Best mid-long telephoto lens?

[jtaylor333]

I have a 6D.  My telephoto lens is a 70-200 f/2.8L II and I have a Canon 2X III converter.

I love the 70-200 and am pleased with my image quality but am far less happy with the results with the teleconverter.

I find that 400 mm total is also a little low for wildlife shots and am looking to go longer - somewhere in the 400-800 range.

Options I am considering are:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II with my 2X teleconverter (which would make it 200-800 f/9-11).  About $2k

2. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary.  About $1k

3. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary with 1.4X (which would make it 210-840 f/8).  About $1.4k

My questions relate primarily to image quality.  Which would give me the best IQ at 400mm, 600 mm and 800 mm?

Any other issues to consider?

Many thanks

[TTMartin]

---

@jtaylor333 wrote:

I have a 6D.  My telephoto lens is a 70-200 f/2.8L II and I have a Canon 2X III converter.

I love the 70-200 and am pleased with my image quality but am far less happy with the results with the teleconverter.

I find that 400 mm total is also a little low for wildlife shots and am looking to go longer - somewhere in the 400-800 range.

Options I am considering are:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II with my 2X teleconverter (which would make it 200-800 f/9-11).  About $2k

2. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary.  About $1k

3. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary with 1.4X (which would make it 210-840 f/8).  About $1.4k

My questions relate primarily to image quality.  Which would give me the best IQ at 400mm, 600 mm and 800 mm?

Any other issues to consider?

Many thanks

---

I would forget about using your 2X lens with the EF 100-400 L IS II or any teleconverter with the Sigma 150-600.

You can however get nice results with the EF 100-400 L IS II and a 1.4X TC III.

7D Mk II, EF 100-400 L IS II and a 1.4X TC III 476mm 1/1600 f/8 ISO 500, slight crop from bottom only

The very short focus distance of the combination makes it a great close up lens too.

 7D Mk II, EF 100-400 L IS II and a 1.4X TC III 560mm 1/1250 f/8 ISO 640, very slightly cropped for composition

note: The 6D does not have f/8 AF so any combination that goes over f/5.6 (f/6.3 for the Sigma lenses) will not AF with the 6D.

[Waddizzle]

Options I am considering are:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II with my 2X teleconverter (which would make it 200-800 f/9-11).  About $2k

2. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary.  About $1k

3. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary with 1.4X (which would make it 210-840 f/8).  About $1.4k

My questions relate primarily to image quality.  Which would give me the best IQ at 400mm, 600 mm and 800 mm?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Forget about using the 2X teleconverter and wanting to use Autofocus with that lens. 

2.  Pretty good lens, especially after you tune it with the Sigma Dock.  I like the EF 100-400mm Mark II faster focusing.

3.  You would only be able to use the center AF point in One Shot mode at the shorter end, and no AI Servo mode.

Are you familiar with why AF points have an f/stop rating associated with them?

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16399/what-apertures-are-required-to-enable-autofocus-inclu...

[diverhank]

I echo others and want to add a few things.

1. IQ wise, the 100-400 II is the best, even with a 1.4X III converter.  A great number of photographers abandoned the Sig and Tamron for that combo.

2. Don't discount the Tamron 150-600.  IQ-wise, it's roughly the same as the Sigma and it can be had for much cheaper (version 1).  The version 2 is coming out and on paper better than the Sigma but costs slightly higher.

3. Your 6D, while good at a lot of things, is not good for reach.  With a cropped sensor like the 7DII, you gain 1.6X for free literally without any penalty.  That's why I own a full frame (5DIII) and a cropped (7DII) for different applications.

[Waddizzle]

---

@diverhank wrote:

I echo others and want to add a few things.

1. IQ wise, the 100-400 II is the best, even with a 1.4X III converter.  A great number of photographers abandoned the Sig and Tamron for that combo.

2. Don't discount the Tamron 150-600.  IQ-wise, it's roughly the same as the Sigma and it can be had for much cheaper (version 1).  The version 2 is coming out and on paper better than the Sigma but costs slightly higher.

