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 29 Dec 2015 (Tuesday) 01:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sig150-600S vs 300F4@600 vs 100-400II@560

 
tongard
Senior Member
357 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 34
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Gloucestershire England
     
Jan 02, 2016 00:40 |  #16

I think it was a very fair test. well done sigma for producing a cracking lens for the price


Canon 6d, 7d2.
Canon 50 1.4, 28mm 2.8 is , 24-85, 24-105, 70-200 f4 is
Sigma 150-600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Vertigo1
Senior Member
310 posts
Likes: 49
Joined Sep 2006
     
Jan 02, 2016 04:06 |  #17

Choderboy wrote in post #17840668 (external link)
First post edited.

I don't see how it can be unfair. If I owned a non existent Sigma 300 or 400 prime I would also include it in the test with a TC. Particularly as I own the three lenses, It would be stupid of me not to at least do some comparisons. When I do get a 2X MKIII TC I will retest. I doubt the 300F4 with MKIII will beat the Sigma, but if it does, or comes close enough to call it a draw, will you consider that to be fair?

I think calling it "unfair" is probably a bit harsh - I didn't mean to criticise your tests as they're perfectly valid.

I was just making the point that, if a potential purchaser also wants to shoot a lot in the lower focal length range, from around 100 to 400, then the Canon zoom would no longer need the extender which changes things somewhat. You may be lucky enough to own all three lenses but most potential purchasers would be making a choice between them and this could be an important factor.

To be honest I'm surprised the Canon zoom fairs as well as it does against the sigma even with a 1.4x on it. That it would beat the Sigma from 100-400 without the extender but could then live with it up to 560mm with one attached would sway the decision for me, and in fact did! :)

So please don't think I'm criticising your test at all - I'm just saying that perhaps repeating it at 300mm where the Canons no longer need extenders might be interesting. I'd expect a noticable hierarchy here, with the Canon prime besting the Canon zoom which then bests the Sigma. Could be wrong of course! :)


Canon 5D3/6D | EF 16-35 f/4L IS | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II | EF 35 f/1.4L II | EF 50 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
THREAD ­ STARTER
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 104 photos
Likes: 3374
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 02, 2016 04:51 |  #18

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17841000 (external link)
I think calling it "unfair" is probably a bit harsh - I didn't mean to criticise your tests as they're perfectly valid.

I was just making the point that, if a potential purchaser also wants to shoot a lot in the lower focal length range, from around 100 to 400, then the Canon zoom would no longer need the extender which changes things somewhat. You may be lucky enough to own all three lenses but most potential purchasers would be making a choice between them and this could be an important factor.

To be honest I'm surprised the Canon zoom fairs as well as it does against the sigma even with a 1.4x on it. That it would beat the Sigma from 100-400 without the extender but could then live with it up to 560mm with one attached would sway the decision for me, and in fact did! :)

So please don't think I'm criticising your test at all - I'm just saying that perhaps repeating it at 300mm where the Canons no longer need extenders might be interesting. I'd expect a noticable hierarchy here, with the Canon prime besting the Canon zoom which then bests the Sigma. Could be wrong of course! :)

No problem. I suspect the 100-400 II will beat the 300 F4 for overall image quality. Similar or better in the centre but further in front towards the edges of the image. The prime would win out of focus blur contest, zoom can produce some strange blur in some circumstances.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,147 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Likes: 229
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 02, 2016 07:08 |  #19

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17841000 (external link)
I think calling it "unfair" is probably a bit harsh - I didn't mean to criticise your tests as they're perfectly valid.

I was just making the point that, if a potential purchaser also wants to shoot a lot in the lower focal length range, from around 100 to 400, then the Canon zoom would no longer need the extender which changes things somewhat. You may be lucky enough to own all three lenses but most potential purchasers would be making a choice between them and this could be an important factor.

