Selling 200-400

[Efka76]

Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!

You are making a conceptual error here You should compare Sigma 150-600 with Tamron 150-600. Comparison with Canon is useless as Canon 200-400 is in absolutely different league. It would be the same as to compare Mercedes with Kia

 

[sanj]

Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!

You are making a conceptual error here You should compare Sigma 150-600 with Tamron 150-600. Comparison with Canon is useless as Canon 200-400 is in absolutely different league. It would be the same as to compare Mercedes with Kia

Hmmm. Most likely what you saying is correct. But Sigma has thrown some surprises our way with their new 35 and 50. Am fantasizing that the league will not be so different. But yes, perhaps I should wait till at least the reliable reviews come out. Thx!

 

[Eldar]

I don´t use the 200-400 enough either. I tend to go for the 600 most of the time, with the 1.4xIII extender (I rarely use the 2xIII). But with the 7DII coming, I believe that will change. If it works well with the 200-400, that will be a very potent combo for the majority of birding and wildlife that I do. With a 320-896mm equivalent focal range, it covers (almost) all the focal lengths I´m getting with the 200-400 and the 600 with the 1.4xIII extender. But it remains to be seen what IQ I will be getting, compared to the 1DX.

 

[candc]

the problem i see with the new sigma sport is that it's 6 1/2 lbs. i don't know how much difference there will be in real world shots between the sigma and tamron (not that much i expect) but the cost and weight difference is significant.

 

[Dylan777]

Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!

As I am gaining experience with my photography and getting older I am realizing I do not need the most heavy or expensive equipment to get the photo. I am sure the focus of the Sigma will be as quick as the Canon in good light. The difference will be in low light only. So if I spend 40 days in 'bush' every year then I will have 80 mornings/evenings. Out of that I will witness something to photograph 20 times in tough light. Out of the 20 I will miss just few shots. I think I am ok with that. (Actually I do not think I will miss ANY.)

F4 is bit too wide for me. I find that many times the entire animal is not in focus. So 5.6 is fine and preferable. And the real world depth of field difference between f4 and 5.6 is negligible.

The main factor is resale value. Sigma may not hold up to its value after 5 years but Canon will.

I think I will sell the Canon and get the Sigma. Mainly because I prefer to work without the extra step of 1.4x switch. I will prefer the continues zoom option without having to wait for the lens to normalize.

Or perhaps I am building all this up as I want to save the 9k. haahaha

I wouldn't worry much about that either. The new Sigma is about $2000. Lets say 5yrs later you decide to sell for $800 to $1000 - still not bad. Just make sure the lens gets good work out, not sitting in the bag and looks pretty

Best wishes sanj

 

[Steve]

I wouldn't worry much about that either. The new Sigma is about $2000. Lets say 5yrs later you decide to sell for $800 to $1000 - still not bad. Just make sure the lens gets good work out, not sitting in the bag and looks pretty

Best wishes sanj

Also, the massive price difference between the two means that if the 200-400 only loses 10% of its value over the next 5 years (due to inflation and used lens depreciation), it still loses more than the entire purchase price of the Sigma.

 

[sanj]

True!

 

[kyle86]

Im really interested in what you decide to do as I am waiting for the Sigma 150-600 to see how it compares to the Canon 200-400. Obviously its not going to be the same but will the Canon be worth $10000 extra? I dont mind paying if it is but for a lens that wont be my primary Im kinda thinking about the Sigma.. .hoping there is some reviews coming out asap!

You are making a conceptual error here You should compare Sigma 150-600 with Tamron 150-600. Comparison with Canon is useless as Canon 200-400 is in absolutely different league. It would be the same as to compare Mercedes with Kia

Hahah well it is if say a Ferrari gets to 300km/h but a kia could get to 250. All I'm saying is that if I can get 80% of the quality for a lens that is $10,000 cheaper I'm gonna take it. I'm not a commercial wildlife photographer so it's just for fun and I as I said I'm happy to spend the money if the lens is really with the ten grand extra but unfortunately I don't know if it will be. Sigmas quality has improved dramatically, I would never have bought a lens of theirs before but now sit with the 50mm art on my 1dx and it's incredible...

 

[kyle86]

I don´t use the 200-400 enough either. I tend to go for the 600 most of the time, with the 1.4xIII extender (I rarely use the 2xIII). But with the 7DII coming, I believe that will change. If it works well with the 200-400, that will be a very potent combo for the majority of birding and wildlife that I do. With a 320-896mm equivalent focal range, it covers (almost) all the focal lengths I´m getting with the 200-400 and the 600 with the 1.4xIII extender. But it remains to be seen what IQ I will be getting, compared to the 1DX.

