November 24, 2017, 06:30:43 AM

Author Topic: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary  (Read 18243 times)

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2017, 12:17:51 PM »
For birds in flight, I gave up using the 1.4xTC with the 7DII. And now I tend to use the bare lens with the 5DSR as the TC slows down AF, loses a stop and goes above the diffraction limited aperture at f/8. It also narrows the field of view. My copy of the Sigma at f/6.3 and 600mm is more useful than the Canon at f/8 and 560mm.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2017, 12:17:51 PM »

tjbstone

  • PowerShot SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2017, 04:47:23 PM »
Talys, Thanks for your clarification.

Regards

Bauldy

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2017, 01:17:20 AM »
Talys, it would be  95mm for the "C' version and 105mm for the "Sports".
there are some very nice UV filters available in this size from HOYA, B+W all priced under US$100.00.

105mm filters are quite a bit more expensive. Still, I was able to source  HOYA Fusion 105mm Protector recently for A$145.00 brand new.


You are right, of course!  The polarizing filter is pricy too :(   

I have to have one -- there are many shots at the lake that are just dramatically better with.  However, the only filters I own are clear and CPL, which I bought essentially when I got the lens.  Amazon.com was where I got mine (both B+W), and drove across the border to the US to pick them up.  The Canadian retailer prices were outlandish.  Ironically, the best priced protector filter I could buy local would have been a Nikon 95mm, hehehe.

Incidentally, I think every lens hood should have a little door like the one on that comes with the 100-400 to allow you to adjust a CPL without taking the hood off!


By the way, on the subject of filters for these things... it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but for polarizers, I have a B+W KSM filter, and for the 100-400, I'm using a Hoya HD coated Circular Polarizer (not the nano one).

I could be wrong, but surprisingly (at least to me), I think the Hoya actually lets in more light at the lowest setting.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 01:35:22 AM by Talys »

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2017, 03:29:15 AM »
Correct, by a very slight margin. I would say 1/2 stop? 


I could be wrong, but surprisingly (at least to me), I think the Hoya actually lets in more light at the lowest setting.

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2017, 05:29:42 PM »
Correct, by a very slight margin. I would say 1/2 stop? 


I could be wrong, but surprisingly (at least to me), I think the Hoya actually lets in more light at the lowest setting.

Yes, about that, I think.  On those BIF shots where I'm trying to squeeze out more shutter speed, that's still something, and sometimes the difference between deciding to leave it on or take it off.

One of the immutable laws of bird photography is that they watch me closely and just as I am taking off my expensive, hard to clean filter that I don't want to drop in sand, they do something really cool :D

IslanderMV

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 396
  • "life is for the birds"
    • Jeff Bernier Photography
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2017, 07:47:00 AM »
I was surprised at the number of posters who found the Sigma 150-600 C to be heavy. I had not noticed much of a problem in the field.
Checked the weight of a 100-400L II and 1.4xTC  vs. 150-600 C.
1.81 kg - 1.95 kg, not that big of a difference.

My copy of the Sigma 150-600 C seems to have dead on auto focus. Getting a high proportion of keepers.

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2017, 07:51:25 PM »
I was surprised at the number of posters who found the Sigma 150-600 C to be heavy. I had not noticed much of a problem in the field.
Checked the weight of a 100-400L II and 1.4xTC  vs. 150-600 C.
1.81 kg - 1.95 kg, not that big of a difference.

My copy of the Sigma 150-600 C seems to have dead on auto focus. Getting a high proportion of keepers.


First of all, by the numbers, it doesn't seem like a big deal.  Factor in the price, and this is why I bought the Sigma 150-600C, instead of the Canon 100-400 II, originally.   The only way I can describe it is that after a friend lent me his 100-400 II for an afternoon, I wanted one, bad.

