Canceling My Rf 100-500mm Order...Or not?

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,391
Kentucky, USA
The Sigma 150-600mm C is an excellent lens for the money. However, the 100-500mm out-resolves and has better contrast than the Sigma at 600mm on the R5 although being 100mm shorter, and the AF is much faster. So, when the pain of spending nearly $3000 has subsided, you won't regret the quality gear you have bought and it's about a lb lighter.
Remember that CPW can often get you a new RF lens at a very good discount, and even B&H can have $100 discounts sometimes (but CPW will usually mention that as well in their posts). I heard of them here from other users, and got all my lenses from them, and just wanted to pass that on in case you weren't aware of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,846
8,893
Remember that CPW can often get you a new RF lens at a very good discount, and even B&H can have $100 discounts sometimes (but CPW will usually mention that as well in their posts). I heard of them here from other users, and got all my lenses from them, and just wanted to pass that on in case you weren't aware of it.
Thanks, but, unfortunately, they don't operate in the UK, Europe, Australia etc. Cheap means going to the grey market.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,391
Kentucky, USA
Thanks, but, unfortunately, they don't operate in the UK, Europe, Australia etc. Cheap means going to the grey market.
Yes, that true. I'm guessing they're only good for the US and Canada (maybe others), but I never asked about it. It's a shame to have to go grey, as I understand it affects warranties, right?
 

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
149
157
Northeastern US
Purchased my 100-500 mm lens as a general purpose wildlife lens to use with the R5. It is an excellent combination that in crop mode provides an 800 mm FOV. Looking forward to purchasing a RF 500 mm f4 to compliment the kit for wildlife photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,846
8,893
After having used my:love: 100-400 II bought immediately after its introduction, pixelpeeping it with a wide smile each time, I still cannot see a reason to buy the RF 100-500. (Even though I'm convinced the RF 100-500 is a bit better).
Of course, had I started with mirrorless, things could be different.
But the limited used of extenders is a real drawback...
I agree there is no real need to upgrade as the 100-400mm II works brilliantly on the R5 and the AF with the 1.4xTC is still superb. The problem with extenders on the 100-500mm is not that serious, however. As I have posted in another thread, the 100-500 at 500mm resolves slightly better then the 100-400mm II with a 1.4xTC so there is no need to use a 1.4xTC on the 100-500mm if you are only using the 100-400mm II from 100-400/140-560mm. I am pondering whether to keep the RF 1.4 extender. I'll probably keep it as it's so small and light and is OK for long distances. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-ef-100-400mm-ii-vs-400mm-do-ii-on-r5.39813/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso
Feb 15, 2020
482
336
You know this is might be a trigger for yet another DSLR vs Mirrorless debate, right ? :)

For me, the main mirrorless advantages are:
  1. no need for the darn AF micro adjustment
  2. no need for reading glasses to playback photos or access menus in the EVF because of the diopter adjustment
  3. the AF points cover pretty much the entire screen, unlike the DSLR's where they're clustered in the middle
  4. the R5 mechanical shutter noise is a whisper compared to the 1DX Mark III
  5. the photo and the histogram visible in the EVF before you even take the shot
  6. way better ergonomics for shooting videos (EVF vs back LCD)...although I don't really shoot much video

So, that's a tiny bit more than just the AF and NONE of the above mentioned points is something you can have on a DSLR.
Agreed with all, but you forgot one of the biggest and most obvious advantages... IBIS!
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,581
1,897
Hamburg, Germany
The Sigma 150-600mm C is an excellent lens for the money. However, the 100-500mm out-resolves and has better contrast than the Sigma at 600mm on the R5 although being 100mm shorter, and the AF is much faster. So, when the pain of spending nearly $3000 has subsided, you won't regret the quality gear you have bought and it's about a lb lighter.
No to mention the weight and size. As I do use the 150-600 C frequently, I absolutely agree that it is excellent for the money. But it is a factor to consider. And with the adapter, it get's even bigger still :ROFLMAO:

Unless Sigma give us a modernized version for the RF mount, I am inclined to think I'll get a Canon variant when I go FF at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

dwarven

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 12, 2019
272
397
California, US
Interestingly, when I first started looking for comparisons online several months ago, most of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary reviews were not very positive, just concluding it was a decent lens at a bargain price. But lately my youtube "Recommended" feed has been showing older and newer reviews of the Sigma, and they are all much more positive about image quality and AF. Really hard to know what to believe without trying it for myself.

But my GAS is in a mellow state at the moment, and I realize I can wait to see if Sigma is going to announce plans for an RF version of the lens next year, or if Canon has plans to offer something a little faster and longer--even if it is heavier and a bit more expensive. As things stand, I just can't justify the 100-500mm price tag with its perceived limitations.

I have the Sigma 150-600 and have been shooting with it on my R6 for almost a month now. It is, sadly, kind of smooshy at 600mm in all but the most pristine lighting conditions. I'd have traded 50mm at the short end for a little more sharpness at the long end. It's good enough for me at that price, though, to get that much reach. At 500mm and lower it's actually quite sharp. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as you and my budget will not allow me to go much higher in price for a purely hobby lens. The options are pretty limited at that focal length for Canon shooters :(

