September 25, 2017, 08:35:21 PM

Author Topic: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary  (Read 6641 times)

Talys

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Canon 6DII
Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« on: August 21, 2017, 03:44:16 AM »
I've owned the Sigma 150-600 F5.0-6.3 Contemporary for a while now and just yesterday bought the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L II.  The main purpose of both lenses is birding and backyard wildlife. 

I thought I'd share my thoughts comparing the two.  Originally, I bought the Sigma 150-600C first because of price and reach, but really, I agonized over it.  Hopefully, this may help someone else in their decision-making.

First of all, since it was way too late to do anything with my shiny new Canon 100-400 II last night by the time I got home, I set up AFMA, and then decided to test it for image quality versus the Sigma, in my basement.  I set up a flattened calibration target on one side, and an Xrite Colorchecker on the other, like so:



To make it apples to apples, they're both photographed at 400mm f/8.  Ultimately, this helps the Sigma more than it helps the Canon, as the Sigma's IQ suffers a little wide open. There are a zillion reviews where you can see by how much; I think it's relatively inconsequential, though. 

Here are the full resolution version versions, unedited.  These had CWB set against the ColorChecker White Card, but they are otherwise uncorrected.  They were originally shot as RAW, and converted in Photoshop using ACR with no manipulation.

Canon: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/IMG_7995_Canon_100-400II.jpg
Sigma: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/IMG_8008_Sigma_150-600C.jpg

For sharpness, I think that they are very, very close.  I wouldn't say that one is sharper than the other. However, if you look at the ruled target on the left with the two side by side:



The Canon has visibly better contrast, with whiter whites. We can haggle about the definition of "sharpness" or "pixel level sharpnes" as either bleed or edge contrast, but at the end of the day, cleaner whites and more contrast will appear more sharp in a general sense.  And besides, a whiter white is a better thing, so I give the Canon 100-400L II the win over the Sigma 150-600C.

Note that on the target, the print is not a solid black, but a dark grey dithered pattern, which is accurately represented on both lenses.

Interesting aside:  When I was setting up and checking focus and exposure, I had my camera set to JPEG (for faster WiFi, since I was verifying focus on PC).  The Sigma exhibited a slight, but very unappealing moiré.  It didn't appear in any of the RAWs.  Just for kicks, I tried it on the Canon, and there was no moiré.  However, I always shoot RAW, so this doesn't really matter to me.


Next, here's the ColorCheckr side by side.  However, you should use this image only for judging the colors and contrast, as they have both been rotated to be square and then resized.  To judge the sharpness, use the original images above, which aren't rotated.



In unedited photos, I favor the Canon, which looks a little more contrasty to me, with a nicer red, green, and blue, but that's probably just taste.  When you apply the Xrite corrections, they become indistinguishable, and in the real world, whatever you do in post is probably going to have infinitely more impact.

I will give you some of my thoughts between using both, but before I get to that, I'll share my first pictures -- some animal pictures I shot today, since you made it this far through my rambling :)

All of these were shot with the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L II, on a Canon 6D Mark II.  The high res images are cropped, but unreduced, so that you can pixel peep if you wish.  I was pretty impressed with the ISO 12,800 shot at the end.



Raccoon Family Photo, 1/800 f/5 ISO 4000 135mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Family_Photo_F.JPG


Raccoon Baby, 1/400 f/5 ISO 2500 300mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Baby3_F.jpg


Chickadee, 1/2000 f/5.6 ISO 3200 214mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Chickadee_F.jpg


Chickadee Launch, 1/2000 f/5.6 ISO 3200 200mm


Chickadee Incoming, 1/1250, f/5.6 ISO 12800 400mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Chickadee_Launch_F.jpg


Now, having used both, here are some thoughts. 

Things I liked better about the Canon 100-400L II:

- The Canon 100-400L II is a joy to use.  The construction is amazing, definitely a step up from the Sigma 150-600 C in the department of premium feel, first impression, and construction.  It's the difference between very nice and awesome, though, so it's not like I don't like the Sigma.  I just like the Canon more.