If love to hear how you go with the 7d mk ii on it!! I have the 7d mk ii on pre order and slightly worried I made a big mistake with it haha, I shoot with a 1dx like you and just worry about the quality but I guess time will tell. Please let me know what ya think of it. I'm really stuck about the 200-400... And I worry I'll never be satisfied with the 150-600 but I dunno... Tough call lol.

How do you find the 1dx with the 200-400 in terms of bokeh? I know it's no 400 2.8 but i hope it's close

 

[Eldar]

How do you find the 1dx with the 200-400 in terms of bokeh? I know it's no 400 2.8 but i hope it's close

You have the f-stop difference to the 400 2.8, but in general I have been very happy with the performance of the lens and the bokeh is very nice. I have posted one on the lens thread, from one of my early shots, where I had a strange bokeh effect on a duck shot. But that may have been caused by my horrible post processing skills, combined with the small screen of a laptop. I'll revisit that on a proper screen.

It is a bit too short for birds on a FF body, but on the 7DII it will get the reach I want. The IQ remains to be seen though.

 

[Maiaibing]

I'd rather have $12,000 than a lens I use once a year. You can always rent.

+12,000

 

[kyle86]

New images just released of the Sigma 150-600 - https://imgur.com/a/i7BzG

I gotta say that Eagle shot is pretty darn awesome

 

[GaryJ]

Some people come to this forum and argue just to argue.... It's really sad... +1

 

[candyman]

New images just released of the Sigma 150-600 - https://imgur.com/a/i7BzG

I gotta say that Eagle shot is pretty darn awesome

Agree. Very promissing lens

 

[sanj]

My lens will be at Adorama used department soon. Any new reviews of the Sigma? I need to replace the Canon.
Btw I still get up in the middle of the night sweating that I made a mistake.

 

[jvandermerwe]

Go speak to Art Wolfe, Ric Sammon and Scott Kelby before you just go and sell your 200-400. They will tell you that it it is hands-down the best lens around for wildlife, bird and sports photography.
Why?:
Because you can instantly zoom from 200mm - 400mm, and flip the 1.4 lever to 560mm on FF, or 320 mm - 640mm and flip to 896mm on APC. The Sigma and Tamron lenses definitely do not give you the same versatality, and very likely not the same resolution.

The 200-400 has become the most popular lens for Canon shooting sports photographers. The 2014 World Cup soccer championship proved this point. There was a sea of 200-400's around the fields with every match.

I must admit that I have not used mine much so far, as 560mm maximum on my 5Diii is not enough without using another 1.4 extender on top of the built-in extender. I took a couple hundred shots during the RedBull air races in Vegas a few weeks ago from the stands (all hand-held) and was very satisfied with the results.

I just received the new 7Dii body last week, so now I will be in business... Cant wait to use the combination !

 

[sanj]

Two things:
1. I never dispute the quality of the lens. God forbid! But I use it once a year and can't justify it.
2. The 1.4x is a pain to use. One has to wait for the lens to 'cool down' before engaging it or it over exposes. Many times shots are lost or over exposed because of this. I think the ease of having the entire zoom range available without engaging the extender (150-600) would be easier.

I am sure you will love the lens combo with the 7D.

I appreciate your comment much. Am concerned too at times.

 

[Dekaner]

My 2 cents as an owner of the 200-400:

1) If you're not using it often, I agree renting makes far more sense.
2) If you are using it regularly and in trying conditions, there is absolutely a difference in quality.
3) I've never had a problem engaging the 1.4x. I switch back and forth during runway fashion to capture details. I take my finger off the back-button, apply the extender, reapply the focus and off I go. FWIW- I've never paid attention to waiting for the buffer to clear.
4) The 300 2.8 II and the 400 2.8 II, when shot at 2.8, produce more aesthetically pleasing images - but - those lenses are not nearly as versatile as the 200-400 and I find my keeper rate to be significantly higher. Also, I don't have to spend as much time cropping images (important when on deadline or working with thousands of images).

 

[sanj]

Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?

Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Will the Sigma 150-600 sports not be good enough for once a year Africa trips for the kind of photos on website?

Now I am nervous and feel like stopping the sale.

Why not wait and rent one, or buy one and return it if its not up to expectations.