Sigma 150-600C vs 200-800

[saifor]

I own the 100-400 is ii and have been wanting something longer. Usually pair the 100-400 with the r8 but I've been thinking of running two bodies in case one fails , which one should I go for get the sigma rn or save up for the 200-800 or just get another 100-400. The second body will mostly be the 7dii/5diii

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Since you own a mirrorless body, the 200-800 is going to be a better long-term investment.  I understand the appeal of the Sigma.  It's a fraction of the cost.  The 150-600c has been well supported by Sigma.  I just sold mine this week, having replaced it with the 200-800 earlier this year.  

If you use a Canon adapter, many EF lenses, even many third party can be adapted successfully and perform very well on a mirrorless body.  If you do grab the Sigma you'll want to buy their USB dock so you can ensure it's firmware is up to date.  I think I checked this week and it's latest firmware is 2.0.5 as of this writing.  It's one of the most popular budget friendly wildlife lenses.

I have to say though the 200-800 is lovely. Epic focal length, high performing, at a very good (reasonable) price.  Lenses are the real investment in photography.  Bodys will come and go.  If done right lenses move forward with you.  

Myself.  I would not invest in DSLRs, or EF glass, but if you do, buy used and at that point you might as well get the Sigma.  It will give you the reach you're not getting from your 100 400.  

[ebiggs1]

This isn't even a choice the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens for certain.