- The weight is amazing.  It's a well-balanced lens that is great for handheld shots.  The Sigma 150-600 is a hard lens to use handheld for a half-day, because it gets very heavy -- around twice the weight of the Canon.  This, and focal range, are obviously the two biggest differences between the two lenses.

- The minimum focus distance of the Canon is out of this world short.  3.5 ft versus about 6.5 ft on the Sigma -- approximately, anyhow; I'm going by memory.  But I REALLY noticed this, and the use cases that it opens up is pretty huge.

- 100-150 is a very useful focal range.

- The zoom lock lets you lock the lens in place at any zoom level.  It's super useful, because you can extend the zoom to 250, 300, whatever -- and keep it there without it creeping to full extension, especially if you walk around with a harness.

- The manual focus ring is superb.  On a scale of 10, the Canon is a perfect 10, and the Sigma MF is a super annoying 5, and that's proably being generous.  The Sigma ring is very, very narrow (only a few millimeters), relatively stiff, and quite jumpy (tiniest twist can throw focus off).  On the other hand, the Canon is butter smooth, responsively fast without being jerky, and very comfortable to use.

- Speaking of focus, Autofocus is very good on the Canon, definitely far superior to the Sigma.  At 6.3, the Sigma still has trouble at times; you really need to be wide open and zoomed out to get focus, and even then, the AF speed isn't comparable.

- IS Mode 3 is available, which makes it so that IS only kicks in the moment the shutter is going to open.  Cool feature, normally on only Big White Primes.  It is useful in that you don't have to fight IS to focus.

- Both the Canon and Sigma come with very nice lens hoods.  Yeah, it's just a lens hood, but still.  The Canon one has a little door at the bottom, which is really sweet -- you can adjust polarizing/ND filters without taking the hood off. 


Things I liked better about the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary:

- The elephant in the room is the price, of course.  It's one third the price of the Canon.  The Sigma is much better priced for casual use.  (pricing note: for some reason, the Sigma is cheaper in Canada.  It comes out to about $800 USD, versus about $1,000 USD in the US; the Canon, on the other hand is a about $2,050 USD at the current manufacturer's rebate, and I believe $150 or so without).

- And the other elephant in the room is the focal range.  150-600 is massively more.  Now, to be fair, the Canon can mitigate this by adding a 1.4x TC, taking it to 140mm-560mm.  Thing is, the 1.4TC is about half the price of the Sigma.

- After using both, I prefer the tripod collar on the Sigma.  It can be easily and quickly removed and is easier to level because of intelligent markings on the collar and lens. 

- You can update the firmware on the Sigma with the USB dock and you can configure several AF parameters in C1, C2.  Plus, you can adjust AF from the USB dock, if you're using a body with AFMA.


CONCLUSION

I was really impressed by how well the Sigma held up!

Personally, I see these as complimentary lenses: the Sigma is really too heavy for me to do handheld photography (at least for very long), so it's generally always on a tripod.  That gives me the ability to shoot lower ISOs and a little slower shutter speed, which goes well with being on 80D/APSC -- which also gives me more reach (nearly 1000mm of FF equivalent magnification).

For the Canon 100-400 II, I plan on attaching it to my 6DII to catch birds in flight.  Here, high shutter speeds are really important, and because of, well, math, there aren't many ways to shoot 1/2000 at an APSC usable ISO.

On my outings, I plan on taking both, wearing them on a BlackRapid dual harness.

So if I had it to do again, which one would I buy first?  Even though I think I like the Canon lens better, I think I would still buy the Sigma first.  It is an amazing value, and nearly every shot you can get from a Canon 100-400L II, you could get on a Sigma... it's just that some would be a lot harder.

Which would buy if I could only buy one?  Well, in this case, I'd get the Canon, or if I already had the Sigma, I'd sell that and get the Canon (plus TC if I needed the reach), when finances permitted.  Ultimately, it's just too good a lens to not own, if you don't think that $2000 is too much to spend on an up-to-400mm telephoto.

