Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Nov 2014 (Thursday) 09:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 100-400 II vs. Sigma 150-600 Sport for Wildlife/Nature: Some Early Speculations

 
gabebalazs
Bird Whisperer
Avatar
7,640 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1055
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
     
Nov 16, 2014 20:37 |  #76

We're living in a great era where there is quite the selection of very good (and some excellent) long zooms, from Sigma, Tamron, and Canon. You're right Jake, just a few years ago it was quite different...

I too really want the new 100-400L II. I love my Sigma but it is quite bigger than what I'd consider and nice manageable hiking lens.


SONY A7RIII | SONY A7III | SONY RX10 IV | SONY RX100 | 24-70 2.8 GM | 70-200 2.8 GM | 16-35 F/4 | PZ 18-105 F/4 | FE 85 1.8 | FE 28-70 | SIGMA 35 1.4 ART | SIGMA 150-600 C | ROKINON 14 2.8
Gabe Balazs Photo (external link)
Nature Shots Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
alann
Goldmember
2,609 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Nov 2007
Location: South Carolina
     
Nov 16, 2014 21:51 |  #77

I sold sigma and ordered the new Canon 100-400 II.


My FLickrPage (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jeetsukumaran
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
316 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 19
Joined Apr 2007
     
Nov 16, 2014 21:52 |  #78

gabebalazs wrote in post #17274310 (external link)
I really wanted to read this whole thread instead of just skimming it but I was too busy being out shooting with my "garbage" Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS ;)

If anyone is interested in all the crap images this useless lens produces, should visit my nature photos portfolio in my sig, or head over to the 120-300 2.8 OS thread in Lens Sample Shots. :) Hey, I do have some 100-400L shots there too from 3-4 years ago..., just saying ;)

Gabe, I have seen your images.

They are amazing.


Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jeetsukumaran/ (external link) Website: http://jeetworks.org/ (external link) Canon 6D, Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21, EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jeetsukumaran
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
316 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 19
Joined Apr 2007
     
Nov 16, 2014 21:53 |  #79

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17275808 (external link)
I find myself posting as if it's 2005 all the time.
My stand is that yes, the 100-400mm L DOES IN FACT beat the pants off the older SIGMA megazooms. I know I've owned a few them.
This is first hand knowledge, this is tried it and know for a fact.


This is also 2005.

Just because the 100-400mm totally outclasses the old 170-500mm and 50-500mm SIGMA ( pre- OS ) does not mean that times have not changed.

Right now Canon's new 100-400mm II is poised to play catch up. The Tammy (and these new Sigmas likely) have advanced past that stage that SIGMA used to be perpetually in.

As for the 120-300mm, this lens since Version 1 has never been in this class at all. If anyone thinks it is comparable too, or less than the 100-400mm, they are sorely mistaken. This zoom launched into that once rare class, the "Zoom that shoots like a prime".
A class once occupied by pretty much one type of lens, the 70-200s. Then along comes SIGMA nearly a decade ago with the 120-300mm, 100-300mm f/4 EX and the amazing 300-800mm f/5.6 EX. All of which joined that small club of zooms that defied the photographer to judge it as anything but a prime.

Canon now has a new contender in that market, the 200-400mm, but that lens followed the SIGMA offerings by nearly a decade.

So its easily possible to post from experience that sigma long zooms are 2nd class.
But, it is certainly not the whole picture, and it is in fact old news.

Words of wisdom.


Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jeetsukumaran/ (external link) Website: http://jeetworks.org/ (external link) Canon 6D, Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21, EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark ­ K
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 556
Joined Jun 2013
     
Nov 16, 2014 23:00 |  #80

I have had 100-400L for a very long time...the very first EF lens I bought. Mine is sharp until I got my 120-300 early this year. Even with a 2x TC, the images are very sharp. These are what I took yesterday

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8628/15180868294_8d0ea20c05_b.jpg
IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7485/15614999589_927dd60edf_b.jpg

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Minolta, Fujifilm, Sigma, Tamron & Tokina

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark ­ K
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 556
Joined Jun 2013
     
Nov 16, 2014 23:01 |  #81

I have do not have 70-200, I will probably go straight for 100-400L...but for wild life, 150-600 is always better


Canon, Nikon, Sony, Minolta, Fujifilm, Sigma, Tamron & Tokina

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark ­ K
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 556
Joined Jun 2013
     
Nov 16, 2014 23:02 |  #82

alann wrote in post #17276268 (external link)
I sold sigma and ordered the new Canon 100-400 II.

Allan..
I thought you have the Tammy 150-600


Canon, Nikon, Sony, Minolta, Fujifilm, Sigma, Tamron & Tokina

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,412 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2440
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Nov 17, 2014 00:25 |  #83

i am really, really tempted in going with the 120-300 sport + 2x TC route myself, but can't justify spending over 3k for a lens atm (tho i know it's still a bargain considering it's 2.8 @300mm) so it will be 150-600 for me...tho the weight does worry me a bit in terms of using it hand held


https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
8,381 posts
Gallery: 380 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 16361
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Nov 17, 2014 00:34 |  #84

DreDaze wrote in post #17270166 (external link)
the large majority of bodies don't AF with lenses whose widest opening is f8...i assume it's just not enough light to work efficiently enough(although i'm sure there's some technical explanation for it all)

AFAIK the reason you need a minimum aperture to autofocus is not the amount of light but geometry. The AF system samples light rays from the upper and lower parts of the lens and compares them. If the aperture is too narrow, those light rays get partially or entirely cut off and AF fails.