3. Your 6D, while good at a lot of things, is not good for reach.  With a cropped sensor like the 7DII, you gain 1.6X for free literally without any penalty.  That's why I own a full frame (5DIII) and a cropped (7DII) for different applications.

---

1.  Yup, I have yet to try that combo, but it has potential on a 7D2, a crop body and f/8 focusing with center AF point.

2.  They say that about the Tamron.  I bought the Sigma for one reason, the Sigma Dock.

3.  For example, see my #3.  I traded camera bodies with my son for the summer [my 1D4 for his 7D2], and I'm not giving the 7D2 back.  I think he has a similar idea because the trade was supposed to end on Labor Day.  I like the free reach.

[TTMartin]

---

@jtaylor333 wrote:

I have a 6D.  My telephoto lens is a 70-200 f/2.8L II and I have a Canon 2X III converter.

I love the 70-200 and am pleased with my image quality but am far less happy with the results with the teleconverter.

I find that 400 mm total is also a little low for wildlife shots and am looking to go longer - somewhere in the 400-800 range.

Options I am considering are:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II with my 2X teleconverter (which would make it 200-800 f/9-11).  About $2k

2. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary.  About $1k

3. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary with 1.4X (which would make it 210-840 f/8).  About $1.4k

My questions relate primarily to image quality.  Which would give me the best IQ at 400mm, 600 mm and 800 mm?

Any other issues to consider?

Many thanks

---

I know this isn't your question, but, you might consider the getting a 7D Mk II and a 1.4X TC III (~$1600 for both refurbished from Canon)  for use with your EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. That combo would give you full frame equivalent of a 150-450mm. The 7D Mk II is a far superior wildlife camera to the 6D and is capable of f/8 AF.

[ebiggs1]

"Options I am considering are:

1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II with my 2X teleconverter (which would make it 200-800 f/9-11).  About $2k

2. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary.  About $1k

3. Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Contemporary with 1.4X (which would make it 210-840 f/8).  About $1.4k

My questions relate primarily to image quality.  Which would give me the best IQ at 400mm, 600 mm and 800 mm?"

My observation with using all of them and owning all but the new version 100-400 is there isn't a dimes worth of difference between any of them.  It is a 'your choice' situation. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon is slightly better than any of them.  But not by much.

My second thought is to not use any tele converter. Ever!  They help nothing and hurt every time. A better choice is get closer. Getting closer is always preferable to a bigger lenses or converters.  The only lens I ever use a tele converter on is my ef 70-200mm f2.8L and then it is the 1.4x.  Not the 2x as you have already noted why. 

I personally prefer and use the Siggy S but I could be happy with either of the cheaper versions.  Which I am, BTW.  I didn't buy the new 100-400 simply because it doesn't have 600mm.  The Tamron has an attempt at weather sealing while the Sigma doesn't.  You have to go with the S if you want sealing.

There is supposed to be a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM coming but it has been 'coming' for a long time now. So who knows?  It will not be an "L" lens and will compete directly with the afore mentioned competition.  Maybe?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

My second thought is to not use any tele converter. Ever!  They help nothing and hurt every time. A better choice is get closer. Getting closer is always preferable to a bigger lenses or converters.  ...

---

Yeah, just tell that bear and her cubs to hold still while you move in for the shot.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Bean Town,

"Yeah, just tell that bear and her cubs to hold still while you move in for the shot."

That statement is almost to the point of ridiculous.  Isn't it?  Not all tele shots are nearly so precarious.  Most are the mundane woodpecker climbing a tree type thing.  Or perhaps the hard slugging 3&2 baseball player.  C'mon on!

If taking pictures in bear country is your thing I think more preparation than a tele converter is warranted.  Don't you, really?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob from Bean Town,

"Yeah, just tell that bear and her cubs to hold still while you move in for the shot."

That statement is almost to the point of ridiculous.  Isn't it?  Not all tele shots are nearly so precarious.  Most are the mundane woodpecker climbing a tree type thing.  Or perhaps the hard slugging 3&2 baseball player.  C'mon on!

If taking pictures in bear country is your thing I think more preparation than a tele converter is warranted.  Don't you, really?

---

You did say "Ever!" Right?