But at the end of the day, it depends on what you want to shoot.  I think if most of your shooting is handheld, you should get the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L II, if you can afford it.  If not, I'd seriously suggest looking into the new Sigma 100-400, because it's really very impressive, and also a fraction of the Canon's price.  If you're going to shoot everything on a tripod, I think that the Sigma 150-600 5.0-6.3 Contemporary is the winner.

Either way, they are both great lenses, and I'm very happy to own both!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 03:55:39 AM by Talys »

canon rumors FORUM

Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« on: August 21, 2017, 03:44:16 AM »

SecureGSM

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2017, 04:36:20 AM »
Talys,

nice review and everything. thank you. just a couple of observations:

Quote
Personally, I see these as complimentary lenses: the Sigma is really too heavy for me to do handheld photography (at least for very long), so it's generally always on a tripod.

On my outings, I plan on taking both, wearing them on a BlackRapid dual harness.

if Sigma is too heavy for you and always on tripod, it is only logical that you will have to mount the lens on tripod for shooting at your outings. hence conclusion that carrying the lens on the strap would not help you much as you will have to detach the lens from the harness and reattach to tripod head for shooting.
secondly, carrying 2 long and heavy super telephoto lenses on harness hanging of both of your shoulders and swinging around your hips as you move,  will kill your back, spine and shoulders really fast. trust me :)
I know what it takes to carry Sigma 120 300 F2.8 on Black Rapid single strap. you can feel it. note: I am fit :)
you will also have to hold both cams with your left and right hand at all time to avoid cameras swinging as you move :)
with 2 lenses I suggest a large and comfortable photo backpack to fit both lenses plus other gear.
I use Lowepro Flipside 500AW. as you can see you can fit another body and Canon 100 400 lens  comfortably.

you can keep Sigma lens in the backpack and have the camera and canon lens tripod foot attached to the Blackrapid single. when you need your sigma out, detach Canon, take the sigma out and place Canon lens in backpack.

If you shoot with 2 bodies, you can leave Canon lens on the second body hanging on the Blackrapid strap and get the Sigma with the first body from the back pack, and  place Sigma back in backpack once you are done shooting with Sigma.

On unrelated note, do you really need two identical lenses? Man, they are identical... seriously. Your Canon with x1.4 tele converter attached becomes 160 - 560 lens. get a mint slightly used x1.4 Canon TC and sell your Sigma.





« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 05:06:15 AM by SecureGSM »

bholliman

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1405
    • [color=blue]Flick[/color][color=red]r[/color]
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2017, 06:11:04 AM »
Either way, they are both great lenses, and I'm very happy to own both!

Thanks for sharing Talys!  I own the 100-400 II, but have never used the Sigma.  The Sigma C looks like a terrific lens for the money.

Do you plan to keep both or keep your preference?
5DsR, EF Lenses: 300mm f/2.8L II IS, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8LII, 70-200mm f/2.8LIS II, 100-400mm II
M5, M series lenses: Rokinon 12mm f/2, EF-M 22mm f/2, 11-22mm, 18-150mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68928679@N05

tjbstone

  • PowerShot SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2017, 07:01:22 AM »
Thanks for this review. It has assisted me with some similar decision making.
Look forward to further discussion on this topic.

Talys

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2017, 11:16:06 AM »

if Sigma is too heavy for you and always on tripod, it is only logical that you will have to mount the lens on tripod for shooting at your outings. hence conclusion that carrying the lens on the strap would not help you much as you will have to detach the lens from the harness and reattach to tripod head for shooting.
secondly, carrying 2 long and heavy super telephoto lenses on harness hanging of both of your shoulders and swinging around your hips as you move,  will kill your back, spine and shoulders really fast. trust me :)
I know what it takes to carry Sigma 120 300 F2.8 on Black Rapid single strap. you can feel it. note: I am fit :)
you will also have to hold both cams with your left and right hand at all time to avoid cameras swinging as you move :)
with 2 lenses I suggest a large and comfortable photo backpack to fit both lenses plus other gear.
I use Lowepro Flipside 500AW. as you can see you can fit another body and Canon 100 400 lens  comfortably.

you can keep Sigma lens in the backpack and have the camera and canon lens tripod foot attached to the Blackrapid single. when you need your sigma out, detach Canon, take the sigma out and place Canon lens in backpack.

