Sigma 150 - 600 mm Sport lens for a Canon 7DII Camera

[mjschocken]

I'm interested in getting a little more reach for my 7DII camera for wildlife photography. I currently have the 100 - 400 mm II which I have no issues with except it doesn't always provide enough reach for far-away subjects.

I'm interested in perhaps getting a Sigma or Tamron telephoto zoom lens. However, when I looked up the Sigma 150 - 600 mm Sport lens, it was described as a "full-format" lens. What does that mean when it describes a lens? Is it compatible with my 7DII crop sensor camera?

Also, does anyone have both the Sigma Sport and the Canon 100 - 400 mm II lens? Does the Sigma lens compare favorably to the Canon lens with regard to image quality and perhaps other aspects in your opinion? I'll read comparison reviews but I'm interested in personal experience as well. But first, I need to know if this lens is compatible with my camera.

Thanks. 

Mark

[kvbarkley]

Full frame just means that it is "EF" instead of "EF-S" - it will work on full frame and crop frame, just like Canon EF lenses.

My Tamron works fine on my Rebel.

[mjschocken]

Thanks!

[ebiggs1]

Mark,

I own and use the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon. I love it. It is in the same class as the best Canon "L" lenses.  However, this means it is heavy, very heavy.  You need to wrap yourself around that aspect before you select one of th e150-600mm super zooms.  All these lenses in this class are nearly identical in IQ and how they work.  Some give and take but nearly identical performance.  The Siggy S biggest attribute is build so if that is what you are after it is for you.  Any of these super zooms will work on a 7D Mk II.  I don't have a Mk II but I did have two 7D's.

For me and the kind of work I do, I prefer the extra build. The IQ from the "S" might be just a pixel or two better but not significant.  If I were not in the mode of wanting the best built lens I would buy the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2.  Way lighter and good IQ, the best among the consumer level super zooms currently available.

The only problem with the Canon 100-400mm zoom is no 401mm to 600mm focal length.  Canon has the ability to produce a 150-600mil super zoom but for some reason they choose not to.  No matter how good some claim the 100-400mm is with a 1.4x tele con, it is still a pain to have to use a tel-con when you want more FL.  Especially when there is lenses out there that have it natively. I don't like tel-cons, never did.

[mjschocken]

Thanks for your response.  Yes, the weight issue for me is probably a deal breaker.  My Canon 100 - 400 mm II weighs 3.6 lbs.  The Sigma 150 - 600 Sport weighs 6.3 lbs.  My issue is that, except in certain instances (for instance, low light for an early morning owl), I don't like using tripods or monopods.  When I walk the trails, I want the freedom to catch an eagle flying towards me with minimal setup that a tripod would require.  I'm probably a candidate for a mirrorless setup such as the Olympus OMD-E1-Mark II but they don't make (at this time) the zoom lens I would want. Their 40 - 150 mm zoom, even with the crop factor (2.0) is not enough and their 300 mm f/4 prime has not been reviewed so well by Tony Northrup, someone I usually believe.  Plus, really don't like prime lenses is general because of the problem with subjects that are too close. Now, I am going to look at the Tamron 150 - 600 mm lens you mentioned because it weighs 4.4 lbs, somewhat more than my Canon lens but not so much more.  So thanks for that recommendation. 

I do completely agree with your comments about TCs.  I did try the Canon 1.4X III TC with the 100 - 400 mm II and I felt that my images were a little soft.  It also slowed down autofocus on flying birds.  So I'm not a great fan of TCs and sold mine recently. 

Thanks, again. 

Mark

[ebiggs1]

Mark,

It sounds like the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 is for you.  Tamron made a good lens even better when they came out with the G2.  It also has user upgradeable and changeable FW. Unfortunately you can't get 600mm of FL with out some fairly heavy glass.  It goes with the territory. If it proves too heavy also, perhaps a different hobby is in your future.

The lightest lens and perhaps the best buy in a prime lens is the ef 400mm f5.6 L USM. I have one now and I had two of them.  Can't say enough good about the 400mil.

But the reason for this reply, I am not a big review reader.  Most people have an agenda so the review is slanted.  One thing most people don't want anybody to think they made a bad purchase.  In my case when I retired I sorta took up a hobby of testing as many lenses as I could possibly test. I have lost count now but I would not be surprised if it isn't in the 100's.  I have 40 or so as we speak but I am selling them off and keeping only the ones I really like or use often.  The Siggy "S" is one that I will keep!

OK all of that is to just say, I am not a Tony Northrup fan. One of my least favorite reviewers.  He's flat out wrong about a lot of stuff he talks about.  The best thing about Tony is Chelsea! 

[mjschocken]

EBiggs, 

Thanks, again.  The Tamron G2 only weights 0.8 lbs more than my Canon 100 - 400 II so I think I could carry it in the field without a tripod or monopod which would be my preference.  Since you've used both lenses, is the Tamron G2 comparable with respect to overall image quality and particularly sharpness of the subject?  I know this is pretty subjective but I am interested in what you have to say. 

I get you with reviewers.  So much has to do with your own experience.  Evaluating cameras and lens and especially overall image quality can be pretty subjective.  As for Tony Northrup, I guess I've read so much of his books and reviews that I could be biased.  I'll give you that. 

Mark

[kvbarkley]

I find the best thing to do is rent one from LensRentals. Then you can "review" it for yourself. And, if you *really* like the one you rented, you can just buy that one from them. Or return it and buy a new one.

[mjschocken]

Thanks for the tip.  Yes, that's probably a good idea.  

[mjschocken]

Yes, I'll probably rent it.  In reading the reviews, it seems like a great lens in its class but has a con of image softness at full focal length extension.  When compared to the Canon 400 mm prime with a 1.4X TC, the Canon was sharper.  Therefore, there's probably no question that I'll rent the Tamron and see for myself.  It's the only way.