
I filmed a follow-up on APSC where the AF improved. Check out that video!
Looks a great lens for an introduction to cheaper wildlife photography. Great review
Thanks!
Gorden please let me know which kind of tripod it is on 3:04? Thanks tom
Was it a mini tabletop tripod? www.cameralabs.com/feisol-tt-15-mark-ii-mini-tripod-review/
Should I be nervous about the weight of the 100-400 Sony or this Sigma hanging off of the camera with a camera strap? i’m always worried that it’ll break the camera.
No, if it's an issue for really heavy lenses, they fit strap lugs onto the lens itself. Neither of these have that so the manufacturers don't think it will be an issue. But if you're using the tripod for any length of time, I would use the foot.
Hi Gordon, any update if the production version is any better at continuous AF or not?
Yes, I made an updated video for APSC bodies where I think I talked about this.
How does the Sigma E mount version compare to the EF mount version paired with the MC-11?
Not sure, sorry!
Great as usual, Gordon. The Sony is a bit better here and there, but comes away seeming very over-priced now compared to the Sigma. Yay competition!
Thanks!
Hi Gordon, I was wondering how the image quality of the sigma in the 100-200mm range compares to the Sony 70-200mm f4?
I didn't notice much difference.
Gordon Laing thanks for your reply and for the great review!
Thanks Gordon, an exquisitely thorough review as always. This has got me interested enough to go and Google the price :) EDIT: I'm back, I'm extrapolating that it will be around £950-1000.
No need to google, I've provided price check links! Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3hyAv5Q // WEX: tidd.ly/521b4bb7
Would you recommend it for aviation photography just for Instagram purposes?
Sure thing!
Great review!
'
very bad blur focus depth of field at 034 to 052...
what wrong with that len
Great review
Thanks for this no-nonsense review!!!
Does it have the same image quality and sharpness as the DG one with mc-11 adapter on a sony body? Has anyone done a side by side comparison?
There's one new element, so there will be some difference, but I suspect it may be to adjust the focal plane distance. I reckon it's v close to the DSLR version at least in quality. AF and OS may be different.
@@cameralabs Thank you, Mr Gordon.
Good job, thanks 👍
You're welcome!
Who makes that small tripod
Here you go: czcams.com/video/hVOKguifOqk/video.html
can you use a 1.4 tc with the sigma 100-400 ???
I'm not sure, you should check Sigma's website.
one word. PANASONIC.
WHY?
Mine should be here in the next 2 days :)
What do you think now after using it?
@@bjure8111 Great piece of glass for the money
I need the apsc version
Very good lens
Thanks for a good review. Have a coffee on me.
Thanks, much appreciated!