Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens for Nikon F-mount now in stock

The Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens for Nikon F-mount is now shipping and is currently in stock at B&H (still not available at Adorama and Amazon).

Additional information on the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens:

Lens design:

MTF charts:


Lens Construction 21 Elements in 15 Groups
Angle of View (35mm) 24.4º-6.2 º
Number of Diaphragm Blades 9
Mininum Aperture f22
Minimum Focusing Distance 160 cm / 6.3 in
Filter Size (mm) 67mm
Maximum Magnifications 1:3.8
(Diameter x Length)
86.4x182.3mm/ 3.4x7.2in
Weight 1160g/ 40.9oz.

Other lens features:

  • Dust- and splash-proof mount
  • All new optical stabilizer unit with enhanced algorithm
  • Nikon electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism included (Nikon mounts only)
  • Nine-blade rounded diaphragm
  • Designed to minimize flare and ghosting
  • Compatible with the newly developed teleconverters
  • Fast autofocus with full-time manual override
  • Compatible with Sigma Mount Converter MC-11 for Sony E Mount
  • Customizable and flexible adjustment with Sigma USB Dock
  • High-precision, durable brass bayonet mount
  • Crafted in Aizu, Japan with each lens individually tested with Sigma’s own MTF measuring system “A1”
  • Lens barrel is engraved with the year of release
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Hans J

    Where is the new sigma 24-70mm ?

    • Amir

      Will come out in June!

      • Alfredo Caravita

        How do you know? I’ve been searching the web to find a release date but wasn’t able to find it…

        • Amir

          Simple!Give a call to Sigma officially given phone number in your region.I did and I was told to wait for it to be announced in June.

  • S Cargill

    I still don’t understand the waste of time on this when they have a perfectly good 150-600. Where is the 24-70 art OS?

    • BVS

      150-600 equivalent on DX. Much lighter than even the 150-600 C – 2.55lb vs. 4.3lb.

      • Bob Thane

        Looks like the optics could be better too, with them being able to use smaller elements.

    • Because it is almost have the weight of a 150-600 and considerable smaller (about the size of the Nikon 70-200/4). Perfect lens for wildlife when traveling, especially with a DX body.

      I bought it two weeks ago to supplement my 120-300/2.8 OS and it is a very good lens.

      I think this lens will be a huge seller for Sigma because a lot of people do not want to carry 2-3 kg telephoto lenses when traveling and the Canon / Nikon 80(100)-400 lenses are overpriced, in my opinion.

      • Dylan Wood

        They may be overpriced and I agree with you, but the AF speed of the Sigma 100-400 cannot come close to touching Canon and Nikon. I had a customer come in curious about the lens last night and we popped it on the Canon 5D mk III and I thought the stupid thing was broken.. It’s THAT slow…

    • Amir

      24-70 art OS will come out in June!

  • Hans98Ko

    I do agree that it is a waste of time when there is a perfectly good 150-600mm f/5.6 C, which can take a 1.4x TC and still get the center point focus to work. With this 100-400mm f/5.6-6.3 C, it wouldn’t work at the long end with the 1.4x TC. But for the price of only $799 and the lighter weight, I think it will still sell to a certain group of photographers. Only wished that it has electronic aperture rather than being obsoleted before release.

    • Bob Thane

      The 150-600 is f6.3 at the long end too, I don’t see why the 100-400 shouldn’t AF with the 1.4x tc too.

      • Hans98Ko

        Oops! My mistake, I got it mixed with the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. As for aperture smaller than f/8, AF will be sporadic and wouldn’t work in low light.

      • Dylan Wood

        Given that the AF of the 100-400 is already ridiculously slow, I can’t even imagine it with a TC attached.

    • doge

      It does have an electronic aperture for Nikon cameras.

      “Nikon electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism included (Nikon mounts only)”

      • Hans98Ko

        Thanks for the update!
        Than I think it should interest those DX users as someone here mentioned as well as for those who wanted it cheap & light for trips and hiking, just as I do for owning the Nikon 70-300mm G VR, 80-400mm G VR and the 200-500mm E VR. Depending on the range that suits me most or sometimes having a lighter one for backup.