As several people have mentioned, the 100-400II with TC is a lost cause for things like handheld BIF, because autofocus is too slow.  Frankly, I think 600 @ f/6.3 is too slow, too -- I've missed a LOT of shots because AF couldn't lock until it was too late.  Most of my BIF pictures shot handheld at 600mm on the Sigma required that I acquire focus lock at 5.6, then extend to 6.3, and by then, I've mostly missed at least half the frames, if not all of them.  The more successful 600mm shots were on a gimbal, where it was already focused on the bird, before they went into flight.

Weights and lengths without hood are --

Canon 100-400LII - 1.59kg, 193mm retracted, 260 extended
Sigma 150-600 - 1.93kg, 260mm, 335 extended

That's quite a big difference; the 100-400II is essentially the same dimensions as the 70-200/2.8, and the combination of collapsed length, short MFD and 100mm make it so that it's a lens that I can take around anywhere, and that opens up a lot of interesting opportunities.

The Sigma is just too large to do that.  But the biggest difference, actually, is that handheld, the Sigma is becomes very heavy if you use the manual focus and switches.  When you use them, the leverage created by the distance to the heavy front elements puts a lot of downwards force.  Try holding up the Sigma for just 2 minutes continuously, by the manual focus ring, pointing it at one spot, and you'll see what I mean.

The MF ring on the Canon is much better balanced (not to mention, it's a thousand times better).  And when I have it on, the extender actually moves the MF ring and switches forward, which balances the camera better.

It's fair to say a lot of folks don't use MF much.  For me, On very agile smaller subjects like songbirds, hummingbirds, or dragonflies in flight are really hard to catch with autofocus (usually AF focuses on something other than the bird).  Even on larger birds, if they're in the trees, AF gets it wrong often.  Or, if they're in flight but not against blue sky, AF might lock onto whatever is 100 yards behind them.  So, even when I use AF, I want the option to quickly turn it off and MF, so my hand tends to be close to the ring/switches.

Now, please don't get me wrong.  I think the 150-600 C is an awesome lens, especially for the price.  For me, it's not going anywhere.  But that doesn't mean that the 100-400II doesn't have it's definite advantages, either.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2017, 07:54:31 PM by Talys »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2017, 07:51:25 PM »

IslanderMV

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 396
  • "life is for the birds"
    • Jeff Bernier Photography
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2017, 10:39:19 PM »
I have two friends in my area who are wildlife photography enthusiasts. For some time we all had the same gear, a 7D, and the 100-400mm.

They both recently updated to the mark two versions and added the 1.4xTC. One of them agrees with the comments about slow autofocus with the extender, and takes it off for bifs. Still, both love the combo and are glad they made the considerable investment.

I took a different direction. A full frame and a sweet stable of version ā€œLā€ lenses. (This was done to help break a bird photography obsession.) I use the Sigma C with a full frame and I am pleased with the combo.

I am presently salting away some cash for the rumored 200-600mm-5.6, from Canon. THAT should be something. The extended reach of the Sigma with all the virtues of Canon design, performance and construction.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2017, 10:43:18 PM by IslanderMV »

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2017, 12:44:28 AM »
I've uploaded a whole bunch of photos that I took on the 100-400 L II, including this one, which was shot handheld (though it was the best of 4 taken at the same exposure) - 1/400 f/6.3 ISO 100 with Mode 3 IS on:


Full Image: http://talys.icxi.com/cr/20170917/crHeron-Portrait-05_FW.jpg

Here is the head with the eye , only reduced a tiny bit, to fit forum width.  The link above is 100%.  I've only had the 100-400II for a couple of weeks, and this was not a level of crispness I could have ever dreamt of handheld on the 150-600C.  Part of it is also the mode 3 IS, which is just phenomenal.

For me, my favorite bird portraits capture the eye crisply, with a glint of a reflection of light in them.  I find also that when they're printed, this gives them a lot more dimension.



