There’s two entries for the 7d, one as discontinued one as not. Given it’s the only entry it might be an oversight, particularly given the 7d II models are all listed as being discontinued. Edit: the one for sale is listed as Bh warranty only so presumably their own stock.
Given the wording, I think that was written in the day of the DSLR. The R5/R6 change the AF balance in favor of the 100-400 with a 1.4x.Sigma 150 - 600mm / 5 - 6,3 DG OS HSM Contemporary im Test - Traumflieger.de
Sigma 150 - 600mm / 5 - 6,3 DG OS HSM Contemporary im Test: Ausstattung - Test im Wildgehege - Astrotest am Mond - Auflösung im Labor - Autofokus und Bildstabilisator - USB-Dock - Nahbereich - Handhabung - Technische Daten - Fazit - kaufen ja oder nein? - welches Stativ kaufen? -...www.traumflieger.de
It's german but a serious source:
Quote:
Buy if you already own a Canon 100-400mm L?
The Canon 100-400mm L Mark I or Canon 100-400mm L Mark II does not come close to the 600mm of the Sigma with a maximum of 400mm. The difference is clearly visible in many motifs. If you upgrade the Canon with a 1.4x teleconverter, the image results will be similar, but the aperture will be lacking. This means that the AF is usually slower if it is supported by the camera at all. However, the TK solution should be sufficient for subjects that allow sufficient time and where you can focus manually. In this respect, we cannot answer unequivocally with yes or no.
A draw for a lens which is much cheaper (not to mention the additional TC) is impressive. The Canon is not "out resolving" and (with TC) the AF is definetly not better (rather worse)!
It was indeed ...
It's more than 3 times the price of the Sigma and also a native (is this term right?) lens. Would be a shame if it wouldn't perform better. The question is: Does the better performance justify the huge price difference? I don't know. I tried to figure it out, but didn't find any serious information about a comparison. If you find, feel free to tell me ... Thank you!
Well, as you well aware of, many car manufactures use the same platform for many cars, each with its own different specification and target. I don't see, even Toyota, building two different cars targeting the exact same market spot. The cars that Toyota makes, share many components between them, to reduce manufacturing and spare parts production reducing the number of assembly lines allows you to be very flexible in your over all manufacturing, you can shift parts from one line to another without cost, thus, address customer needs with short response time.
Good for you. Feel free to discontinue one of your domestically most popular product lines to save costs. After all, it’s your busyness.
To be fair, it's not uncommon to produce more than one product on a single production line, especially if they share common elements. It can be more cost-effective to quickly retool for runs of different products than to run 3 completely separate production lines.
As a matter of fact, the new insight from Canon is that the stop developing the M line. As they did to the D line and EF glass.
Of course not, but you missed my point. @masterpix stated his business has a production line. One.
Where was that stated? The topic here is that in just two unnamed countries, Canon has supposedly decided to stop selling one camera in the M lineup, and that one camera is the most expensive one in a line targeting the low end of the market. Somehow you decide that means Canon has stopped development of the M line. It is possible that they have, but unlikely. This topic on a rumor site is certainly not evidence that has occurred.
Well, I have an R5, a Tamron 150-600, a number of other Sigma lenses, and a 100-400 L II. I have observed that the 100-400 AF clearly outperforms the Tammy, and Sigma lenses, in spite of the fact that many have sterling optics, are notoriously inconsistent when it comes to AF. Also, the adaption of the 100-400 on an R5 is on a mechanical adoption. The R5 perfectly executes EF protocol. The 3rd party lenses are all reverse engineered, and as such, none of them "perfectly" understand EF protocol.
You have "other Sigma lenses". Most reviews claim the Sigma @600mm is sharper than the Tamron @600mm. So when the "3rd party lenses are all reverse engineered" it shouldn't make a difference if they are mounted on EF or adapted on RF. Or the other way round: It shouldn't make a difference if the Canon is mounted on EF or adapted on RF.
When I owned DSLRs, I often used the Sigma Contemporary because it "fooled" my Canons into thinking it was an f5.6 lens, which meant a range of autofocus points. The 100-400 II with a 1.4x teleconverter was read by the camera as an f8 lens and that meant fewer autofocus points. (With the 7DII it meant just a single center point).
Unfortunately, "shouldn't" is no guarantee. Very often, over the years, many of the Tammy and Sigma lenses have had to be updated to support even new SLR bodies. DPAF is a whole new game and I have several of the older Sigma and Tammy lenses that simply quit when attached to any of the Canon mirrorless cameras (M or R) or SLRs with DPAF in live mode. Some were upgradeable either by console or mail-in, and some were not. One that was is the Tammy 150-600, but without the update (which took over a year to develop) the lens simply did not function on any camera in DPAF mode. So far I haven't encountered any Canon EF lenses that don't work correctly on the mirrorless bodies (albeit one did need an update to perform optimally). The point is that reverse engineering can unwind what protocol is being currently used, but it cant easily (if at all) predict features that were designed in from the outset but never used. Canon, however knows exactly what the intent of the protocol is and occasionally they have had to issue firmware updates to lenses. One that comes to mind is the EF-s 55-250 when attached to an M camera. Canon issued an update that was implementable from the camera, but only when the lens was mounted on an M camera.
Indeed. Though you never hear about flagship camera bodies being released in time for a fashion show or an F1 race. It's always the Olympics.Well, to be a bit more precise, Canon produces flagship cameras with fast shutter speeds for fast moving ACTION, which does cover sports, wildlife and many other genres where the subjects are not static, but are moving.
I was referring to the Canon NON-L EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 II lens that sells for $599, not the L lens. The non-L consumer level EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II outperformed (in sharpness) the Sigma 100-400 at 300mm cropped to the same FOV as the Sigma at 400mm, at least in my experience with the 2 Sigma lenses I briefly owned.
