Canon 100-400 mk ii (with/without 1.4 ext) vs sigma 150-600

[kyle86]

hi

Had a sigma on preorder but going to cancel now with the announcement of the new 100-400. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are about which you think will be the better lens. I love that the canon is about half the weight and can get close to 600mm using the 1.4 extender but will the sigma then be better at 600 ?

Looking forward to your thoughts

 

[Jon_D]

hi

Had a sigma on preorder but going to cancel now with the announcement of the new 100-400. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are about which you think will be the better lens. I love that the canon is about half the weight and can get close to 600mm using the 1.4 extender but will the sigma then be better at 600 ?

Looking forward to your thoughts

boy.. it´s not released or revied anywhere so what do you expect?
guessing.. you can´t do that yourself?

i say at the 600mm end the sigma is better.. just so you are worried.

 

[rs]

We have MTF charts to go by for now, but these are of course from two different manufacturers, each tested to their own methodology.

Sigma Diffraction MTF:

Sigma Geometrical MTF:

vs Canon MTF:

Feel free to make your own conclusions based on the above. My take is the 100-400 looks very impressive with TC's, but we need to wait for reviews before any meaningful comparisons to the Sigma can be made.

In terms of AF, the 100-400 with 1.4x TC results in an f8 combo at the tele end. While bodies like the 1D X, 5D III and 7D II AF at f8, you don't get all the AF points. The Sigma should AF on any f5.6 body with its f6.3 aperture, but its effectively cheating the system as well as being reversed engineered. So its a tough one to call on the same body.

Due to it operating well within the lenses, AF systems and the OEM manufacturers standards, the 100-400 on a 7D II (equivalent to 160-640/7.2-9 with the crop factor) should theoretically outperform the Sigma on a 1D X or 5D III when it comes to AF performance.

 

[Viggo]

Based on previous experience, nothing is quite like canon AF. And I don't mean that some Sigma's are AF duds, but the sheer speed and presicion of new canon L lenses are unmatched.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I would wait until the reviews come out on the Canon lens. Then you will be in a much better position to make your purchasing decision.

By that time you can have a chance to rent both of them and find out which lens works best for your individual type of photography. Afterall, it really does not matter how good a lens is, what matters is how good a lens is for you.

 

[Maximilian]

Looking forward to your thoughts

No thoughts! We have no objective data.
I wouldn't compare MTF charts of different manufacturers.
I wouldn't give anything on example photos, if no RAW data is available.

I would simply wait. Wait until the first reviews of trusted sources drop in.
I like rumors. But I don't do speculations on things we can/will know within a few days.

Sorry but you won't find any trusted info here to help you with your decision if to cancel the sigma order.

 

[docsmith]

Agreed that we won't know much until reviews and enough users have their hands on both lenses. But right now my assumption is that the 150-600S will be better from 400-600 mm. This is based on what I consider to be a moderate gain in the MTF chart comparing v1 to v2 of the 100-400L. And then comparing the 100-400l to the 150-600S on lenstip.com. I am not canceling my preorder of the 150-600S. The canon will have a great MFD, likely better AF, size/weight advantages, and 4 stop IS. But, for my kit, I need reach.

Granted, if my Siggy doesn't arrive soon (upcoming trip) I may cancel and wait for the dust to settle on reviews and early adopters.

 

[Dylan777]

Based on previous experience, nothing is quite like canon AF. And I don't mean that some Sigma's are AF duds, but the sheer speed and presicion of new canon L lenses are unmatched.

+1