This duck's eye is also a handheld shot.  The cute little thing wandered very close to me, not knowing that I happen to think that BBQ duck is delicious  ;D




A whole bunch more photos here -  I think most of them are taken with the 100-400II, though.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33475.msg686773#msg686773
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 12:47:44 AM by Talys »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2017, 04:22:01 AM »
Talys
There is a distribution of strength and age in this forum and the wider world, varying from some who can hand hold a 600mm f/4 and 1DX to the other extreme of those who find a 70-200mm f/4 heavy. I am at the old and weak end of the spectrum, but find the Sigma 150-600mm C easy to hand hold for extended periods of time. It makes no real difference to me whether I am using the Sigma or Canon both weight and IQ wise, but the Canon is better for packing for travel.

Your comments about birds in flight need modification. For large, slow flying birds or distant ones, the Sigma C at 600mm or the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC are more than adequate. My wife has got some great shots of beeeaters in flight using the 100-400mm II at 560mm on a 5DSR, and all she does is point, back button focus and shoot.

If you are serious about BIF you need the right equipment and technique; fast AF and fast focussing lenses - read Ari Hazeghi's site to see how a pro tackles it with a 1DXII and  400mm DO II. A 6DII, I am afraid, is not designed for this job.  I use a 5DIV plus bare 400mm DO II for fast birds in flight close (extenders slow even this combo down, and I like a wide field of view).

I am not sure whether your settings are optimal. I would not use iso100 at 1/400s.  There is no need for such a low iso for what you are doing, and high shutter speeds are far more important. I would use iso 400 and 1/1600s or most frequently iso 640 in decent light. Also, for birds perched in a tree I would use Mode 1 IS not Mode 3.  Mode 3 is designed for action shots where you don't want a lag caused by IS, and it can cause trouble when you are trying so distinguish a bird from foliage and your image stabilization doesn't operate until you press the button. (Manual focus on a tripod is not in my repertoire, or come to that even a tripod).
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2017, 01:12:03 PM »
AlanF,

I am rarely looking to take photos of bird portraits, so usually, my camera will be set to 1/2000 or 1/4000 (depending on light), and Mode 3 IS.   When I wander a good opportunity, like the photo above, I start taking handheld shots at 1/2000, and work my way down in ISO an EV or two at a time, then keep the lowest ISO shot at good focus.  Basically, click click, turn dial, click click, turn dial click click.  You need a few shots anyways, in case the bird closes its eyes.

At the end of it, if I have ISO 100, 200, and 400 shots of the same thing, all at good focus, I'll keep the ISO 100 :)   On the above shot, I was amazed that I captured it that crisply at ISO 100.  I actually have another heron portrait on my 6DII sample images thread where I took it at 1/30, again, perfectly focused!  Of course, I didn't start at 1/30; it just happened that one of the 1/30 photos was shockingly focused.

I usually don't switch to IS Mode 1, because at any moment, I could be trying to catch a BIF.  Also, in mode 3, I don't have to fight IS to manually focus.  My thumb usually moves between the focus ring and the MF switch (and sometimes the focus limiter switch), rather than the IS switch at the bottom.

Of course, I'm not saying that it's impossible to get BIF shots on at 6.3 of f/8.  And, I don't doubt the AF system on a 5DIV is superior to than 80D or 6DII -- but this is a camera that I won't ever buy, even excluding the price, because it is missing a flippy screen, which I need for other things.  Even with an 80D, I've gotten tons of great handheld BIF shots at 600mm. 

However, I've missed a lot more than that.  I have had occasions where I've tracked the bird for several seconds, and every single shot is out of focus.

On the other hand, at 400mm,  if I successfully track a bird for a couple of seconds, there will be at least some shots with the bird perfectly focused (of course, some will have AF on the wrong subject). 

Even against blue sky in perfect lighting with the sun behind me, it's possible at 600mm for the AF to just wander and not lock, which I find infuriating (because that's a missed, potentially perfect shot).  If I reduce zoom to about 450mm, it locks fine, and when I zoom back to 600mm, AF will continue to track.  You may be entirely correct that this is a problem with the 6DII -- others who own both lenses and a 5DIV will need to chime in.

