Which lens...

I am in the market to buy a 150-600. My three choices are the Tamron the Sigma contemporary or the new 100-400 mark II using the 1.4x . I currently am shooting with the 100-400 canon version I and really enjoy it however I am wanting more reach. The above three choices will be paired with my 7D mark II. So let me have it with some opinions. I have been reading a lot of reviews and I must say the 100-400 appears to be quite impressive yet the others seam to have good marks too. If I new for sure a photo from the new 100-400 with the 1.4x converter would be equal in sharpness as the Tameron or Sigma it would be a no brainer. Yet the price of the Sigma and Tamron are quite nice. Is the 100-400 worth the price tag for image quality and auto focus speed over the tommy and Sigma?

Heya,

What exactly are you shooting?

If you want maximum reach, you're better off with a 600mm physical lens.

While the 100-400II with 1.4x retains autofocus on the 7D2, and it works decently, it's not perfect. But it really comes down to what you want such as the speed of AF, versus just physical reach.

Another option is to look at something like the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, and a 2.0x TC. It's sharp and fast and does 600mm F5.6 if you want. Otherwise, it's a fast 300 F2.8. And a 420mm F4 too if you wish. Ultimately this is the direction I would have gone if I could do it over again.

I went with a 150-600 for the cost. Ultimately I wish I went with the 120-300 F2.8 OS instead for the overall versatility and speed. But for what I shoot, I'd rather have this over the 100-400II. Granted if I could do it all over again, I'd have a hard time figuring out if I was going to be fine with the 120-300 F2.8 or the 500 F4L, each with 1.4x and 2.0x TC's for my uses. Part of me wants the 120-300 F2.8 for the F2.8 option at 300mm on APS-C & APS-H for low light telehpoto, especially from my boat in dark canopy covered Florida marsh. Then again I also want the 500 F4L with 1.4x TC for a 700 F5.6 option that is still sharp & fast for that "super tele" look before things become super unaffordable.

So it comes down to what you need your lens for. Don't just look at focal length. Look at AF speed, features, aperture, etc as a package in your overall budget.

150-600 (Tamron, Sigma C & S)
100-400 II
120-300 F2.8 OS
500 F4L
300 F2.8L non-IS

Again, what you're shooting really will determine what you're going to need.

You already have a 400mm. And you're wanting more reach. But how much more? And for what reason? What other features do you think are important?

Very best,

Thanks for your opinions. I have been thinking heavy about all you have said. I shoot mainly wildlife and BIF so reach, auto focus speed and IQ are at the top of my list However now you have me thinking this 120-300 option

jlstan wrote in post #17695532
Thanks for your opinions. I have been thinking heavy about all you have said. I shoot mainly wildlife and BIF so reach, auto focus speed and IQ are at the top of my list However now you have me thinking this 120-300 option

Rent one. And a 1.4x & 2.0x TC. See if it's speed and overall reach potential does what you want. That way in low light, you have F2.8 and stabilization at 300mm. Or in decent light, you have a 420mm F4 or 600 F5.6 that still is fast and sharp, again with stabilization.

The other thing to consider, when comparing a 100-400II with TC, at F8, is how the AF works on the 7D2 and which points still function (center point) and how that effects what you're normally using for your tracking methods and which AF points are active in that.

But overall this is one of those things where you are likely better off renting your top two options and testing them out for real and seeing which delivers what you're after.

Very best,

I upgraded from the original 100-400L to the 100-400L II. In my case, the primary reason was size of the lens -- we travel by air quite often, and the 150-600 options are too large for my backpack that also carries the rest of my travel kit. The pack bulges already with the 100-400L II.

We just returned from a week long trip to Yellowstone, where you can never have enough reach. So, my 1.4x TC received quite a workout on the 100-400L II. The biggest detriment to using this combination, IMO, is that you are reduced to only the center AF point on the 7D2. When you are used to having all those AF points available, it can be hampering at times. Also, the 7D2 + 100-400L is my dedicated wildlife combination (I also travel with a 5D3), and having to swap the TC on/off was a minor hassle when in past trips I just grabbed my old 7D + 100-400L pump and never dealt with a TC. I missed a wolf shot in Yellowstone while fiddling with attaching the TC -- I should have just left in on whenever we were going into Hayden Valley to look for wildlife.

If you think you will be needing the additional reach over your existing 400mm pump most of the time and lens size is not a concern, I would opt for the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary.

Here is a shot from Yellowstone with the 1.4x TC III.

I would stay away from Tamron. If you take a closer look at this lens. You will see the reason for youself. I dont want to have my optics equipment 'Made in China". Cheap quality built. Try to evaluate this lens in person if you can.

Who makes Canon?

I believe all the Canon L lenses are made in Japan but I suspect most of the others come from China - though I am not certain.

Co-incidentally I was at a Camera Show today and took the opportunity to play with a few lenses on my camera. 2 of the lenses I tried were the Canon 100-400 Mk2 and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. I haven't had the chance to look at the files properly but my initial impressions are very positive. Unfortunately I forgot to turn off the IS on the Canon 100-400 Mk2 so I found the AF not quite as fast as I expected - though I am sure disabling the IS will cure this. Other than that this lens handles very nicely and is well built. My initial impressions of the images are good - remember I am comparing this to what I get from my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS. Again the Sigma handled well and had reasonable AF speed (I remembered to turn the stabilizer off!) and good accuracy - the build quality appeared nice too! I had 2 reservations about the Sigma though. Firstly it is F6.3 at the long end - not a biggie but has to be considered. Secondly it is quite a lump! It is roughly double the weight of the Canon 100-400 Mk2 so this will restrict your mobility. If you are not hiking with it this probably doesn't matter but if you need to be more mobile then the 100-400 looks more attractive.
As I say I only tried them today so it is far too early to draw any valid conclusions but I certainly liked them both but for different purposes. I would suggest you try them for yourself and see how well they would fill your needs.
Sorry I forgot to mention that I only tried them at their maximum focal lengths as I wasn't interested in their performance at the shorter end.

Can you post some shots you took with both? When you get time

Here are a couple from the Sigma. No processing/sharpening just RAW files scaled for web and all hand held.

Just for a giggle here is one from the Sigma shot indoors. 160th sec, ISO 12800 at 600mm, hand held, F6.3 and OS (IS) off.
I had to try it!

Canon 100-400 Mk2. Unfortunately no outdoor shots so not a fair comparison. Also I didn't have much time with this lens - there was a queue.
Please for the silly ISO!

That Sigma looks to perform quite well handheld

jlstan wrote in post #17696255
Who makes Canon?

Most Canon lenses are marked Made in Japan. But my 18-55mm STM is made in Taiwan. I have heard the Canon 60mm macro also is. My Opteka fisheye lens is made in China. These lenses are fine.

Most likely many of the components that go into Canon bodies and lenses are made in China and other countries and assembled in Japan.

No doubt there is lots of junk that comes out of China, but China also makes some very fine products.

Anyone know how the 300mm f4 canon is with the 2x converter for image quality? That may also be a good alternative to get 600mm