If you shoot with 2 bodies, you can leave Canon lens on the second body hanging on the Blackrapid strap and get the Sigma with the first body from the back pack, and  place Sigma back in backpack once you are done shooting with Sigma.

On unrelated note, do you really need two identical lenses? Man, they are identical... seriously. Your Canon with x1.4 tele converter attached becomes 160 - 560 lens. get a mint slightly used x1.4 Canon TC and sell your Sigma.

The weight difficulty, for me, is in holding it up at eye level for any length of time.  After a while, holding it past fifteen seconds is like... omg... just let me die :D  And then, I miss the shot.  One thing I should mention, too, is that the sigma has the focus ring is very close to the body, which makes it even heavier to handhold (since all the weight in the front of the lens acts like a lever).

What I'm planning is to do is to attach the 150-600 onto my 80D, for the extra reach, and to seat onto a tripod, because 400mm on FF just won't give enough reach to catch a lot of perched birdies.  I could put the 100-400 on an 80D -- and I'll try that for sure, as well as with a 1.4 TC -- but my problem is that now, I give up the high ISO performance, which will, I hope, allow me to shoot better BIF shots. 

Ok, I admit it, maybe I am being too ambitious trying to walk around with 100mm - 1000mm :)  One problem that I can foresee with walking around with two long lenses is that kneeling down would be more of an issue if the ground is rough (like gravel trails).

By the way, I don't need to unhook the camera to put it on the tripod.  What I do is put the blackrapid dongle on the body, and an arca plate on the tripod foot.  There is plenty of slack to easily sit the lens onto a tripod, take some shots, and then move on.  With the BlackRapid system, it's also pretty easy to detatch if I want.

Another thing that I should mention that's minor but annoying: on the Sigma, the tripod foot has only a screw thread, and it's quite smooth.   In practice, if you're taking this on and off a tripod all day, torque generated by the weight in the front of the lens loosens it, even if your arca plate has an L at the end to help keep it square.  On the other hand, the tripod foot is nice and square and allows you to use an L attachment at the end of a 70mm or 90mm plate; on the Canon, the foot is too rounded for that to be of much use.

For the Canon, the tripod foot has both a screw thread and a second hole for a centering pin (usually spring loaded; the type you see on lots of 70mm+ plates for pan heads).  Of course, now, I need to find/get an arca plate with one, as my only plates with that are ones that are not arca-swiss :( 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 11:19:05 AM by Talys »

SecureGSM

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2017, 12:02:09 PM »
sounds like a plan to me! ;)

just wanted to clarify something:

Quote
What I do is put the blackrapid dongle on the body, and an arca plate on the tripod foot.  There is plenty of slack to easily sit the lens onto a tripod, take some shots, and then move on.  With the BlackRapid system, it's also pretty easy to detach if I want.

If I understood correctly, you attach Blackrapid to the body and leave the long and  heavy lens hanging of the body as you walk.. is that correct?
if so, I should note that this is not the best practice. you can kill the lens mount with such a heavy and long lens.
I have attached photos of my setup. Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports,  70mm Arca Swiss (Generic PU70) plate occupies 2 out of 3 mounting holes and I use the third one for BlackRapid plate attachment. you end up with a better balanced system as well. you do not need to detach the strap for tripod mounting.

p.s. just realised that there is a single mounting hole available on Sigma Contemporary lens. there is solution for that as well:

https://www.kirkphoto.com/lens-plate-for-sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-contemporary.html

as you can see there are 3  1/4" accessory mounting holes. you can attach the blackrapid plate to either  mounting hole for transportation. remove for tripod mounting. I marked the one that I would use.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 12:34:48 PM by SecureGSM »

Talys

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2017, 02:27:27 PM »

If I understood correctly, you attach Blackrapid to the body and leave the long and  heavy lens hanging of the body as you walk.. is that correct?
if so, I should note that this is not the best practice. you can kill the lens mount with such a heavy and long lens.
I have attached photos of my setup. Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports,  70mm Arca Swiss (Generic PU70) plate occupies 2 out of 3 mounting holes and I use the third one for BlackRapid plate attachment. you end up with a better balanced system as well. you do not need to detach the strap for tripod mounting.


Wow, I didn't know that about potentially damaging the lens mount.  Thank you for pointing that out to me, as well as for the recommendations on the plate!

On the subject of lens mount, I the Sigma 150-600 has a very small amount of play on some of my bodies, including 80D (always did, since day 1), but none on my 6D2.  The Canon 100-400 fits perfectly on every Canon EF body I own, right back to T2i.  I contacted Sigma, and they told me that a small amount of play was normal.

Do you think the Canon 100-400 is also too heavy to attach from the body, or should I use a similar setup for that too?

Thanks much.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 02:30:26 PM by Talys »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2017, 02:27:27 PM »

SecureGSM

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2017, 09:16:05 PM »
No worries.

The play on some of your bodies is normal as your Sigma is not a weather sealed lens. There is a rubber gasket on your Canon lens mount that tighten tolerances up.
Your Canon 100-400 weight is 1570gr. I would attach blackrapid strap to tripod mount for camera mount protection and for better balance as well. My 70-200 II L lens weight is roughly the same at 1470gr and I always hook the strap to tripod mount when I shoot with a single body.

However, when I shoot with two bodies, I _remove_ tripod collar of my 70-200 II L lens all together to reduce the weight and run and gun with 24-70 and 70-200 lenses in  Spider Pro Dual holster.
both lenses hang off the bodies, but.. there is a but.. with Spider Pro Dual holster, long lens leans against my hips and that reduces dynamics of the load at least some what. The lens does not bounce around and that certainly gives me more confidence in situation.
Also, I figured out that there are multiple ways of attaching the pin to Spider Pro plate. By default the camera sits in the holster horizontally, bottom up and with weight of the lens pushed across your body.
there are four 1/4" mounting holes on the Spider Pro plate. I attach the pin to the centre most hole and mount the camera in vertical position with the  lens pointing down instead. That improves balance and reduces torque applied to the camera mount by heavy lens.
Another benefit of this method is that the lens does not stick out too much and less chances of banging the lens as you zoom around.

 With strap, I would not risk attaching it to the body directly with 1500kg heavy lens attached.
My opinion: use tripod mount with your blackrapid strap with every lens that comes with tripod mount.




Wow, I didn't know that about potentially damaging the lens mount.  Thank you for pointing that out to me, as well as for the recommendations on the plate!

On the subject of lens mount, I the Sigma 150-600 has a very small amount of play on some of my bodies, including 80D (always did, since day 1), but none on my 6D2.  The Canon 100-400 fits perfectly on every Canon EF body I own, right back to T2i.  I contacted Sigma, and they told me that a small amount of play was normal.

Do you think the Canon 100-400 is also too heavy to attach from the body, or should I use a similar setup for that too?

Thanks much.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 09:44:42 PM by SecureGSM »

Ryananthony

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2017, 10:11:07 PM »
No worries.

The play on some of your bodies is normal as your Sigma is not a weather sealed lens. There is a rubber gasket on your Canon lens mount that tighten tolerances up.

I don't think it has anything to do with weather sealing, but rather the weight of the lens. The Sigma has a rubber gasket on the mount. My old 70-200mm f2.8IS was lose the on my camera bodies as well.