  • James Fennessy

    I wish someone would make a lightweight 400mm f4 prime for Nikon. We don’t really need any more f/6.3 lenses that require too much light to be effective during the dawn and dusk hours where wildlife shooting is best. Nikon makes an optically great 400 f/2.8 for tripods, but its as big and heavy as the 600 f/4 and way to heavy for extended handheld shooting.

    • DaveyJ

      I have owned over a half million dollars of prime lens. I’d rather have a zoom now! The proof of the pudding is in the photo results.
      I do agree Nikon needs the lens you mention, but I believe it’s attraction would be SALES not field results. A 400 is pretty much uselesss when moving subjects are very close. The 400 mm is fine when you are on the sidelines…..but if you are in the field with no designated playing field and you are not just a spectator things can and do change. Course you could have several cameras wrapped around your neck……

    • nwcs

      A 400 f4 is still going to be large because the front objective has to be large to provide for that f4. That’s why the 400 5.6 was a staple for so long in lightweight telephoto primes.

      • AnotherView

        Well the 500/4 E is only 7 lbs and the 300/4PF is less than 2 lbs(!), so I’m sure they could keep a 400/4PF to well below 5 lbs if they tried, which would yield a sweet 560mm @f5.6 that I’d pay a stupid amount of money for. Nikon, are you listening?

        • nwcs

          Yes, a 400 f4 PF would be good but there are compromises to the PF design as well. I’d probably buy the Sigma 500, honestly, as the price would still be quite high.

        • James Fennessy

          Exactly, AnotherView. I own a Nikon 600mm f4 FL, and would love to but a 400mm f4 FL if Nikon or Sigma would make it. I don’t own any Sigma glass, but if they built a lightweight 400 f/4, which is not produced by Nikon or anyone else for Nikon gear, they would lure a lot of Nikon people like me to buy and try Sigma lenses (and who knows, they might lure all of our future lens purchases). In contrast, if Sigma limits itself to only replicating lenses already made by Nikon, I (and many other Nikon glass purchasers like me) will probably never leave the Nikkor lens brand. Are you listening Sigma?

        • nhz

          just look at the Canon 4/400DO II for what is possible. Excellent optics, weight 2.1 kg, still works very well with TC added. However with MFD of 3.3 meters it isn’t suitable for pictures of small bugs (dragonflies, butterflies etc) and it is quite expensive. There are always compromises …

          I would love to see what Nikon can do for a 4/400 DO/PF lens (or maybe 4.5/400 and make it even more compact?).

          • vwking

            Yes, a Nikon 4/400 PF will be of great interest to me.

  • Tieu Ngao

    I think this lens has a great combination of light weight, good price, decent reach, and fine optics.

    • Completely agree. I have it and like it a lot. It is a very good lens, light enough for traveling and the price is quite reasonable, as well.

      • doge

        sample photos?

        • I will write a blog post about it when I have some time.

          I used it in the zoo with my Nikon D7200 and I am quite satisfied. I would say it is quite good even at the long end wide open. Definitely good enough for me and I have some good glass like the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS. Buf obviously the 120-300 + 1.4 TC stopped down to f/6.3 will be better (the 120-300 is excellent with the Sigma 1.4x TC).

          I also thought about buying the Nikon 300/4 VR before the Sigma was announced and I am happy that I waited, because I think the flexibility of a zoom is more useful to me and it is about half the price.

          It is certainly not a lens for professional wildlife photograhers. But for me it is a wonderful lens when I do not want to carry the > 3 kg 120-300.

          • nhz

            interesting … did you also test how the Sigma 100-400 works near MFD?

            I previously used the Canon 4/300IS lens for this (which is about similar to the Nikon 4/300 non-VR) and now have the Canon 100-400II zoom which is a major benchmark for the Sigma. The Canon is great at infinity, but I’m very disappointed at IQ near MFD, used on 80D body (APS-C). The Canon is very soft (low contrast) wide open and even at f/8 it is still worse than my old 4/300 near wide open. By f/11 it’s pretty good but that’s not a suitable aperture for most of my field photography due to light levels.

