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

I think the Sigma is the better choice unless weight is a concern.

I upgraded from the 100-400L Ver 1 to the new Canon. In my case, size was a major consideration, as we travel by air a few times a year and the 100-400L is just barely small enough to fit in a backpack containing the rest of my kit and fit underneath an airline seat if necessary.

I do have a 1.4x TC for the lens, and it works quite well -- with certain limitations. The biggest limitation for me is that only the center AF point is available when using the TC, and I like to move the AF point around while composing shots -- I'm not a center point/ re-compose shooter. Since I do not need more than 400mm that often, though, I live with the limitations for the benefit of reduced lens size. Both image quality and AF speed are still excellent when using a TC, and absolutely stellar without the TC.

Sp1207 wrote in post #17711068
I think the Sigma is the better choice unless weight is a concern.

The contemporary or the sport?

05Xrunner wrote in post #17711048
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%

Yeah, i was going to ask how the 150-600C performs wide open. In light-challenged Oregon, I need every photon I can collect!

I need the lens to be usable hand-held as I am out on the trail a lot and many times, I am already carrying a spotting scope on a tripod. That probably rules out the 150-600S. How does the 150-600C do with BIF?

I dont do much bird shooting
https://flic.kr/p/vSTx​G6

One issue I'm wondering about is the difference between 100 and 150 for minimum zoom.

I've got the Sigma 150-500 and I find that sometimes I have too much zoom (children in parks, zoos, plane spotting).

Paradoxically, the lower edge of the Canon is a benefit.

primeone wrote in post #17711879
One issue I'm wondering about is the difference between 100 and 150 for minimum zoom.

I've got the Sigma 150-500 and I find that sometimes I have too much zoom (children in parks, zoos, plane spotting).

Paradoxically, the lower edge of the Canon is a benefit.

I rarely if ever operated at the short end of my Ver 1. If I felt the need to go there, I would be with my 70-200 F4 anyway.

same here on this lens I am always in the 300+ I dont think I really ever go below that very often. Even my old Canon 100-400v1 I hardly ever went below 250 probably

yeah, that's typical usage for super tele zooms I think. It is nice however for those odd occasions to be able to zoom wider if the subject allows/demands. I'd still trade for a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime though (provided it didn't cost in the region of the 500/4 and 600/4 options on the market)

At all FL's 100mm to 400mm, and wide-open, the Canon 100-400ii is sharper and more contrasty.
At 560mm on the Canon (with 1.4x TC), the Sigma Sport is sharper at 600mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

skid00skid00 wrote in post #17712810
At all FL's 100mm to 400mm, and wide-open, the Canon 100-400ii is sharper and more contrasty.
At 560mm on the Canon (with 1.4x TC), the Sigma Sport is sharper at 600mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

I saw that, but I don't want to get the Sport. i use this lens for handheld birding and the Sport is on the heavy end of what I want to hand hold on a long hike. The Contemporary is the one I would consider, other than the Ver II Canon.

if you look around the 11.00 mark of this video they discuss relative sharpness of 3 comparable lens. They also make some interesting comments regarding real world sharpness.

BTW...Worthwhile pointing out that normally I take a lot of what these sorts of reviewers say with a grain of salt however there are some interesting points made that have some merit especially in the relative strengths and weakness's of each lens.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=lgurGidoSJs