To be honest I'm surprised the Canon zoom fairs as well as it does against the sigma even with a 1.4x on it. That it would beat the Sigma from 100-400 without the extender but could then live with it up to 560mm with one attached would sway the decision for me, and in fact did! :)

So please don't think I'm criticising your test at all - I'm just saying that perhaps repeating it at 300mm where the Canons no longer need extenders might be interesting. I'd expect a noticable hierarchy here, with the Canon prime besting the Canon zoom which then bests the Sigma. Could be wrong of course! :)

This is exactly what makes the comparison of value to some people. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I own a 100-400L II and 1.4x III TC. I usually shoot without the TC, as 400mm on my 7D2 is usually enough reach for the wildlife I shoot. So, it is valuable to know that the Canon zoom plus extender holds its own versus a "naked" Sigma 600mm for those occasions where I need the extra reach.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Jan 02, 2016 11:04 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #20

As to the weight issue with the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens mounted on a 1D Mk IV camera, it is a load. As you might expect. But in good bright daylight even a 70 year old can hold it fairly well. I have been taking it along on my walks. I use two straps. The one on the Mk IV and also the one provide by Sigma on the lens. I make the camera strap just a tad bit longer than the Sigma lens strap so the lens bares most all of the weight. I also use a Black Rapid but not 100% certain about the connectors.
Anyway this 70 year old got these yesterday at Frisco Lake. Typical EXIF data 600mm, f11, 1/800, ISO 1250


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
THREAD ­ STARTER
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 104 photos
Likes: 3374
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 02, 2016 21:31 |  #21

Scott M wrote in post #17841080 (external link)
This is exactly what makes the comparison of value to some people. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I own a 100-400L II and 1.4x III TC. I usually shoot without the TC, as 400mm on my 7D2 is usually enough reach for the wildlife I shoot. So, it is valuable to know that the Canon zoom plus extender holds its own versus a "naked" Sigma 600mm for those occasions where I need the extra reach.

I think you articulated my thoughts better than I did :lol:
Calling the results close enough to be a draw, the Sigma gains 2/3rd stop and probably a smaller reach advantage than 560 vs 600 indicates.
I believe the 100-400 II is actually around 380mm so with 1.4TC is around 530mm. The Sigma appears to be about 550-560mm.

The Canon has another advantage when used with a full frame or 1.3 crop body, it's sharpness across the frame. That characteristic was reported early in reviews and I did not appreciate the advantage until I started using the lens. When I'm able to fill the frame it's great to be able to have the eyes of the subject closer to edge of frame for better composition when desired.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,975 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1602
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 03, 2016 04:40 |  #22

Choderboy wrote in post #17842038 (external link)
I think you articulated my thoughts better than I did :lol:
Calling the results close enough to be a draw, the Sigma gains 2/3rd stop and probably a smaller reach advantage than 560 vs 600 indicates.
I believe the 100-400 II is actually around 380mm so with 1.4TC is around 530mm. The Sigma appears to be about 550-560mm.

It is important to know the test parameters when looking at tests of actual focal length. The problem is that many tests of focal length are not done at infinity focus. Focus closer than infinity and your measured focal length will be reduced. The change in FL with focus distance will be different for different lens designs. For a long telephoto lens you need to be focusing much further out than is you are using a normal lens. Unless you are measuring the FL on a traditional optical testbench where it is possible to measure the FL with the lens at true infinity focus, the chances are that any other testing facility where lenses are tested indoors that lenses of 300mm plus are likely to be measured at significantly closer than infinity focus. As the lens FL increases the difference from infinity focus will become larger for a fixed distance test.

So when testing a 50mm normal lens in a lab at a distance of say 20m, that will be very close to representing infinity focus, it's going to be around 100× the minimum focus distance and 400× the nominal focal length, which is I think pretty good. Change that to testing a 500mm lens in the same facility and you are operating at around 10× the MFD and only 40× the FL. This is likely to be significantly short of measuring at infinity focus. Unfortunately most lens testing these days is done by this method, not an optical testbench.