SecureGSM

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2017, 10:19:39 PM »
Just an observation:
All my first generation Sigma Art (non weather protected) lenses are a bit loose in the mount. But 135 Art is weather protected and is pretty tight. Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports is also tight. Coincidence? It may well be.

No worries.

The play on some of your bodies is normal as your Sigma is not a weather sealed lens. There is a rubber gasket on your Canon lens mount that tighten tolerances up.

I don't think it has anything to do with weather sealing, but rather the weight of the lens. The Sigma has a rubber gasket on the mount. My old 70-200mm f2.8IS was lose the on my camera bodies as well.

Jopa

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 798
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2017, 11:32:26 PM »
...

Great pictures! Wonder where do you live if you have a whole coon family visiting you?

Talys

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2017, 01:19:33 AM »
My opinion: use tripod mount with your blackrapid strap with every lens that comes with tripod mount.

I will take that advice.  I wore the 100-400 that way today, and it was quite comfortable.  On the long Sigma, I was used to the length of the lens kind of wrapping behind my leg.  Oh well, I will adjust :)

Thank you for all of your help and suggestions!

Great pictures! Wonder where do you live if you have a whole coon family visiting you?

Thanks!  I'm on the west coast of Canada, near Vancouver.  They're very cool.  She comes in the spring to have babies under our deck, and then moves out late in the fall  when they get bigger.  If it's a very harsh winter, they'll come and hide out there, too.  Kind of nice because she gets rid (eats) of all the mice when she comes too :D

We are a popular destination because we don't haze them out, and there is a creek nearby for water.  Plus, plenty of edibles - two plum trees that have fruit for a good 5 months or so, a big yard, rodents, plenty of bugs, and if they get really lucky, eggs from birdies that nested too low.

Last year, I was taking a moon shoot (the super moon), and missed out on the REAL shot, because I didn't have the right gear with me:  a mother raccoon, plus 3 babies looking at me with my camera and tripod, then turning at the moon, wondering what was so going on.  It was hilarious!

I managed to get this one today, a happy moment.  Male downy woodpecker -



Ryananthony

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2017, 03:45:25 AM »
Thanks!  I'm on the west coast of Canada, near Vancouver.

Me too! Pitt Meadows.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2017, 03:45:25 AM »

alvarow

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 11
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2017, 02:17:35 PM »
100-400 II it's just too good a lens to not own!

I started with a used Tamron G1 150-600, and I liked it but stumbled on a Sigma brand new with the dock for the same money I could see the Tamron, so I did... I also enjoyed the Sigma, but I kept telling myself it wasn't too big and cumbersome, then I tried the 400 L 5.6 prime from a friend and it was much lighter and the pictures at 400mm cropped to 600mm equiv were sharper than the Sigma at 600mm. At 400mm it was a toss really, perhaps the Sigma being better because it had IS, but after I found that from 400 to 600 things get worse really fast I simply waited for a sale of the 100-400 II and that was the best decision for me. The lens is much more manageable to carry around and the IQ  is much better than Sigma if you need to shoot wide open. At f8 it is a toss, but if you need the speed then things are noticeably better on the Canon.

I recently got the 6DII and I haven't gone out yet with the 100-400 II, but on the 80D the Canon is the winner for me, IF, and that's a big IF, you can spring the extra dollars for it, if you you'll be happy with the results from Sigma as well.

canon1dxman

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2017, 04:33:16 PM »
Funnily enough, been down the same route. Bought the Sigma in kit form with the 1.4x at a crazy price in 2016 at a Park Cameras UK event. Loved the long reach but found it a pain for hand held over long periods.
At the same event in 2017 they had the Canon at £1500 so I bought it to go with my 1DX2. Absolutely love it. Sold the Sigma easily to a guy with an original 6D. He also loved it but couldn't get on with the weight, hand held, so he sold it too and bought the new Sigma 100-400.
Both of us now very happy campers!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2017, 04:33:16 PM »