topic Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600 in EF & RF Lenses

100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

paulbrogden10 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:09:50 GMT

Hi all been thinking about the sigmas 150-600 both s and c vs 100-400 mk2 any comments the sigmas are cheaper and have much longer reach.

sigma c 150-600 £750

sigma s 150-600 £1200

Canon 100-400 mk2 £1400-1700

The sigma c seems a bargin dont it?

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

TTMartin — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:56:01 GMT

@paulbrogden10 wrote:
Hi all been thinking about the sigmas 150-600 both s and c vs 100-400 mk2 any comments the sigmas are cheaper and have much longer reach.

sigma c 150-600 £750
sigma s 150-600 £1200
Canon 100-400 mk2 £1400-1700

The sigma c seems a bargin dont it?

There's an old saying that you get what you pay for and it's true.

The Sigma 150-600 C just isn't in the same league as the Canon 100-400 IS II, and the Sigma 150-600 S is just too darn heavy.

Oh, and don't forget to add the cost of the calibration dock to the Sigma's price because you're going to need it.

And before you think I'm a Canon L lens snob, I have a lot of Sigma lenses, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 IS, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, Sigma 150-500 OS.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:58:45 GMT

I, 100% disagree with Mr Martin, not surprising though. I own these lenses. I use these lenses. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens is my go to super tele. I am deciding whether to sell the the "C" version because I will not use it much, at all, anymore. I also own the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon super zoom. It will probably go up on the auction block too. The truth be know, there isn't a great deal of difference between any of thes in terms of IQ.

You could be or will be happy with any of them. But be warned the "S" version is very heavy. You will need a tripod or at least a monopod fof best results. It is built like a Sherman tank. Every bit as good as any "L" lens. You should get the dock because Sigma offers upgraded software to keep up with the current cameras. Otherwise I have never touched either of my Siggy's.

There is one point you must consider. If you need 600mm, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens will not do it. If you don't need 600mm, it is an outstanding lens, too.

As I mentioned above the "S" is heavy but I routinely hand hold it. The shot below is hand held and it was very cold.

Near 100% crop. Remember this was hand held.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

TTMartin — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:57:14 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
I, 100% disagree with Mr Martin, not surprising though. I own these lenses. I use these lenses. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens is my go to super tele. I am deciding whether to sell the the "C" version because I will not use it much, at all, anymore. I also own the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon super zoom. It will probably go up on the auction block too. The truth be know, there isn't a great deal of difference between any of thes in terms of IQ.

You could be or will be happy with any of them. But be warned the "S" version is very heavy. You will need a tripod or at least a monopod fof best results. It is built like a Sherman tank. Every bit as good as any "L" lens. You should get the dock because Sigma offers upgraded software to keep up with the current cameras. Otherwise I have never touched either of my Siggy's.

There is one point you must consider. If you need 600mm, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens will not do it. If you don't need 600mm, it is an outstanding lens, too.

As I mentioned above the "S" is heavy but I routinely hand hold it. The shot below is hand held and it was very cold.

Funny how you 100% disagree with me, but, then said exactly what I said.

The Sigma 150-600 C isn't worth keeping (not in the same class as the S version or the Canon 100-400 IS II) and the Sigma 150-600 S is heavy (2 pounds heavier than the Canon 100-400 IS II).

The only thing we seem to disagree on is what is 'too heavy'.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:20:12 GMT

No, Mr Matrin that isn't what I said. Of the three lenses the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens is the best. However, "best" is somewhat subjective and you must consider all the lens' specs.

Note this, "... the "C" version because I will not use it much, at all, anymore." And later this, "... Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon ... will probably go up on the auction block too."

Consider. Heavy is one part. Price. Do you need 600mm is another? Do you require extreme build quality? How about weather sealing? The last degree of IQ? If you answer, yes, to these, you want the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.

The second choice, IMHO, is the "C" version which is an absolute tie to the Tamron. This is simply a choice matter. However, if I didn't want 600mm than I would get the Canon II in a heartbeat.

You own the Sigma 150-500mm? So do I. I have had three of them. They are good buys especially when you get it on close-out since Sigma has discontinued it. It isn't in the same zip code as the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.

