Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary

[Larsskv]

The 80D will AF at f8 with the 1.4X ... perhaps give that a try as well, maybe you'll be positively surprised...

I have indeed!

The problem is that I'm not crazy about 80D performance over ISO 800, and at f/8, most photos are over ISO 800 except on the brightest of days or in the perfect sun

The AF of the 100-400LII +1.4 III extender works flawlessly on my 1DXII, and probably 5DIV as well.

 

[Maximilian]

The 80D will AF at f8 with the 1.4X ... perhaps give that a try as well, maybe you'll be positively surprised...

I have indeed!

The problem is that I'm not crazy about 80D performance over ISO 800, and at f/8, most photos are over ISO 800 except on the brightest of days or in the perfect sun

The AF of the 100-400LII +1.4 III extender works flawlessly on my 1DXII, and probably 5DIV as well.

I suppose, Talys was complaining about the high ISO IQ and not the AF.

By the way I can confirm your experience with good AF 100-400LII +1.4 III for the 5D3.

 

[Talys]

The 80D will AF at f8 with the 1.4X ... perhaps give that a try as well, maybe you'll be positively surprised...

I have indeed!

The problem is that I'm not crazy about 80D performance over ISO 800, and at f/8, most photos are over ISO 800 except on the brightest of days or in the perfect sun

The AF of the 100-400LII +1.4 III extender works flawlessly on my 1DXII, and probably 5DIV as well.

I suppose, Talys was complaining about the high ISO IQ and not the AF.

By the way I can confirm your experience with good AF 100-400LII +1.4 III) for the 5D3.

Right

About the AF at f/8 on the 6DII: It's flawless for subjects that are still, moving slowly, or large. For smaller birds in flight, even against blue sky, it's a little slower than f/5.6. The difference is small, and not really noticeable on birds that are large. However, for birds that are small, or insects that are large (like dragonflies) that tiny difference in speed takes "challengingly hard" to "impale myself frustrating".

My initial impression was dissatisfaction, because in backyard shooting, it's mostly little flighty things; however, in "real" birding situations, it isn't a huge deal with BIF, because of two factors: first, it's actually brighter wherever I go on birding walks than my back yard, because I have a couple of mature trees that sometimes often cast partial shade; and second (and more importantly) most birders, myself included, find larger birds like waterfowl and birds of prey more fun to photograph in flight than than songbirds

 

[AlanF]

I find on my very frequent bird photography outings that the Sigma 150-600mm C has now become the most popular telephoto lens, both for Canon and Nikon, and has eclipsed the Canon 100-400mm. I use both the 100-400mm II and 150-600mm C, as well as the 400mm DO II on 5DIV and 5DSR. At 400mm, there is little to choose among them at the centre, but the prime wins out easily at the edges.

For fast birds in flight that are close by, the 400mm DO and 100-400mm II are significantly better than the Sigma at 400mm (I don't use 560-600mm), with very fast and precise AF. For distant slow birds, extenders on the Canon (560/800mm) and the Sigma at 600mm are OK. IS is better on the Canons. Both are much more stable in the viewfinder and about a stop better in practice. The new Sigma 100-400mm C is very good optically but not as good IS as the 150-600mm C.


I can strongly recommend both the 100-400mm II and the 150-600mm C - but you must test that you get a good copy. If I had to sell one of my two, it would be the Sigma. But, I am not going to sell it.

 

[AlanF]

About the AF at f/8 on the 6DII: It's flawless for subjects that are still, moving slowly, or large. For smaller birds in flight, even against blue sky, it's a little slower than f/5.6. The difference is small, and not really noticeable on birds that are large. However, for birds that are small, or insects that are large (like dragonflies) that tiny difference in speed takes "challengingly hard" to "impale myself frustrating".