            I’m interested in the Sigma 100-400 as a lighter alternative, especially if it proves to be better for close focus at f/5.6-f/8. I can accept slow AF as long as it can do fast and accurate MF like most ‘old’ lenses (would have to try that in practice).

            BTW, I’m really interested in that Nikon 4/300PF because it looks like the ultimate lens for dragonfly images and other ‘small wildlife’, small/light and sharp. If I don’t find a good alternative on Canon platform I’m probably buying D7500 plus 4/300PF later this year (maybe with the Sigma 100-400 added).

  • JXVo

    These slow long zooms are useless for either of their main purposes, even at entry level. Shooting sport you need highish shutter speeds to freeze action and for wildlife the most active times have lower light levels. Just because modern consumer dslr bodies are able to shoot at ISO 6400 and even higher doesn’t mean you should. Output is dreadful for anything bigger than a postcard.

    Almost everyone that buys a long zoom is buying it for the reach and only buys a zoom because long primes are either too pricey or not available. So these zooms spend 80% of their life fully stretched out where the aperture is real slow and the sharpness generally off its peak. Faster apertures are needed or don’t even bother.

    • Oham

      I respectfully disagree. Sigma 150-600 S is pretty solid at its long end. First-hand experience. Also while I agree with you that these lenses tend to live at their long end most of the time, the zoom feature is far from useless. It’s just so much more versatile. The slow aperture is limiting, yes, can’t really object to that. I believe future bodies will alleviate that to some extent, though.

      • JXVo

        Neither of the Sigma 150-600 models are the topic of my post and I think both of them can shoot faster than f6.3 at 400mm.

        This 100-400 lens is however. Sigma previously offered a faster lens in this range. My point is that shooting conditions in which these lenses are often used would benefit greatly from faster aperture. I’m not saying that a budget zoom lens should be f2.8 but why make it slower than its predecessors?

        I’ve owned the 70-300 Sigma APO of long ago and Nikon’s 80-400VR1 and some older entry level stuff so I’ve paid the school fees. Admittedly I was using them with older cameras that are not as light sensitive as modern ones but shutter speed was frequently limiting and those lenses were all f5.6 at the long end. My post was lamenting the drift to f6.3 as the new normal.

        Maybe my initial post came across a bit strong but I go wildlife shooting and birding with a lot of novice photographers and those that buy the entry level zooms usually either upgrade quite soon or give up. In recent years the long zooms have become sharper and much qmore affordable ( Sigma and Tamron 150-600s for example) allowing entry to a lot more budding enthusiasts at reasonable prices. This 100-400 is a handy zoom range for an APSC DSLR but I’d rather pay 10 to 20% more for it to be f5.6 if I was going to buy one……or save a little longer.

    • DaveyJ

      Your infatuation for primes is very fashionable. If you really are around wildlife they are there in bright light and low light. It sure would be nice to have the mega expensive glass. But my money like those levels is spent paying taxes on farmland which near as I can tell is to provide for others open space while farmers and ranchers live in picturesque poverty.

      • Pat Mann

        Your decision to make.

        • DaveyJ

          Your answer is typical…..and shows very little knowledge of just how rough farming and ranching is. Fact is a number are run as well as any public lands. Still my love for our National Parks is one of the greatest missions of my life.

    • you are talking rubbish. I shoot for a major sports magazine and use D4s and D810 with Sigma 150-600 sports lens, use NOISWARE software when needed, ALL of my shots for the magazine are eithet that lens or Nikkor 70-200 f2.8

      • Sushant Sourav

        not everyone has a D4/D810..many have entry/mid level bodies…where these budget lenses leave a lot to desire…particularly for wildlife; Sporting events are generally in broad sunlight , and the tracks are known; Wildlife is generally dawn/dusk and animals/birds have random movements..