Also consider that a 10% error range on a 50mm lens would have you between 47.5 and 52.5mm while the same error range on a 500mm lens is 475mm to 525mm, combine that with testing at below infinity focus and it's not so surprising that as lenses get longer the measured FL seems to get significantly shorter.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
THREAD ­ STARTER
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 104 photos
Likes: 3374
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 19, 2016 23:54 |  #23

More testing. This time using a "proper" test chart, indoors.
Distance to chart 8 metres. 1D4 ISO400 f8 1/180 sec.
Live view focus, IS and OS off, beanbag and remote shutter.
Lit by 85W CFL.
RAW converted to JPG in DPP4.

Full image then 100% crops.

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1619/25896909176_497e78d4fd_o.jpg

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1442/25827862531_6651c8701a_o.jpg

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1577/25290107824_d28a385e07_o.jpg

Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DanC.Licks
Member
Avatar
229 posts
Likes: 64
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Mauerbach, Austria
     
Apr 01, 2016 00:52 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #24

Dave,
What was the focal length on these?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,393 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2299
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Apr 01, 2016 03:20 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #25

the canon holds up nicely here with the TC sharpness wise, but the sigma definitely has better contrast

to me it's pretty straight forward, if all you need is 400mm then the canon is no brainer, sharp, top AF and lighter and more compact

but if you need 600mm i see very little reason to get the canon (+TC) except for weight advantage, especially the sigma focuses brilliantly (not as fast i am sure but fast enough and for me it has been super accurate and grabs focus even in difficult conditions on my 5D3) has great IQ at 600mm and is cheaper


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
Choderboy
THREAD ­ STARTER
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 104 photos
Likes: 3374
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 01, 2016 04:13 |  #26

DanC.Licks wrote in post #17956667 (external link)
Dave,
What was the focal length on these?

Tests done at 600mm.

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #17956723 (external link)
the canon holds up nicely here with the TC sharpness wise, but the sigma definitely has better contrast

to me it's pretty straight forward, if all you need is 400mm then the canon is no brainer, sharp, top AF and lighter and more compact

but if you need 600mm i see very little reason to get the canon (+TC) except for weight advantage, especially the sigma focuses brilliantly (not as fast i am sure but fast enough and for me it has been super accurate and grabs focus even in difficult conditions on my 5D3) has great IQ at 600mm and is cheaper

I don't think there is a wrong choice. The weight difference is huge, Sigma almost twice the weight of the Canon. The canon can produce some ugly blur but so far I have not found the Sigma doing that. The last two days I have been using the Sigma with 1.4TC (Canon V2). I'll need some more time to evaluate results but so far pleased. It's nasty of Sigma to have made the lens not compatible with the older Sigma TCs and I found it does not work with 7D2 and 1.4TCIII but does work on 7D2 and 1.4TCII.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
THREAD ­ STARTER
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 104 photos
Likes: 3374
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 01, 2016 04:18 |  #27

I posted these in the Sigma lens sample thread. I think it's fair to cross post in this thread...

Uncropped images, 1D4/S156S/1.4TCII

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1707/26103857536_986340a400_o.jpg
IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/26037287822_909c0bab41_o.jpg

Crops:

3323 pixel wide crop
IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1540/26129781555_86b9bba776_o.jpg
3449 pixels wide crop
IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1505/26063443251_b71fa563c6_o.jpg

Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,393 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2299
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Apr 01, 2016 06:29 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #28

oh yea both lenses are fantastic, we are lucky to have so many choices these days, the weight definitely needs getting used to on the sigma but doesn't take long, i've gone hiking and walking around with it for hours with just a R strap and i am a pretty normal sized dude lol

and tbh i wasn't expecting the world when i picked up my sigma, just didn't think a super zoom could produce too good of IQ, but was quiet honestly blown away when i could count individual strands of hair on a small bird at 600mm wide open


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

7,986 views & 6 likes for this thread
Sig150-600S vs 300F4@600 vs 100-400II@560
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 James Kim
473 guests, 302 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.