My initial impression was dissatisfaction, because in backyard shooting, it's mostly little flighty things; however, in "real" birding situations, it isn't a huge deal with BIF, because of two factors: first, it's actually brighter wherever I go on birding walks than my back yard, because I have a couple of mature trees that sometimes often cast partial shade; and second (and more importantly) most birders, myself included, find larger birds like waterfowl and birds of prey more fun to photograph in flight than than songbirds

There are not many birds that are more fun to photograph and more difficult than the small Eurasian kingfisher diving. And you need really fast AF for birds like puffins going past you like rockets.

 

[tjbstone]

"Plus, you can adjust AF from the USB dock, if you're using a body with AFMA"

Can I please clarify the above. I thought that with the Sigma lens and the Dock the adjustments were made to the lens and not in the camera with the AFMA system.

I ask as I do not have AFMA so only have a limited understanding of it but have recently bought the Sigma 150 - 600mm C Lens and was considering getting a dock to fine tune it.

Bauldy

 

[Talys]

There are not many birds that are more fun to photograph and more difficult than the small Eurasian kingfisher diving. And you need really fast AF for birds like puffins going past you like rockets.

I am trying to catch a kingfisher here, too -- the belted variety though! Their approach is very cool. All the birds that interact with water give great opportunities for amazing shots, and yeah, these guys are not big.

I find on my very frequent bird photography outings that the Sigma 150-600mm C has now become the most popular telephoto lens, both for Canon and Nikon, and has eclipsed the Canon 100-400mm.

Yup, me too. However, I'm sure that this is because of price. It's certainly the reason that I bought it first.

People who own the 150-600 always note that it's not really too heavy to take handheld shots -- which is absolutely true. However, at least for me, it's far too heavy to take hours worth of handheld shots, and birding is as much an endurance exercise as anything. You need to spot, wait, watch, and track birds -- and also keep that up a couple of hours or more into a hike, and be able to whip it up to eye level very quickly.

I can strongly recommend both the 100-400mm II and the 150-600mm C - but you must test that you get a good copy. If I had to sell one of my two, it would be the Sigma. But, I am not going to sell it.

I couldn't agree more!

One other thing that people often neglect to mention is filter size. The 150-600 is 105mm, which makes every filter spectacularly expensive, if you can even find it. The available selection is terrible.

The 100-400II is 77mm, which allows it to share filters with a lot of popular L lenses.

"Plus, you can adjust AF from the USB dock, if you're using a body with AFMA"

Can I please clarify the above. I thought that with the Sigma lens and the Dock the adjustments were made to the lens and not in the camera with the AFMA system.

I ask as I do not have AFMA so only have a limited understanding of it but have recently bought the Sigma 150 - 600mm C Lens and was considering getting a dock to fine tune it.

Bauldy

You're correct: the lens dock allows you to adjust AF in the lens itself. However, it's not the easiest thing to use, because what do you adjust it to? In order to fiddle with it, you need to attach the lens to the dock, front or back adjustment, put it back on, and take another series of test shots, and repeat.

 

[SecureGSM]

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.

One other thing that people often neglect to mention is filter size. The 150-600 is 105mm, which makes every filter spectacularly expensive, if you can even find it. The available selection is terrible.

The 100-400II is 77mm, which allows it to share filters with a lot of popular L lenses.



.

 

[SecureGSM]

sorry, overlooked your post.

yep, this looks like a Sirui TY-LP70 knock off.

it does the job though. I looked at this option a while ago and concluded that the mounting 1/4" hole the strap attaches to is positioned way too far from the mounting screw. it creates a stronger torque due to massive leverage.
The absence of the stop screws at the bottom of the plate supported my hesitation to consider the plate any further. I am not brave enough

I ended up purchasing this plate instead (Haoge PQR-70L):

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PQR-70L-Universal-Quick-Release-Plate-Arca-Swiss-Compatible-with-Hand-Strap-Boss-/172107385198

let me explain what makes this plate a better choice for me personally:

1. 1/4"-20 threaded hole located very close to the mounting screw (reduced torque)
2. 2 stop screws at the bottom
3. fixed backstop - antirotation rim. nice feature as Sigma 150 600 C tripod mount comes with a single mounting 1/4" hole only. ( see photos on the page)
4. the plate does not protrude towards the lens or back of the camera.

