@KingNine wrote:
Thanks! That first one is actually one of the first shots I got with it after buying my copy. There is literally a wildlife sanctuary 3 blocks from the camera store I purchased it from. I bought it and drove around the corner....
I did think about my purchase when using it the next weekend and dark clouds rolled in on me quick. All of the sudden the weather sealed one seemed like a good idea lol. I'll just need to be prepared and take pictures within my limitations.
Yes, the Sigma 150-600mm "C" can take some great photos, if you stay within its' comfort zone. One of the lens' best features is the zoom lock switch, which locks at several focal lengths. Lens creep, no more. Canon should take some notes on that feature. [EDIT] I get the best results by locking at 500mm, with an f/8 aperture.
Having the option of the Sigma Dock was a plus for me over the Tamron. In addition to custom AFMA, you can also configure custom auto focus modes. I like the idea having weather sealed lenses, but not so I can shoot photos in bad weather with less worries. I'm too old and fragile to be trying to do that. No, my brain cells have concluded that weather sealing means the lenses will last longer, and will be less inclined to have mold, mildew, water drops, or dust.
But, the 150-600mm "C" does have its' limits. I think the IQ suffers as you move above 500mm. And, the lens doesn't really shine at minimum aperture, not until you get around f/8. If you want high shutter speeds, 1/1000 or faster, then you need a bright sunny day, not a dim overcast or rainy sky.
I get better results shooting the new Canon 100-400mm at f/5.6 and cropping, than using the 150-600mm "C" at f/6.3, or even f/8. Ernie may have a point about the Canon 400mm might be better than a 150-600mm zoom. That above shot is nearly a 100% crop of a 400mm shot. The bird was on the other side of a lake, close to the water's edge. I would imagine that the 400mm prime would do at least as well, if not better. Using the wide aperture, f/5.6, let me use a high shutter speed, 1/2000, which let me freeze the bird in flight.
I thought you guys might enjoy this. This is far from scientific and I was not careful to take this image with the same settings as I was not thinking I would get home and compare side by side like this. However I found two of the same great egret with eggs that were taken with each lens. They are both cropped down about 60-70% to fit the same square image. I've adjusted exposure and dehaze just a little but not saturation.
The first is the Canon 100-400 mk2 taken at 241mm, 1/2000, f5, iso 100
The second is the Sigma 150-600 C taken at 293mm, 1/2500, f5.6, iso 320
"The Sigma 150-600 isn't even in the same league, in this regard."
The "S" is. 
I can't see or didn't notice any better performance form the 100-400mm 2 over the "S". Add the fact it doesn't have 500mm thru 600mm and the choice was simple.
@ebiggs1 wrote:"The Sigma 150-600 isn't even in the same league, in this regard."
The "S" is.
I can't see or didn't notice any better performance form the 100-400mm 2 over the "S". Add the fact it doesn't have 500mm thru 600mm and the choice was simple.
That makes sense, provided performance in that range is just as good as 150-500mm. One other performance feature that I like about the 100-400mm Mark II is the remarkably short MFD. Off the top of my head, I think the Sigma 150-600 "C" has an MFD around 21 feet, or so. The Canon 100-400mm Mark II has an MFD that is just a bit over 3 feet.
The comparatively short MFD can make for some pretty dramatic photos. The above is another near 100% crop. This little guy landed well under 20 feet away, probably around 15 feet. With the Sigma, I would have never been able to capture this shot. With the Canon, the DOF is about two inches on a 1D Mark IV at 400mm.