About the weight -- I agree, there is a wide distribution of people who are comfortable holding heavier lenses than others.  To be clear, I don't have a problem handholding the Sigma 150-600C.    I do have a problem handholding it for an afternoon of shooting, which could be anywhere from 2 - 5 hours, with a very high percentage of the time holding the lens at wildlife and waiting for a moment.

Most of the time, unless it's something I've never photographed before, I want more than an in-focus photo of a bird or an animal.  What I'd really like is for that animal to do something interesting, and to catch that, I need to be patiently watching it through the viewfinder, and usually for more than a few seconds.

The difference between the 150-600C and the 100-400II is that on the former, I need at least a monopod if I'm going to do that more than a couple of times.  Maybe some people can go all afternoon holding up a 150-600C for minutes at a  time, but I don't think that's the majority of photographers.  On the 100-400II, even if I pack a monopod or tripod, I will often not use it, unless I'm at a location that I know I'll be staying out for a good long time.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 01:15:50 PM by Talys »

piovanil

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • My flickr
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2017, 02:03:30 AM »
It is a very difficult question, which lens you should buy, The Canon 100-400 II or the Sigma 150-600 C?
Of course, both are very good options and I have both (together with a Canon 400 f5.6L).
If you budget only goes up to 1000 dollars, your answer is the Sigma.
But when you can afford the Canon, you start looking for reasons to justify the difference.
Well, dont look too much, the Canon IS better, as it should for double the cost. It is better in almost all the checkpoints, like weight, AF speed, Stabilization, Construction, Image quality, minimum focus distance... but that is if we only talk up until 400 mm.
When you can get very close to the subject, you can even fill the frame more with the Canon 400 than with the Sigma 600 (because of the MFD).
But when you need the 600 mm and cannot get closer to the subject, then for me the Sigma was a better option. And filling the frame really helps on the image quality department!
If I have to choose only one, for me it would be the Sigma. With almost 2 years of use, I've found myself accustomed to the weight (and I carried the lens for more than 20 kilometers per day on a 15 days vacation on the mountains) and have no problem to handheld all day if needed. Also have a monopode I can use without effort.
Add to that the customization I made with the dock, which allows me to have a speed focus mode (in 400 mm almost as fast as the canon) and the chance to have all that range up to 600 mm all the time with me using all the focus points, and it is a no brainier for the type of environments I use the lens on.
So my wife use the 100-400 II with her 7D II and she is a happy camper!.
I settled for my Sigma 150-600 C (got the Canon 400 f5.6L in the box for a year now) with my 7D or my 1D IV. And still been able to sell pictures and won contests (had some luck).
Just wanted to share my experience with the lenses. I try to avoid extenders (even the 1.4x) since the time I sold my Canon 300 f4L IS.
Here are some pictures taken with the Sigma and I give you a link with more pictures too.

LINK:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/100100182@N07/

Samples:











AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2017, 04:39:02 AM »
It is a very difficult question, which lens you should buy, The Canon 100-400 II or the Sigma 150-600 C?
Of course, both are very good options and I have both (together with a Canon 400 f5.6L).
If you budget only goes up to 1000 dollars, your answer is the Sigma.
But when you can afford the Canon, you start looking for reasons to justify the difference.
Well, dont look too much, the Canon IS better, as it should for double the cost. It is better in almost all the checkpoints, like weight, AF speed, Stabilization, Construction, Image quality, minimum focus distance... but that is if we only talk up until 400 mm.
When you can get very close to the subject, you can even fill the frame more with the Canon 400 than with the Sigma 600 (because of the MFD).
But when you need the 600 mm and cannot get closer to the subject, then for me the Sigma was a better option. And filling the frame really helps on the image quality department!
If I have to choose only one, for me it would be the Sigma. With almost 2 years of use, I've found myself accustomed to the weight (and I carried the lens for more than 20 kilometers per day on a 15 days vacation on the mountains) and have no problem to handheld all day if needed. Also have a monopode I can use without effort.
Add to that the customization I made with the dock, which allows me to have a speed focus mode (in 400 mm almost as fast as the canon) and the chance to have all that range up to 600 mm all the time with me using all the focus points, and it is a no brainier for the type of environments I use the lens on.
So my wife use the 100-400 II with her 7D II and she is a happy camper!.
I settled for my Sigma 150-600 C (got the Canon 400 f5.6L in the box for a year now) with my 7D or my 1D IV. And still been able to sell pictures and won contests (had some luck).
Just wanted to share my experience with the lenses. I try to avoid extenders (even the 1.4x) since the time I sold my Canon 300 f4L IS.