        • Not everyone is a professional wildlife photograher that spends >5k on a lens. The Sigma 100-400 is 900$, the Nikon 80-400 is > 2000$ and it is only f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 which really doesn’t matter. Next step up would be a Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS + 1.4x TC (which I also have). Here you are at 420/4. The Nikon 400/2.8 or 500/4 is about 10k. Sigma 500/4 is 7k. Do you really think people are buying these to spend a day with the kids at the zoo? For me the Sigma 100-400 is a very good compromise, gives you good reach, especially on a DX body, is not to heavy and the price is quite decent. I have the lens and I really like it, even though I also have the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS

          • I agree with both you and S.S above, as I said I also have the Nikkor 80-400 as well ( please will people NOTE and remember NIKON is the camera BODY and NIKKOR are the lenses, NOT NIKON, you have Nikkor lenses and Nikon camera bodies)

            • Bob Thane

              Nikkor is the lens line designation, but they’re still made by Nikon so there’s no reason to not call them Nikon lenses.

            • I prefer to be accurate, once being a Nikon sales Manager

            • John Albino

              Do you (accurately) pronounce it N-EYE-kon,
              N-EE-kon, or N-ICK-on? 🙂

            • Pat Mann

              It’s just two syllables. We also have Nikkormat to consider (three syllables). The only truly correct camera for Nikkor lenses.

          • nhz

            Agree, there are many comments about the ‘slow’ Sigma 100-400 on Canon forums as well, but it is only 1/3 stop less bright than the Canon 100-400II which is considered one of Canons best zoom lenses and which is becoming one of the main lenses for nature/wildlife enthusiasts and even some professional wildlife photographers.
            But the Canon is $2000, and on recent Canon bodies the f/5.6-f/6.3 aperture difference doesn’t make much difference for AF anyway.

    • Not everybody is shooting animals at night. I have the lens (it is available in Germany for two weeks now) and I like it a lot. Perfect for traveling or a visit at the local zoo. I also have the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS and it is certainly better for wildlife, but this does not mean the 100-400 is useless. The best lens is the one you take with you, not the big, heavy lens you leave at home most of the time because it is too heavy to carry.

    • James Fennessy

      More of these slow f/6.3 zoom lenses are not needed because there are so many already on the market between, sigma, Tamron and Nikon. This lens cannot compete with any of those manufacturers’ 70-200 f/2.8s on the short end, or the 150-600’s (Nikon 200-500mm) on the long end. In contrast, no-one makes a hand-holdable lightwight f/4 prime for wildlife shooting, which requires speed (birds in flight) and low light, for when wildlife is most active at dawn and dusk. There is nothing wrong with Sigma making yet another version of a slow long f/6.3, but I wish someone would replicate the Canon f/4 prime for Nikon.

      • The Canon 400/4 DO is almost 7000$. Do you expect a Nikon 400/4 PF to be much cheaper? The Sigma 100-400 is 800$, completely different target audience. The market for 7000$ telephoto primes is not exactly big and for the same price, there is already the Sigma 500/4 OS.

        • James Fennessy

          The Sigma 500 f4 is too heavy to handhold for long periods of time, it is heavier than the Nikon 500mm f/4 fl, and way heavier than the Canon 400 f4. I own a Nikon 600mm f/4 FL, and would like a lightweight handholdable 400 f/4

          • I could buy a 600mm Nikkor tomorrow, pointless, I prefer zooms, when the subject comes close zoom out when it moves away zoom in, I could willingly as could many place a photo taken with a prime next to a zoom and NO ONE at a4/a3 would know what lens was used, you could 20 years ago even perhaps ten not today, CanNikSam zoom lenses are superb.

        • nhz

          My guess is that the Nikon PF technology is cheaper in production but it may depend on the lens design. Still, a 4/400PF would not be cheap obviously. Also, prices for this type of lens are hardly determined by production cost but more by what the market (mostly professional users) will bear.

          I agree about the need for modern lightweight and reasonably light primes for applications like BIF (or in my case DIF – dragonflies in flight). But lightweight, bright and affordable is an impossible combination to ask for. And ‘bright’ in practice often means compromise for focusing close, e.g. most of the recent 2.8/300mm lenses have 2.5-3 meters MFD while the 4/300 lenses focus down to 1.5-2 meters. That makes the bright ones less suitable for general nature photography.