If you're okay with less reach, Sigma's 100-400 gives you a ton of bang for your buck. I know I'll probably get roasted for this, but I actually preferred it over Canon's much more expensive version. The IQ was nearly identical to Canon's in real world shooting, AF was just as quick on mirrorless, and it's quite a bit cheaper and lighter. But before you come at me, I tested them side by side, on the same day, shooting birds and squirrels and whatnot. When I returned the Canon to the rental store, the clerk asked me how I liked it with a little smirk of superiority on his face. I told him I was not impressed. At least not when you take into account how much it costs, and that it's over a pound heavier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,846
8,893
I have the Sigma 150-600 and have been shooting with it on my R6 for almost a month now. It is, sadly, kind of smooshy at 600mm in all but the most pristine lighting conditions. I'd have traded 50mm at the short end for a little more sharpness at the long end. It's good enough for me at that price, though, to get that much reach. At 500mm and lower it's actually quite sharp. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as you and my budget will not allow me to go much higher in price for a purely hobby lens. The options are pretty limited at that focal length for Canon shooters :(

If you're okay with less reach, Sigma's 100-400 gives you a ton of bang for your buck. I know I'll probably get roasted for this, but I actually preferred it over Canon's much more expensive version. The IQ was nearly identical to Canon's in real world shooting, AF was just as quick on mirrorless, and it's quite a bit cheaper and lighter. But before you come at me, I tested them side by side, on the same day, shooting birds and squirrels and whatnot. When I returned the Canon to the rental store, the clerk asked me how I liked it with a little smirk of superiority on his face. I told him I was not impressed. At least not when you take into account how much it costs, and that it's over a pound heavier.

Things might have changed for the better for the Sigma 100-400 f/6.3 with firmware updates, but you might find these threads useful before considering buying one.


https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/100-400mm-canon-vs-tamron-vs-sigma.34124/

and also the Opticallimits review.
And, I would definitely compare the AF and IS with the 100-400mm II yourselves,
ps
Dustin Abbott also didn't like the tracking abilities of the Sigma 100-400mm but he reviewed their latest offering for the Sony mount much more favourably and perhaps Sigma will bring that out as an RF version.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

dwarven

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 12, 2019
272
397
California, US
Things might have changed for the better for the Sigma 100-400 f/6.3 with firmware updates, but you might find these threads useful before considering buying one.


https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/100-400mm-canon-vs-tamron-vs-sigma.34124/

That fact that I was using them both on an R6 likely closed the gap. I had also used the Sigma adapted to a Sony a6100, which was sort of my temporary camera until the R6 came out. On the a6100, the focusing system was very sluggish and less accurate than I'd have liked. I chalked it up to the fact that it's a budget lens and I shouldn't expect anything incredible out of it. But it's incredible on the R6. Maybe the camera is doing all the heavy lifting? It's flawlessly sharp at 400mm, all the way up to 1600 ISO. We're here to make images, and arguing about gear won't make us better at what we do. But, I can tell you I have no desire whatsoever to get Canon's 100-400 f/5.6. I'm not saying the Canon version is bad. Of course it's very far from that. It's just not $1700 better in my experience. If I had infinite money I'd still use the Sigma because it's so deft and light.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,846
8,893
That fact that I was using them both on an R6 likely closed the gap. I had also used the Sigma adapted to a Sony a6100, which was sort of my temporary camera until the R6 came out. On the a6100, the focusing system was very sluggish and less accurate than I'd have liked. I chalked it up to the fact that it's a budget lens and I shouldn't expect anything incredible out of it. But it's incredible on the R6. Maybe the camera is doing all the heavy lifting? It's flawlessly sharp at 400mm, all the way up to 1600 ISO. We're here to make images, and arguing about gear won't make us better at what we do. But, I can tell you I have no desire whatsoever to get Canon's 100-400 f/5.6. I'm not saying the Canon version is bad. It's just not $1700 better in my experience. If I had infinite money I'd still use the Sigma because it's so deft and light.
If a lens does what you need it to do, then it is suitable for you. I am always looking for light lenses, the lighter the better, and actually bought the Tamron 100-400 because of its size and weight, and a good review. But, the AF wasn't up to it for flying birds and I sold it after a month at a loss. I also like a lens that it is sharp at the edges because when following erratically flying birds, there are often good shots when the bird is awkwardly at the edge of the frame. So, my requirements are for fast and accurate AF and sharpness all over the frame. The 100-400mm II fitted the bill and the 100-500 I have just bought not only has excellent AF but the best edge performance outside of a prime. None of these lenses is flawlessly sharp - you'll see the difference against a good prime. It's horses for courses.
 

dwarven

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 12, 2019
272
397
California, US
None of these lenses is flawlessly sharp - you'll see the difference against a good prime. It's horses for courses.

Maybe, but it would take a few thousand dollars to get there. Like you said, use the tool that suits you. Canon probably had no competition against their top glass for decades, but that's over now. I think a lot of Canon shooters are still stuck in the mindset of chasing that sweet L and it's costing them a ton of money. Canon's marketing is the best in the business.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,820
4,451
Maybe, but it would take a few thousand dollars to get there. Like you said, use the tool that suits you. Canon probably had no competition against their top glass for decades, but that's over now. I think a lot of Canon shooters are still stuck in the mindset of chasing that sweet L and it's costing them a ton of money. Canon's marketing is the best in the business.
With refurbs and secondhand if you can handle the weight then there is a very good supply of big white L’s at a fraction the price of the newest and lightest versions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwarven

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
Arrived. Somehow I let the kids talk me into not opening even the shipping carton until tomorrow morning when they open their presents. In fact, this is the right way to go; otherwise, I'd have been absent the rest of the evening, testing and playing with it. Instead, I'll be enjoying homemade cacciatore, some cheap but excellent Sam's Club Italian Prosecco, a sappy movie (with the kids), and the next episode of the new season of The Expanse (once the kids are sleeping).

Merry Christmas to anybody who doesn't mind being wished it, and Happy End of Year from Hell holiday to all others.
 
<-- start Taboola -->