+1 for everything

Stunning photos. But, with your skill, you would produce stunning shots with any lens! My wife too uses the 100-400mm II, but now on the 5DSR, while I use either the 400mm DO II or the 150-600mm C on the 5DIV when with her and the 100-400mm II on the 5DSR often myself alone. The 100-400 at 400mm on the 5DSR gives the resolution of 600mm of the 150-600mm on the 5DIV.

Of your four shots, 2 were at 600mm, one at 150mm and another at 388mm (which the 400m notch shows). Frankly, at 400mm all of those lens have the same resolution in the centre, but the 400mm DO II is ultra-sharp all the way to the edges at f/4. I too have given up extenders in the main except on the prime lens.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2017, 04:39:02 AM »

tomscott

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Photographer & Graphic Designer
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2017, 07:24:28 AM »
One thing to point out.

I agree with all the above. The issue with any lens that is outside the 5.6 parameters is that yes it is spot on for subjects that are moving slowly or are still but as soon as they start moving like BIF I have found that the 100-400mm MKII is far superior.

I made a thread about my experience, I was about to go on the trip of a life time 6 months across Africa and South East Asia with primary reason for travel being flora and fauna.

The Tamron 150-600mm vs the 100-400mm and the BIF comparisons were startling. (no experience with the sigma but I assume because its a 6.3 the results will be similar) This was also the opinion from a 5DMKIII.

The reason I bought the Tammy to start with is because it was equivalent to the 100-400mm with the lens being a 5.6 from 226-427mm and the tammy could lock out at that point. The sigma on the other hand is a 180-387mm so you enter 6.3 much sooner and you have to be careful when you are framing.

Once you go out of the F5.6 range hits are dramatically reduced.

You can have a read on the thread I created

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

As an overview at 400mm the lens and my 5DMKIII got 88% focus hit rate, which is impressive.

At 600mm tracking a bird traveling toward the lens the hit rate dropped to 50%.

At 600mm horizontally 50-60% hit rate max.

The other thing too is that it consistently thought it was hitting and the subject was a hair OOF not tack.

The 100-400mm on the other hand is deadly consistent in comparison. I know this isnt the Sigma but I cant see it having much more luck because its at F6.3 and essentially your not even getting a 400mm lens at 5.6 not including what ever focus breathing you have.

Things to take away is if your a BIF guy I wouldnt bother, the hit rate isnt great it just cant keep up. If your shooting fairly still subjects then its great.

I ended up buying the 100-400mm and it is a beast in every way. Stick a 1.4 and it was still sharper than the Tammy. Crop down to 600mm equivalent and it was sharper.

This was a few years ago and it may work better with the newer crop of cameras with extended AF points above F5.6 like the 7DMKII, 6DMKII, 5DMKIV and 1DXMKII.

When it came to still subjects I thought the lens was a great choice.

Heres an example and a 100% crop

Rhea, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Rhea, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
6D MKII, 5D MKIII STOLEN, 7D MKII 70D 17-55mm F2.8 16-35mm F2.8 II L 24-70mm F2.8 L 24-105mm F4 L 70-200mm F2.8 II L 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 II L 2x II 1.4X III 580EX

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2017, 09:12:02 AM »
Agreed about the BIF bit, Tom. I use the bare 400mm DO II on the 5DIV for BIF - the wider field of view at 400mm than 600mm makes it much easier and the prime focusses so fast, and f/4 helps. However, Piovanil does say he tweaks the setting on the Sigma Dock to get fast focussing at 400mm.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2017, 09:12:02 AM »