  • Stephen Gatley

    What are you lot belly aching about this lens is what APSC hobbyist wildlife photographers need to compete with MFT format shooters!

  • why would anyone what this over the 150-600, i shoot sports for a glossy magazine, and the sport 150-600 never comes off my camera, I was one of the first in the UK to get one, I would have no use for this, the extra 50mm at the short end is nothing and the loss of 200mm at the long makes it useless for sports when I have a better 80-400 Nikkor when needed

    • Oham

      I think of this lens as an interesting addition to, not a replacement of the 150-600 S. Sort of a shorter, more compact and much lighter weight option when ultimate reach isn’t really needed. If I had no supertelezoom, I’d opt for 150-600 S. If I were on a budget, I’d opt for 150-600 C. But what if I already own 150-600 S and want something smaller / lighter as a second lens? Then this one, I think, makes more sense than 150-600 C. Provided image quality will be acceptable, of course. Also this might be interesting for people who want zoom, not prime, and are not ready for the size and weight of either of the 150-600s. Plenty of such people around, too, I think.

    • MB

      Maybe this could answer you question …
      Sigma 100-400 is in the middle and as you can see it is the same size as Nikom 70-200 f/4 … on the right is Tamron 150-600 … similar to Sigma 150-600 it is twice the size and weight … this could be important for some people … 100-400 is also cheaper, but currently not much although I expect this to change in time …
      The major deal breaker for me is that Sigma 100-400 is a slow tele lens that does not support tripod collar …

      • What, are you joking no collar, then no buy

        I have 14-24, 24-120, f2.8 Nikkor 70-200 80-400 and Siggy 150-600, my main used is the sigma.

        • MB

          No, I am afraid I am not joking … Sigma decided it is not needed …
          I believe the reasoning behind this decision is that this lens and Sigma 25-105 make a great, light enough kit (well not that light with 25-105) for walk
          around … and it does in most ways … very good IQ … 24-400 coverage … but definitely not for everybody … including me 🙂

        • T.I.M

          Light lens no need for collar, I use my AF-S 300mm f/4 PF ED VR with no tripod or monopod, so light you don’t get tired even after hours, and the VR help to reduce vibrations !

          • why do you wrongly assume to state that just because a lens is light it needs no collar. Just because YOU may want to use the lens in one way do not assume we all do the same.

            1. Have you even bothered to consider disabled users.

            2. Users who shoot sports that use a Wimberley or other Gimbal as I do

            3. When you are at a static location I leave my gear on my Gitzos and Wimberleys perhaps all day, instead of picking up/putting down, always ready.

            We all have differing needs. No collar no use for me

          • docnorth

            Your lens is much lighter and does not extend. This Sigma 100-400 is 1160g heavy propably without the (metal?) lens hood, 182,3mm long and extends another 5-6cm at 400mm where it will mostly be used. I still use the old Nikkor
            AF 300mm 1:4 (the version until 2000, without s/w motor), it is 1330g heavy and 219mm long plus 2,5-3cm if the tc-14b attached. The lens is
            relatively easy to handhold for a long time, but when I carry it around I hold the lens, not the camera and of cource the tripod collar is often
            absolut necessary. This Sigma zoom is comparable, but it looks there is no collar at all and no place to hold the lens and to carry it around. That might be a dangerous strain for the mount of an amateur DSLR.
            By the way, can you compare your lens with the older af 300mm 1/4 versions? Thanks

    • nwcs

      Not everyone values what the 150-600 has to offer. I’d pick the 150-600 as well but I can see the value in the 100-400 that’s small and compact. It would make a great travel companion for less demanding situations.

  • DaveyJ

    I wonder how this offering would stack up at say 600yards compared to the Tamron 150-600 G2? Right now without owning both and trying them…….it would seem that the Sigma or Tamron G2 150-600 would still be the best way to go? I my wide zooms, so myself it is only in this long range department I procrastinate.