5. it fits perfectly 5D / 6D level bodies.

@SecureGSM - Thanks for your recommendations. I found this arca plate on Amazon, that does the trick pretty well, for about USD$11:

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01FQ3YRGI/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


It seems quite solidly manufactured and well-machined. It fits into a Movo gimbal and most generic arca heads; it does NOT fit into a Manfrotto Xpro ball head (xpro version), which is very picky and needs at least one side to to have a shaper wedge.

The dimensions may be deceptive -- it is very wide. The length of the arca portion is longer than the foot on the Sigma 150-600C.

There is no stop screw for the front. However, if you put a blackrapid bobble on the back for the clip, that acts as a safety "screw" for the back, and prevents the camera from sliding forward off the tripod, which is the more dangerous likelihood (as opposed to sliding back into you).

In practice, it works quite well for sling it forward into a slightly loosened arca plate.

 

[2n10]

So, more stuff to report.

First, the 1.4 III teleconverter is not really a solution for birds in flight, in my opinion, at least not on 6DII. Maybe it would work better on a 5DIV; I didn't have one to try.

At F8, the 6DII's autofocus is just too slow, even in full daylight. It works, but even more poorly than 600mm/6.3 on the Sigma. If you have a slow, gently gliding big bird, you get the odd focused shot in, but generally, both are pretty terrible, compared to 400mm at 5.6, which is instant AF. The worst is when it doesn't lock, and hunts for a couple of seconds.

The solution I ended up packing was 6D2 with 100-400 II on a blackrapid for handheld shots (but with an arca plate in case I wanted to put it on a tripod), and 80D with 150-600 C in a small Thinktank backpack that I'd take out and set up when I wanted a long distance shot. For a tripod, I settled on using a Manfrotto 190 Go 4-section, with a Movo gimbal as a compromise between weight and stability, but most importantly because the maximum height between column down and column halfway up is the perfect height for me when I have a large head installed.

On my outing, I was hunting for shots of the Great Blue Heron, at a lake.

I managed to catch a few good shots with the 100-400 II, handheld:

I took this one on the tripod with the 100-400 II:

However, there were some cases where the subject was just way too far away. For example, there was a cool rock, but unless I could walk on water (boats aren't allowed), I wasn't going to get close enough for 400mm. I took this one at the full length of 600mm on an APSC:

I would like to mention that on that particular picture, I got maybe 5 keepers out of 50 shots. Most of them had a very undesirable white softness around the head of the subject. They were manually focused in liveview x 10, and once again, I'd like to whine about how sticky the focus ring of the Sigma is. They were also all taken with a remote trigger, and I would watch through the viewfinder or through liveview magnification to ensure that there were no jitters, and I took shots at everything from 1/100 to 1/4000, with apertures ranging from 6.3 to 11, and a whole bunch of ISOs.

The shots I liked best were taken at around 1/500, f9, ISO 400; TTL metering said I was at -1EV.

One last point. After trying many exposure combinations, I really hate pictures taken on the 80D over ISO 800. They are just so grainy Really, ISO 500 is as far as I'd go to keep the image sharp and clean; ISO 400 or lower being ideal.

Conclusion from the day of shooting... I really like the 100-400L II, but I didn't get a single, bird in flight keeper with the extender on it. I think that realistically, for now, if I want 600mm APSC and fast autofocus, it will require big bucks and a prime.

The 150-500C is still a great tool, with excellent reach, and stopped down a little, it takes great pictures.

I will keep both!

I have the 7D II and have the same slow focus issue with the 1.4TCIII and 100-400 II. It works fine for large birds but medium to small I get few keepers if at all.

 

[AlanF]

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.

 

[tjbstone]

Talys, Thanks for your clarification.

Regards

Bauldy

 

[Talys]

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.

 

[SecureGSM]

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]

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

 

[IslanderMV]

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]

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.

 

[IslanderMV]

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 “L” 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.

 

[Talys]

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

 

[AlanF]

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).