I also have the Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) Lens for Canon, also. It is easily the worse lens in this bunch. Not much better than a kit lens. I don't recommend it.

I also don't know why this OP keeps asking this question.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

paulbrogden10 — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:03:17 GMT

Hi all

I tested the tamron 150-600 and Sigma C and S. Here is my results.

Tamron is soft at 600mm

Sigma C is just as good as the sport in image quality up to 500mm.

The sigma sport is slightly better and sharper than the C but not by much at 600mm.

Over all The sigma C is just as good as the sport from 150-500mm. It also has a better apperture.

Sigma C at 386mm looses its 5.6 apperture.

Tamron at 436mm looses its 5.6 apperture.

Sigma sport looses its 5.6 apperture at 320mm

Canon 100-400II is around 383mm at its 400 mark, at 5.6

Results concluded.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:15:49 GMT

Paul,

I would have to contest some of your findings or maybe enhance is a better word.

"Canon 100-400II is around 383mm at its 400 mark, ..."

The Tamron at 600mm focal length measures roughly 570mm. The Siggy twins around 559mm. I don't know if that is meaningful or not as it is common for zooms to fall short of their advertised specs at the long end.

They may be designed that way to allow for focus breathing or it may be an over optimistic advertising department!

"Tamron at 436mm looses its 5.6 apperture. <----BTW one 'p' in aperture.

Sigma sport looses its 5.6 apperture at 320mm"

All zoom lens start to lose aperture at the very first movement of the zoom ring. Albeit it is slight, very slight but it happens.

So, Paul, which lens did you decide to buy? Or did you, like me, buy all three?

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

RobertTheFat — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:04:22 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Paul,
I would have to contest some of your findings or maybe enhance is a better word.
"Canon 100-400II is around 383mm at its 400 mark, ..."
The Tamron at 600mm focal length measures roughly 570mm. The Siggy twins around 559mm. I don't know if that is meaningful or not as it is common for zooms to fall short of their advertised specs at the long end.
They may be designed that way to allow for focus breathing or it may be an over optimistic advertising department!

"Tamron at 436mm looses its 5.6 apperture. <----BTW one 'p' in aperture.
Sigma sport looses its 5.6 apperture at 320mm"
All zoom lens start to lose aperture at the very first movement of the zoom ring. Albeit it is slight, very slight but it happens. ...

It strikes me that that statement itself could use a bit of enhancing. There are, after all, such things as constant-aperture zooms. And because there are, it doesn't follow that even a variable-aperture zoom necessarily starts to lose aperture immediately upon leaving the wide end. It all depends on how the lens was designed.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

TTMartin — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:32:30 GMT

@paulbrogden10 wrote:
Canon 100-400II is around 383mm at its 400 mark, at 5.6

From 'The Digital Picture'
'...the Tamron's longest focal length is more like a 570mm lens (95% of 600mm).'
'...The two Sigma zooms frame the test chart at a similarly-slightly shorter distance than the Tamron, bringing the rough focal length estimate down to slightly under 560mm.'

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

paulbrogden10 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:43:39 GMT

I decided to buy all three because every one online was telling me different storys. Lets not forget Tony Northup videos on youtube would contradict himself on later videos. I tested them out in the field and in my home in my home studio. I concluded while I liked the tamron the most due to its design and I liked its tripod mount a lot I found at 600mm is was far to soft for my needs.

After testing the sigma C I noticed both the S and C was very similar in quality in fact when it comes to the photograph I could not tell them apart between 150mm-500mm in fact it seemed the C was a bit better. However once I started looking at the 600mm end I noticed the sport was only slightly sharper and only slight so slight alot of people would not be able to tell the difference.

In the end I decided to go with the Sigma C because it was very close to the sport in image quality and over 1KG in weight lighter. I thought I could carry two cameras instead of one very big lens.

