Sigma 150-600 vs Canon 100-400RF

[clint66]

Hey everyone. I’ve spent the last few days reading reviews and tests and I still don’t know which lens should I choose. I was planning to shoot planes in the sky, but I don’t know which lens should I choose. My budget is around 1000$. I’m using a canon R10. I’m talking about the C version of the 150-600. I heard that the stabilization and the AF on the 100-400 is great as well as the sharpness,but the focal length and aperture is pulling me away from this lens. I’m scared that the 150-600 will be too soft and the AF will be too slow and not good.

[ebiggs1]

First go with Canon lens if possible they will always be the best choice. Now can you live  without the extra 200mm? That is your decision as eIther lens will work. You can't trust those reviews so don't put much stock in them.

[jrhoffman75]

If you get the Sigma you also need the Canon EF-EF adapter. 

The Canon RF 1.4X converter mates well with the RF100-400 and would be useful for future RF lenses. 

[March411]

Like ebiggs mentions the native RF is always the best choice if you can live with the max range of 400mm. I use this lens when I travel for wildlife and it works but I have to be fairly close to my subject. With the R10 having a 24MP deep crops will not be an option if you plan to print images. 

Many use the Sigma 150-600mm with great results and the extra 200mm will make a difference out in the field. You will have more distance to work with and it does minimize spooking your subject when you attempt to get close and fill the frame.

A couple things regarding the Sigma, use the Canon adapter only for improved performance. I've tested several 3rd party adapters and each had it's set of challenges, the Canon adapter has been perfect. If you buy the lens new make sure the firmware is up to date. I have several Sigma lenses I ran on my DSLR's and when I moved to mirror-less the focus lagged and the lens would sometimes rack before locking on the subject. Both Canon and Sigma expressed it was a firmware issue and they were correct. I purchased the dock (used, under $40), updated the firmware and the lenses are solid.

[wq9nsc]

I have never owned any flavor of Canon's 100-400 lens but I have owned a Sigma 150-600 for several years and I have been impressed.  Two years ago, a friend asked me to shoot some photos of a crop duster helicopter that was operating out of his ag facility.  The first three photos were captured with a Sigma 150-600 and a Canon 1DX II, the second three were captured with the far more expensive Canon EF 800 f5.6 on a 1DX III body.  The EF 800 f5.6 is many times the price of the Sigma and it does focus a tad faster than the Sigma (and primes generally are faster focusing than a "zoom" even when comparing in the same price range) but the focus acquisition speed of the Sigma has never been an issue for me with wildlife.

I shoot mostly sports and I don't use the Sigma for that purpose because with reduced lighting at most events, I rely upon Canon f2.8 glass for that task.  I originally bought my Sigma 150-600 for use while hiking and I was prepared to send it back if I didn't like it but I was very impressed and have used this relatively inexpensive light lens a lot since I bought it.

Rodger

1DX II Sigma 150-6001DX II Sigma 150-6001DX II Sigma 150-6001DX III EF 800 f5.61DX III EF 800 f5.61DX III EF 800 f5.6

[kvbarkley]

You have pretty much listed all the trades.

I hate to bring it up, but the 1.4X teleconverter will take you to 560 mm, and at probably comparable quality to the 150-600.

I would get the 100-400, and if you find it does not have the reach, try out the 1.4X teleconverter.

[opckieran]

The 3x lighter RF100-400 would pair better with your R10. You could hand-shoot all day with that lens. And with the money you save, you could get a tele if the 640mm equivalent zoom wasn't enough for you.

If you are lucky enough to have a keh around you, go try both out.

[March411]

Absolutely 3X's lighter, it's an easy all day carry!