What is better for bird photography: sigma 150-600 C vs. 100-400L ii with 1.4x on EOS RP

Same on the Sigma Sport with MFD

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/H2xB​ZD

.

evelakes wrote in post #18845233
My Sigma did it all but i have the sport version and pricewise it's in the same ballgame as the II so it's not comparable with the C version of Sigma. So the Shame is not in it's place.

It is good to hear that you are satisfied with the build quality of your 150-600mm Sport. . However, the Sport is not the lens being discussed here. . The OP only expressed interest in the Contemporary version of the lens. . But if I were making this decision, and decided to go with the 150-600mm, I would definitely choose the Sport version, as you did. . Good call there.

.

evelakes wrote in post #18845235
Same on the Sigma Sport with MFD

.
Actually, not really the same at all. . Let's look at the facts:

The Canon 100-400mm v2 has a magnification of 0.31x

The Sigma 150-600mm has a magnification of 0.20x, which is the same as the old Canon 100-400.

When I switched from the old 100-400 I noticed the enormous difference in magnification that the new design facilitated. . I could finally get as close as I wanted to to my subjects! . In real world usage, there is a huge difference between .20x and .31x


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18845226
.

That is a great point! . And I think it is certainly relevant.

I mentioned relevance because the OP talked only about birding, in the context of 'reach' for distant subjects. Consequently, I thought MFD was something that hadn't been considered.

I can't speak to the Sigma, as I don't own it, although I will say that I have been happy with Sigma lenses that I have owned in the past.

However, I can speak to the combination of RP, 100-400L II, and 1.4X III, as I have purchased all three within the past six months. Haven't used them much yet due to the weather here (and other factors), but I can say from my currently limited experience that they seem to "play very well together," and I suspect that you would be extremely satisfied with that combination.

100-400 all day long

I'll use the 100 400 v2 a lot with a 1.4 iii extender ,and a extension tube.
You can do alot of close up photography.
I was amazed how the sharpness stays topnotch.

Photo from Weja's gallery.

Photo from Weja's gallery.

Thanks Weja.
I have decided to go with 100-400v2. Now the question will be to add a 1.4X to it or 1 2X to it. I have the EOS RP I am wondering if 2X would make it unusable for birds in flight.

This is taken with the RP and the 100-400 II (I didn't have the 1.4 III yet).

sn7 wrote in post #18850524
Thanks Weja.
I have decided to go with 100-400v2. Now the question will be to add a 1.4X to it or 1 2X to it. I have the EOS RP I am wondering if 2X would make it unusable for birds in flight.

Forget the 2x extender.
The 100 400 II will lose autofocus , unusable for BIF.

Being a f5.6 lens ,the only solution is to put a 1.4 III extender on this lens.


Weja

ozziepuppy wrote in post #18845909
I can't speak to the Sigma, as I don't own it, although I will say that I have been happy with Sigma lenses that I have owned in the past.

However, I can speak to the combination of RP, 100-400L II, and 1.4X III, as I have purchased all three within the past six months. Haven't used them much yet due to the weather here (and other factors), but I can say from my currently limited experience that they seem to "play very well together," and I suspect that you would be extremely satisfied with that combination.

That combo does autofocus fine, right? Do you have a 2x to compare with?

Weja wrote in post #18850592
Forget the 2x extender.
The 100 400 II will lose autofocus , unusable for BIF.

Being a f5.6 lens ,the only solution is to put a 1.4 III extender on this lens.

Weja

You've verified no AF with the 2x? Just wanting to make sure of the facts.

ilkhan wrote in post #18850604
That combo does autofocus fine, right? Do you have a 2x to compare with?

It will autofocus with the 1.4X III. I do not have the 2X.

The R focuses at f11 (I have the R) and I believe that the RP does too.

"The EOS RP allows focusing at f11, has a new focus bracketing feature (although you’ll need to do the stacking externally), a new spot-focusing mode, and now also supports eye-detection with continuous Servo AF, a feature missing from the EOS R when it was launched." -source

bbqkid8 wrote in post #18850806
The R focuses at f11 (I have the R) and I believe that the RP does too.

"The EOS RP allows focusing at f11, has a new focus bracketing feature (although you’ll need to do the stacking externally), a new spot-focusing mode, and now also supports eye-detection with continuous Servo AF, a feature missing from the EOS R when it was launched." -source

Thus my question, trying to get an answer from someone who can prove it. Though I expect 2x AF performance to be slow.

I have read the same that 100-400 with 2X should work wrt AF on EOS RP. However, I am hoping to hear some real-world experiences so that I can decide between and 1.4X and 2X.

With the RP it can. (I did'n t know until today.)
It will be an f11 lens.
You will need a lot of light.
Seperate your bird from the background will be more difficult.
I have over 4 years a 2x iii extender,but have used it a couple of times.
Even on my 600 mm f4 ii , i'll find the drop in image quality to much.

But finally it is you that makes the decision.

Weja