  • Eric Calabros

    Nikon published its annual report:

    “net sales for the Imaging Products Business decreased by 26.4% year on year to 383,022 million
    yen, and operating income decreased by 39.4% year on year to 27,733 million yen.”

  • wallybrooks

    It looks like a copy of the Canon 100-400. Was then modified to a Nikon mount. Priced at US$800 is much lower cost than the Canon or Nikon 80-400, is aimed at consumers- no collar mount. Sigma wants to make money sees a product niche and puts it into the market.

  • Nikon King

    lol it’s cute. I’ll stick with the Nikon 80-400 instead.

    • nwcs

      The 80-400 is a better lens but also costs more than 2x this one so there is a market for it.

      • Nikon King

        Hey I used to be that market but I’d just end up upgrading my lenses to the lens that I should have bought in the first place. Now I’m getting rid of the middle man.

        • nwcs

          And I would do that as well (and even did the 200-400 for several years) but not everyone has the resources for that. Every lens is a compromise of something.

    • Brent Rawlings

      The Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 works great for me.

      • Nikon King

        Also great lens. It wasn’t around when I got the 80-400. If it was, I would have had a great debate about keeping my 70-200 along with the 200-500 instead of selling it off and getting the 80-400 as an all purpose telephoto.

  • HD10

    While I am uncertain whether I have a need for this lens and thus get one, I welcome Sigma release a moderately sized and relatively light (1160g) long lens. Sigma continues with reasonably pricing its products but most of its new lenses while exemplary have established new record in both being big and heavy.

    Once Sigma completes that line, I hope that Sigma will consider making some small and light prime lenses the size and weight of the old Nikkor f/2.0-f2.8 AF-D lenses.

  • Pat Mann

    How about 1.5x as much for f/5.6? Because that’s what you would have to pay for one as good optically at f/5.6 as this at f/6.3.

  • Mehdi R
    • T.I.M

      Is it for a gun or a camera ?

      • Mehdi R

        It was, but they modified it for super-telephotos..

  • outkasted

    not when running from a bear

  • Brian Love

    Here we have the usual discussion on Nikon Rumors for a product that no independent source has tested or even better still, multiple independent sources have tested yet is still more that likely going to be third party crap?
    We even have posts that such and such is a better lens? Again why for the same reasons?
    There will be a ready market for this lens and just because it is not for you (and of coarse that’s cool too) does not mean it will not be for thousands of other recreational photographers looking for a light weight, decent performing( going on Sigma’s offering’s over the last few year) relatively cheap but not cheaply built offering.
    FYI I shoot mainly wildlife/birds with Nikon bodies, formerly d7000, d7100 and currently d750, d500 with Sigma’s 120-300mm S, 150-600 C and 17-50mm F2.8 and am more that happy to share a link to my work with these combinations….

  • outkasted

    I’m contemplating myself with regards to a ‘BIG’ Lens. I really want a Nikon 400mm|2.8 FL (wifey tells me keep on dreaming)… I then turned my attention to a 80-400mm |4.5-5.6… expensive but doable. Then there is this new Sigma 100-400mm. I’m using these lenses primarily for Sport. I’m from Bermuda and the 35th Americas Cup is about to start. I will be on the Photo/ Chase boats and on shore doing event/ Concert photos too. My dilemma is that i want to eventually get the 400mm FL but until then i need to compromise. Should I get
    1. Tammy 150-600 G2
    2. Nikon 200-500 /5.6
    3. Nikon 80-400/ 4.5-5.6
    4. Sigma 100-400/ 5.6-6.3

    Let me know.

  • John Doe

    I had pre-ordered one of these and it arrived today. I was under the mistaken impression that, like other Sigma DG lenses, it would be comparable to a Nikon “G” lens (including being compatible with an F6 body). It is not. It is like an “E” lens (electronic diaphragm). There is no stop-down lever, which cripples it on an F6. I was misled by its product description on the Sigma website, which implies that it would be compatible with film bodies.

    So back to B&H it goes.

  • Back to top