Choosing between 2 lenses. (1 Viewer)

[Evan Atkinson]

I'm having a difficult decision with choosing between the Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS II USM and the sigma 150-600 Contemporary. The Sigma has more reach, is light and produces high quality images. However, it struggles with birds in flight as the autofocus is slow; although there is a way to fix this. On the other hand, I have had experience with the 100-400, and it has gotten me some very sharp pictures, and there's not really a downside apart from its reach. Both lenses are within my price range. What should I go for?

Many thanks,
Ev

 

[Roy C]

I'm having a difficult decision with choosing between the Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS II USM and the sigma 150-600 Contemporary. The Sigma has more reach, is light and produces high quality images. However, it struggles with birds in flight as the autofocus is slow; although there is a way to fix this. On the other hand, I have had experience with the 100-400, and it has gotten me some very sharp pictures, and there's not really a downside apart from its reach. Both lenses are within my price range. What should I go for?

Many thanks,
Ev

I had the sigma for around two years then I bought a 100-400 mkII and used both for a year. I carried out lots of controlled comparison shots with static subject at various distances with both lenses and the canon came out on top most every time. In the end the Sigma had to go as it was just not getting any use. I found that I could crop the 400mm images to the same fov as the Sigma at 600mm and still get a sharper/better image. The Sigma was fine if you could get near enough to the subject but for distant birds it was not that clever and focus speed was slower, especially for flyer. The Canon also has a great advantage with the MFD and was handy as a pseudo macro when I did not have my macro lens with me.
Not knocking the Sigma as it is a very nice lens but at the end of the day you get what you pay for compared to the Canon.

 

[Evan Atkinson]

I must say, the mkii has gotten me some very good shots, I don't have any on me at the moment but there are some where I was shooting at 200mm at a BoP show and the bird was still in clean focus fully cropped. I will post some here when I get home and compare them to shots with my 75-300.

 

[Farnboro John]

I took a 100-400 Mk II second-hand from Steve Babbs when he moved to Sony and it's been my go-to lens ever since, relegating my 500 f4 to special occasions due to weight of the latter, it needing a tripod which affects into action time very unfavourably and not that much less reach on the zoom - with the additional flexibility that a zoom gives and experience showing consistently sharp results. So without knowing the Sigma lens I would nonetheless positively recommend the Canon.

John

 

[Evan Atkinson]

I took a 100-400 Mk II second-hand from Steve Babbs when he moved to Sony and it's been my go-to lens ever since, relegating my 500 f4 to special occasions due to weight of the latter, it needing a tripod which affects into action time very unfavourably and not that much less reach on the zoom - with the additional flexibility that a zoom gives and experience showing consistently sharp results. So without knowing the Sigma lens I would nonetheless positively recommend the Canon.

John

Good to hear about the consistent sharpness of the images you've been getting, what camera body do you use the Mk II with?

 

[Farnboro John]

Good to hear about the consistent sharpness of the images you've been getting, what camera body do you use the Mk II with?

A 7DII. I'm waiting now for the R7 at which point I may (read "will almost certainly") upgrade to the RF100-500 zoom.

However, I run a second 7DII with an L-series 70-300 on it, a Speedlite 600 on top and a boresighted Fenix TK32 flashlight (white, red and green options at the touch of a button) underneath for night drives, badger watching, photographing the foxes I feed at the front door and so on. I'll probably continue with that set up post-mirrorless upgrade although I might substitute the 100-400 for night drives - a little more reach for smaller animals.

Cheers

John

 

[AlphaFan]

I'm waiting now for the R7 at which point I may (read "will almost certainly") upgrade to the RF100-500 zoom.

Was bitten by the same bug, my RF 100-500 arrives tomorrow and the R7 hopefully by the end of the month.

 

[rosbifs]

You've got to ask what do you want the photos for. I use the contemporary lens and sometimes wish I had the other meaning the quality is down!

That said the vast majority of my bird photos are at maximum zoom so the reach is important. Another important variable is your level of patience - I have seen some unbelievable shots with the sigma - sadly they weren't mine as I point, shoot and move on...

 

[Evan Atkinson]

You've got to ask what do you want the photos for. I use the contemporary lens and sometimes wish I had the other meaning the quality is down!

That said the vast majority of my bird photos are at maximum zoom so the reach is important. Another important variable is your level of patience - I have seen some unbelievable shots with the sigma - sadly they weren't mine as I point, shoot and move on...

I'm gonna be honest, my new 100-400 mk2 came yesterday and straight away it produced pretty sharp images. Yes it's on a feeder post, but when you can get your AF point somewhere near the eye; even with an old(er) camera like the 700d which I have, the images are still alright quality. I want to switch to mirrorless to get the eye af even if it's the r10. Debating whether to hire the R6 to test in America, or get a 7d mkii and a 1.4 extender. The extender wouuld be hired but i would actually by the mkii.

 

[mav12]

i had the sigma and hired the canon 100-400 and tested side by side couldnt see any difference in sharpness, i did however calibrate the sigma with the Dock , i have now swapped t0 the sony 200-600 which is the better lens ofall three and its a bargain ,compared to the canon 100-400 and 100-500