Put a 1.4X on an f5.6 lens and most bodies can't focus for reasons stated. Put an ND filter on that same lens and the AF works fine, even though the amount of light is reduced.

This might be interesting technical info to some, but is not going to help you decide which lens to buy. :(


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Nov 17, 2014 06:31 |  #85

Archibald wrote in post #17276496 (external link)
AFAIK the reason you need a minimum aperture to autofocus is not the amount of light but geometry.

I've always thought it was a combination of the two. With a narrow aperture the AF system finds it more difficult to find the right focus. But that difficulty is reduced if the target is of high contrast and is well lit.

Archibald wrote in post #17276496 (external link)
Put a 1.4X on an f5.6 lens and most bodies can't focus for reasons stated.

But if you use a non-reporting TC, or do the pin-taping trick, then you find that AF is possible - but only with a well-lit, high-contrast, subject. It was those results that led me to my conclusions above.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alann
Goldmember
2,609 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Nov 2007
Location: South Carolina
     
Nov 17, 2014 10:28 |  #86

Mark K wrote in post #17276407 (external link)
Allan..
I thought you have the Tammy 150-600

Your right. Brain freeze i guess. It was the tammy.


My FLickrPage (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
8,381 posts
Gallery: 380 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 16361
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Nov 17, 2014 17:50 |  #87

hollis_f wrote in post #17276743 (external link)
I've always thought it was a combination of the two. With a narrow aperture the AF system finds it more difficult to find the right focus. But that difficulty is reduced if the target is of high contrast and is well lit.

But if you use a non-reporting TC, or do the pin-taping trick, then you find that AF is possible - but only with a well-lit, high-contrast, subject. It was those results that led me to my conclusions above.

Of course you need light for AF to work, but the mechanism by which it works is geometry. There is a simplified description here (external link). If the aperture is too small, then the light beams are partially or completely occluded and AF can fail.

AF may still work at f6.3 or even smaller, but becomes more and more unreliable with smaller apertures until it fails completely. IMO Canon and other manufacturers restrict the aperture in the camera's software to keep users from getting into this gray zone and having unreliable AF (which they would blame on the camera's maker).


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,596 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2353
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Nov 17, 2014 18:13 |  #88

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17275808 (external link)
I find myself posting as if it's 2005 all the time.
My stand is that yes, the 100-400mm L DOES IN FACT beat the pants off the older SIGMA megazooms. I know I've owned a few them.
This is first hand knowledge, this is tried it and know for a fact.


This is also 2005.

Just because the 100-400mm totally outclasses the old 170-500mm and 50-500mm SIGMA ( pre- OS ) does not mean that times have not changed.

Right now Canon's new 100-400mm II is poised to play catch up. The Tammy (and these new Sigmas likely) have advanced past that stage that SIGMA used to be perpetually in.

As for the 120-300mm, this lens since Version 1 has never been in this class at all. If anyone thinks it is comparable too, or less than the 100-400mm, they are sorely mistaken. This zoom launched into that once rare class, the "Zoom that shoots like a prime".
A class once occupied by pretty much one type of lens, the 70-200s. Then along comes SIGMA nearly a decade ago with the 120-300mm, 100-300mm f/4 EX and the amazing 300-800mm f/5.6 EX. All of which joined that small club of zooms that defied the photographer to judge it as anything but a prime.

Canon now has a new contender in that market, the 200-400mm, but that lens followed the SIGMA offerings by nearly a decade.

So its easily possible to post from experience that sigma long zooms are 2nd class.
But, it is certainly not the whole picture, and it is in fact old news.


Just FYI form personal stand point there are exactly 4 long zooms I desperately want to own.

I DO want the new 100-400mm! My old one has been a trusted partner, and I love the size and weight.

I almost bought a 120-300mm just a few weeks back but financial trouble prevented it. This lens would not just fill a hole in my line up, it may replace a small handful as well.

When and if SIGMA ever puts OS on the 300-800mm, I'd like to own that one again. I'm still sorry I parted with the non OS version. I only sold it to pay my mortgage when I was unemployed.

I'd like to try all three of the 150-600mm zooms soon to be available and see if I';d ever chose one over lugging the 500mm prime around.


Jake

I purchased the 120-300 last year. By far one of the best lens I own. Its killer sharp, just as gabe is showing. I take it to every wedding and it allows me to get way in on the hands from 80% of the churches and i shoot I from the back rows. Big catholic churches, I come in about 1/4 of the way for the ring shots. I used it in MN last year on the 5D3 and really missed the crop factor I had on my 1D4 when shooting bald eagles. When i saw the specs on this new 7D2, i ordered immediately.

Its supposed to arrive today but got delayed so looks like tomorrow. I will go out with the 120-300 and get some answers. I fully expect t to be awesome. Cant wait. There is a heard of black tail Deer that i have been watching for the past 2 weeks. Should be able to locate and get shots


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 238
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Nov 20, 2014 04:07 |  #89

Isn't it strange that no mater who makes what, its always the Canon that is the gold standard for comparison?


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,690 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 624
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Nov 20, 2014 04:21 |  #90

Not strange for me. Canon has been doing some fantastic things with new lenses in recent years. So much so that their older lenses really do need refreshing. On top of all that, this is still largely a Canon forum so any 3rd party lens will be compared against the equivalent Canon lens anyway


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

47,836 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 100-400 II vs. Sigma 150-600 Sport for Wildlife/Nature: Some Early Speculations
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is championlover1
742 guests, 330 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.