Sold my 100-400L Ver 1... now for some decisions!

Found a buyer for my 100-400L.... now to decide whether to spring for the Ver II, or whether to get the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Decisions, decisions..... i know the Version II is the better lens, but the 600mm is enticing! BTW, does the Siggy need to stepped down to f/8 to get good results? I suppose the Ver II will be at f/8 as well if I add an extender to it, not to mention the fact that it is a grand more. I've seen so many images from both lenses, my head is spinning.

Heya,

Default answer is probably going to be 400 MKII.

I would simply evaluate what you're looking for. If you think you're going to spend most of your time with a TC on the 400 MKII, at F8, you're limiting yourself and limiting what AF options you have with it, even if it's optically good. If that's the case, you may find overall a 600mm physical lens that retains all AF options on all your cameras may be a good option, if your'e truly seeking more reach.

The Sigma is fairly sharp wide open, as is even the Tamron. They sharpen up even more at F7.1 and F8 of course.

Really what matters is, what are you wanting to shoot with it, and do you need physical 600mm on APS-C, or are you willing to go back to 400mm where you were, use a TC, go to center point focus and only have AF on your 7D2 and neither of your other camera options. That may be fine for your needs. But it's one of those things you have to consider.

Very best,

Mostly shoot birds, so reach is always good.

I might just have to get the Sigma now and the Ver II later.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #17710716
Mostly shoot birds, so reach is always good.

I might just have to get the Sigma now and the Ver II later.

Have you considered something like the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, with 1.4x and 2.0x TC? You get fast 300 F2.8, 420 F4 and 600 F5.6, and they're sharp wide open.

Very best,

The 120-300 is a bit too expensive for me.

Go with the Sigma 150 - 600. The reach is better and it would be best for more skittish birds.

Heya,

Just to give you some perspective, while this is not the Sigma, this is the Tamron, the point is more the amount of reach you get. I chose to use a large bird, a blue heron, very, very far away. This is on APS-C. So at 600mm and APS-C, the number of pixels on target is as much as I can squeeze without increasing focal length or increasing resolution since that's the only way to get more pixels into the subject.

Since you're shooting 7D2, you're already on APS-C and the resolution is as high as you're going to get roughly on APS-C, and there's no advantage to moving to a higher resolution camera such as the 5DS, so you're maxed out on resolution. At this point, you can only max out on focal length magnification to get more pixels on your subject.

150mm through 600mm on APS-C

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm6​KN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obQT​Sk

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUng​Za

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm5​9S

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm4​Rh

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obLz​x9

Scrumhalf wrote in post #17710721
The 120-300 is a bit too expensive for me.

Then I guess I won't suggest the 600/4?

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17710737
Then I guess I won't suggest the 600/4?

Haha.. don't even go there.

Is minimum focus distance important to you? Dragonflies, butterflies etc.

If it is the version ii is in a league of its own.

I take a shot of the occasional butterfly, but not very often. I'm still swinging back and forth. I want the Ver II, but I guess the idea of getting 600mm on the cheap is enticing! Neither one is on sale at the moment, so I will continue to lie low and wait for a deal to pop up. Hopefully by Thanksgiving at the latest! Now, I'll have to be content with my spotting scope for my birding trips for now and live vicariously through my son and his SX50HS!

Scrumhalf wrote in post #17710741
Haha.. don't even go there.

So the 200-400 wouldn't be a good suggestion either?

From what I've seen of the Sigma 150-600 and the 100-400 MK2, I'd be wanting to try both at a store (with 1.4 mk3 on the Canon) and comparing after processing before settling for either. If cash is an issue, the 150-600 is what I'd recommend though. Possibly a bit weaker at 600 than the 100-400mk2 @400 + 1.4tc but I don't think it's that much weaker to justify the step in cost if budget is already tight.

Another thing to consider is that at 600 the Sigma will give you more focus point options than the Canon with a TC

Scrumhalf wrote in post #17710695
Found a buyer for my 100-400L.... now to decide whether to spring for the Ver II, or whether to get the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Decisions, decisions..... i know the Version II is the better lens, but the 600mm is enticing! BTW, does the Siggy need to stepped down to f/8 to get good results? I suppose the Ver II will be at f/8 as well if I add an extender to it, not to mention the fact that it is a grand more. I've seen so many images from both lenses, my head is spinning.

I was at my local camera store the other day and they gave me a sigma 150-600 "Sport"and a Tameron 150-600 to try out on my 5dsr. When I got home and got all the images into lightroom when I saw the 1050-600mm sigma at the 600mm end I was blown away. It was unbeievably sharp wide open ....And at the 400mm it was sharper than my 100-400ef Mk2 at comparable wide F stops !!. .This thing is unbelievably good....AF was fast and IS better than Canons .....Everything was great except for weight. Metal casing makes it weigh a ton and is difficult to handhold after 10 mins or so...... The Tameron lighter than Sigma "Spoorts" model but was noticeably softer than Sigma wide open but at around f8 and from 400 shorter the gap closed. Tameron at 400mm was softer than Canon Mk2

In short this Sigma 150-600 is that good in sharpness and IS dept that Im seriously considering buying one although Im looking for a "contempory "model to test as it weighs signioficantly less. Ive looked around on the internet for comparison reviews (Sport vs Contempory) and many reviewers have said the optics on the Contempory are almost indestinguishable IQ /sharpness wise to the "sports"model, with the only real difference being the lens build . Although I do note on the specs that the "Sports"model has more elements. ...And after testing the "contempory" version of the Sigma 150-600 if there is very little difference sharpness wise then Im definately going sell my Mk2 to buy one ....
Clipper

I would strongly consider the impacts on AF on your 7dii the different minimum apertures will force upon you. A lot of the tracking across the frame abilities are lost when you go above f/5.6, which is frankly a lot of the power of the 7d II I'd also strongly suggest you look at the weight differences and if you'll be using them on a tripod or not.

I owned a 100-400v1 for years and loved it. Sold it a long time ago. When the Sigma came out I bought it and very happy with it I love using it I try to use it for almost every situation i can and its used handheld about 98% time and only ever used on a monopod for the other 2%.
I shoot my 150-600C all the time wide open and find the images to be very sharp.
The only way I would choose the canon 100-400II over the 150-600C is if I NEEDED a smaller lens and little weight savings. But in all honesty if I did it over and over I would choose the sigma over the canon everytime. half the price you get 200mm more reach, very fast AF and sharp wide open. the canon may have a slight edge in AF speed and sharpness but your only going to see that if your a stupid pixel peeper and have to inspect everything at 200%