Sigma 120-400 or 150-500 help please...

I am wanting to get something longer than my 70-200.

I've read and looked at pictures from both of these lenses and they look great.

Is there a reason I would choose one over the other?
Which do you prefer and why?

I will be shooting birds and just about anything I see really.

Lots of threads on here about the two - do a little search and you'll get more info.

Having had both, for some reason I prefer the 120-400. LIttle lighter and sharper at larger apertures, meaning the 120-400 is sharp at 6.3, where the 150-500 generally needs to be f/8. Just my opinion on that one though. Construction of both is awesome and the OS is phenominal. You'll be happy with either.

I don't have either but based on specs, the weight between the two (3.85lbs vs 4.2) is neglible for me. I shoot birds mostly. So, if i were to pick between the two, i'll go with the 150-500mm for as much reach as i can get.

Has anyone used the Canon extension tubes with these?

I was thinking of trying it to try to get really close from far away

You have a 70-200 2.8. I say get a 2x TC and have a 140-400 5.6. Probably as good if not better IQ.

hmmm good point!

jvk wrote in post #14378927
You have a 70-200 2.8. I say get a 2x TC and have a 140-400 5.6. Probably as good if not better IQ.

I doubt it. Even the 70-200 2.8 IS II doesnt edge out the 100-400.

I'd say 150-500, you need as much reach as possible with birds, f6.3 is neither here nor there against a f5.6. it can also produce some good stuff wide open.

MNUplander wrote in post #14380128
I doubt it. Even the 70-200 2.8 IS II doesnt edge out the 100-400.

The OP didn't gave the 100-400 as an option.

I never shot with the sigma lenses but i think they are pretty nice if i look at the picture threads. But i've seen very nice images with a 70-200 with a TC aswell. IMO a very good option too in this case.

I thought extension tubes was for macro photography...

Silly me...

For reach you can't beat the 150-500. Kicks butt at airshows too..

Yea, I considered getting the 2X III TC for my 70-200 IS II, but having used the Sigma 120-400 a while back, I am SO very sorry I sold it....and for dirt cheap too(like $650.. )..
That lens was simply wonderful to use and produced some really quite amazing IQ..actually, I would go so far to say that other than my 70-200 IS II, it was my second favorite lens..even though it was a beast to carry around.

Having now gone full frame, and knowing that the two have nearly identical performance(AFAIK, and in many different ways; IQ/OS/AF speed/etc/etc), I would definitely go with the 150-500...

if using a 1.3 or APS-C crop, the 120-400 is more than enough reach for me...and the little bit of weight makes a huge difference, to me.

I dont think you could go wrong with either...imho, and YMMV!

Good luck!

Kechar wrote in post #14378910
Has anyone used the Canon extension tubes with these?

I was thinking of trying it to try to get really close from far away

i've never had a problem with the minimum focus distance of the 150-500OS...what are you trying to take pictures of that you'd need to add extension tubes?

i'd go for the 150-500OS, simply because 500 is more than 400

MNUplander wrote in post #14380128
I doubt it. Even the 70-200 2.8 IS II doesnt edge out the 100-400.

Those have been compared with the TC II.
The III is much better, and I barely see any IQ drop with mine, so the difference is so little between those two options.
Its amazingly sharp and for the price it makes the 70-200 even more useful vs having to buy another lens.

I went with the 150-500 because of the 500 end. I like it. It is acceptably sharp. To me the only drawback is that it is big, in length (the weight doesn't bother me). It can be kind of a pain if you don't want to take a large bag (or if you want to use a lens case on a belt).