I have also come to a conclusion which is casing me alot of un-sureness. As you guys know I did own the canon 100-400II grey import. I was convinced some thing was wrong with it but when I tested another copy in store focus was still slow. camera used 7D and 600D. After much research I have come to the conclusion that it is possible their was nothing wrong with the lens. I have learned that some cameras may not be delivering enough power to the auto focus motor. This also would account for the battery's not lasting very long when I used the lens. This also means the critics who defended the lens may be right to do so.

I did see a video of a 1DX using the lens and the auto focus was like 3 times faster than my combo. I really think canon should have addressed this issue. So I hope my findings help some people out their. It seems budget cameras or older cameras body's may not be up to the task of using this lens at its full potential.

It is worth noting that when testing the auto focus speeds on the 7D on all three 150-600mm lenses I did not notice any speed slow down compaired to other videos I had watched.

Some people have said that the 150-600mm lenses are not sharp lenses. I dont agree it depends how you use the lens getting closer to your subject can make the worse lens the best.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

paulbrogden10 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:45:00 GMT

I am not supprized since the canon is around 383mm not the advertised 400mm

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

paulbrogden10 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:47:01 GMT

would you be talking about the sigma 120-300mm 2.8 it weighs a ton I believe.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

TTMartin — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:08:57 GMT

@paulbrogden10 wrote:
would you be talking about the sigma 120-300mm 2.8 it weighs a ton I believe.

Actually the Sigma 150-600 OS Sport and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 have very similar weights. I have the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and use a 2X TC with it very successfully. So I was looking for weight reduction and went with the Canon 100-400 L IS II.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:55:47 GMT

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

"There are, after all, such things as constant-aperture zooms"

But we are not talking constant aperture lenses. Are we? So that statement is moot.

If the measurements are made at full aperture, say 150mm @ f5 than at 151mm it will not be f5. It may be f5.0000001 but it will not be f5. It may not be linear either. You can't increase the focal length without increasing the other.

Feeling persnickety this morning Robert?

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

TTMartin — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:08:18 GMT

@paulbrogden10 wrote:

I have also come to a conclusion which is casing me alot of un-sureness. As you guys know I did own the canon 100-400II grey import. I was convinced some thing was wrong with it but when I tested another copy in store focus was still slow. camera used 7D and 600D. After much research I have come to the conclusion that it is possible their was nothing wrong with the lens. I have learned that some cameras may not be delivering enough power to the auto focus motor. This also would account for the battery's not lasting very long when I used the lens. This also means the critics who defended the lens may be right to do so.

That is the reason I use a battery grip with dual batteries with both my 7D and 7D Mk II and larger lenses, either the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, Sigma 150-500 OS or the Canon 100-400 IS II.

There are reviews that say the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG HSM (non-OS) is slow to focus, but, by using the battery grip with it, I didn't find that to be an issue.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:01:43 GMT

"I have the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and use a 2X TC with it very successfully."

I also have the 120-300 but I prefer the SIgma 1.4x on it. It is a real nice combo. One of the rare places where a tele converter works. Works out to approx, 170-420mm @ f4.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:06:33 GMT

B from B

A constant aperture lens changes magnification just in the front lens element. So it can maintain a constant f ratio. The entrance pupil increases its diameter because of the magnification change as you zoom. The aperture diameter remains constant, thus keeping the f ratio constant.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

Waddizzle — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:25:25 GMT

"I did see a video of a 1DX using the lens and the auto focus was like 3 times faster than my combo. I really think canon should have addressed this issue."

I believe that Canon addressed that issue years ago. It's called a battery grip.

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

ebiggs1 — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:09:15 GMT

" It's called a battery grip."

Yes indeed!

Re: 100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

RobertTheFat — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:29:54 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
"I did see a video of a 1DX using the lens and the auto focus was like 3 times faster than my combo. I really think canon should have addressed this issue."

I believe that Canon addressed that issue years ago. It's called a battery grip.

You make a valid point. But truthfully, I've never seen that advertised as an advantage of a battery grip. The BG is usually billed as a way to shoot more pictures without having to change the battery, rather than a way to maintain sufficient current flow through the autofocus motor. I've never been a great fan of battery grips, feeling that the longer time between battery changes didn't justify the additional size and weight. But if I had a large lens that I thought was focusing too slowly, I might feel differently now.