• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Canon 400mm 5.6 or Sigma 150-600C (1 Viewer)

Chilt

Well-known member
Hey guys, I know I’ve recentally posted something similar to this, but I’ve now only got the 2 lens in mind, it will be on a 550D, it’s making my brain ache on which one to get, I’ve owned the 400mm 5.6 before and it is a good lens, but I just don’t know which to go for, if I get the sigma I’ll most likely get the docking station for it also.

I’ve seen the 400mm go for £475
And the sigma for about £600

It’s going to be a birds/wildlife lens, if anyone could try help my devotion be a bit earlier I’d be very greatful

Thanks
Chilt
 
I shoot the Tammy 150-600 G2 (and now more recently the Nikon 500mm f/5.6). I understand that the Sigma 150-600C is very close. I have been very happy with the 150-600, and used it through Alaska for several weeks. The image stabilization really helped with the diffuse lighting in Alaska in the evening when all the critters were out.

I do not shoot much Canon, but my position would be: if price or weight is at a premium, go the 400/5.6, otherwise go 150-600. It's a really big jump from 400mm to 600m (or 550mm as many shoot it for better sharpness). Because the 400mm has no IS, you need to keep the shutter speed up, whereas the 150-600 could shoot slower with IS for stationary targets. Personally, I'd take the 150-600.

Marc
 
Two things are in favor of the 400/5.6: it is very light and basically indestructible. I know Sigma has improved, I really do trust when even semi-professionals tell me that. Yet, after so much experience with their shitty mechanics of the older times, I am just having a hard time believing one would survive in my hands for long.In the meanwhile, my Canon 400/5.6 has hit the ground and other things literally hundreds of times, has lost paint on loke 20 percent of surface, makes grinding sounds focusing, but the images are still unbelievably sharp (star-tested).

Also, where do you get lenses so cheap? 475 GBP is 60% of the cheapest second hand 400/5.6 I have ever seen in Czech or Poland, ever.
 
I realize I'm late to this discussion, but as I currently own the 400mm f5.6L and previously owned the Sigma 150-600C, I thought I'd add my take. Both lenses offer a good price-to-performance ratio. The Canon 400mm is sharper at 400mm, but my experience was that cropping was a poor substitute for a full 600mm, even if the 600mm is not quite as sharp overall. I still found the Sigma's sharpness to be satisfactory.

The AF on the Canon is faster as well, and more accurate (though I found the Sigma's AF decent enough, even with BIF). I was happy with the performance of the Sigma, and I got lots of satisfying images of birds with it.

In the end I did sell the Sigma and kept the Canon for only one reason: size. The Sigma is a beast, and I was much less likely to want to deal with the size/weight when I could just grab the comparitively smaller Canon 400mm. The handling is very different for these lenses. I frequently use the 400mm handheld, but the Sigma benefits in a big way from a tripod or at least a monopod, especially at 600mm. I just found that I was rarely using it, so I finally sold it. Others might make a different decision based on their own shooting style, and there seem to be a lot of happy owners of both lenses.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top