cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

100-400 mk2 vs sigma 150-600

paulbrogden10
Enthusiast

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?

47 REPLIES 47


@TTMartin wrote:

@Waddizzle wrote:
The constant activity of the IS motors can shorten battery life.

 


I do use Mode 3 IS with my EF 100-400 L IS II, I'm not sure if that has a positive impact on battery life or not.


There is one settings that can have an impact on lens performance, and battery drain.  It is "Lens Drive When AF Impossible".  I had noticed noises coming from my Sigma 150-500mm lens, and realized that just merely walking around the OS system was trying to function. 

 

You didn't even need to press the shutter.  As long as the camera was "awake", the stabilization systems would remain active.  I noticed two things could stop it.  One was disabling the aforementioned "Lens Drive" option, or enabling a back button to turn on/off the IS system, just like you would for the AF system. 

 

 

5D_BackButton_ImageStabilizer.PNG

 

The above is from the instruction manual for the 5D3.  This "IS" function assignment is found in many camers, including the 6D.  I tried it, and it seemed to stop the lens from making motor noises while carrying it.  But, this was too many buttons to be pushing while handholding a heavier lens like the Sigma 150-500mm. 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@TTMartin wrote:

@Waddizzle wrote:
The constant activity of the IS motors can shorten battery life.

 


I do use Mode 3 IS with my EF 100-400 L IS II, I'm not sure if that has a positive impact on battery life or not.


Don't lose focus, Guys. Battery life isn't the issue, is it? It's the ability (or not) of a single unassisted camera battery to supply enough current to drive a large lens's autofocus motor at its rated speed.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

"...a single unassisted camera battery to supply enough current to drive a large lens's autofocus motor at its rated speed."

 

It apparently doesn't effect a 1 series as I have never noticed it. I have owned all of these (and more) large teles, they seem to perform like any other big lens.  Of course the bigger the lens the bigger the mass the motor has to move so it will never act like a 70-200 for instance.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

"...a single unassisted camera battery to supply enough current to drive a large lens's autofocus motor at its rated speed."

 

It apparently doesn't effect a 1 series as I have never noticed it. I have owned all of these (and more) large teles, they seem to perform like any other big lens.  Of course the bigger the lens the bigger the mass the motor has to move so it will never act like a 70-200 for instance.


Don't your 1 series cameras take two batteries? I thought the 1's had all the capabilities of a battery grip built in.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA



@RobertTheFat wrote:
Don't your 1 series cameras take two batteries? I thought the 1's had all the capabilities of a battery grip built in.

It's a single double capacity battery. It's the Double Mint of batteries.

 

10 mint.jpg

Actually like 10 Mints (cells) in one.                                                    Photo by Kang Liat Keng

B from B,

"Don't your 1 series cameras take two batteries? I thought the 1's had all the capabilities of a battery grip built in."

 

A 1 series does not have a grip and none is available for it.  The extended area where a grip might be has some electronics in it, like an LCD screen and some buttons.  That area is occupied only about half way with a proprietary lithium battery.

 

BTW that photo shown elsewhere here is from and older Mk II.  It is a ni-cad, circa 2005.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

"...a single unassisted camera battery to supply enough current to drive a large lens's autofocus motor at its rated speed."

 

It apparently doesn't effect a 1 series as I have never noticed it. I have owned all of these (and more) large teles, they seem to perform like any other big lens.  Of course the bigger the lens the bigger the mass the motor has to move so it will never act like a 70-200 for instance.


Actually, the 100-400 mk2 is arguably identical in size and weight as the 70-200 mk2.  Close enough that they both come with the same storage bag from Canon.  In other words, if his camera has not had trouble with the 70-200 mk2, then it shouldn't have any trouble with the 100-400 mk2.

 

In fact, the 70-200mm has 23 lens elements in 19 groups, while the 100-400 has 21 elements in 16 groups.  I would expect that the 100-400 has slightly heavier lens elements than what are used in the 70-200, but the difference would seem to be insignificant.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"Actually, the 100-400 mk2 is arguably identical in size and weight as the 70-200 mk2."

       " so it will never act like a 70-200 for instance."

 

Good lord, you guys really need to stop detailing a post to the last degree.  Let me explain, again, to you.  This statement was not intended to compare the 100-400 to the ef 70-200mm f2.8L ounce for ounce.  It is a general statement describing the advantage lighter lens will have over larger ones. That's all.  

 

Glossed over this, "I have owned all of these (and more) large teles, they seem to perform like any other big lens.", didn't you?

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Actually, the 100-400 mk2 is arguably identical in size and weight as the 70-200 mk2."

       " so it will never act like a 70-200 for instance."

 

Good lord, you guys really need to stop detailing a post to the last degree.  Let me explain, again, to you.  This statement was not intended to compare the 100-400 to the ef 70-200mm f2.8L ounce for ounce.  It is a general statement describing the advantage lighter lens will have over larger ones. That's all.  

 

Glossed over this, "I have owned all of these (and more) large teles, they seem to perform like any other big lens.", didn't you?


Uh, the "bigger lens" in question, which Paul has been experiencing battery issues with, is the 100-400 mk2.  Nice try.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"...  the "bigger lens" in question, which Paul has been experiencing battery issues with, is the 100-400 mk2."

 

But it wasn't my intention.  Nice try!  You may want to point that out to Paul if you feel it that important.  Just perhaps Paul might have or buy, in the future, another or different lens besides the 100-400.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements