Keep 70-200 or?

Do I keep 70-200 f4 is and get sigma 150-600c or trade in 70-200 for canon 100-400 mkii? Got canon 6d . Like general photography.
I just can't seem to make my mind up . I have tried both in the shop and took some snaps . They both seemed nice and sharp , l liked them both.

tongard wrote in post #17834179
Do I keep 70-200 f4 is and get sigma 150-600c or trade in 70-200 for canon 100-400 mkii? Got canon 6d . Like general photography.
I just can't seem to make my mind up . I have tried both in the shop and took some snaps . They both seemed nice and sharp , l liked them both.

I'd keep the 70-200 no matter what else you do.

The decision between Σc and EFII is a tough one. But both of them compliment the 70-200; they don't replace it. The Canon is optically superior, especially at the longer end. It is also smaller, lighter, and Canon. BUT, it is twice the price. It is not a big deal to crop a 400mm shot to 600mm. If money were no object, I'd get the EF, and mount it on crop body when I need 600mm. If you are cheap, like me, the Σc is very attractive.

i had the 70-200 f4 and my 150-600c..I used my 70-200 like twice in almost a year. so it got sold as I used the 150-600 anytime I wanted reach

what do you currently use the 70-200 for?

Even though the longer zooms cover the same range they really serve different purposes. So if you do portraits, event work etc. The 70-200 might be worth keeping. But if you only use it because it's your longest lens then let it go. Not knowing what your uses are limits the quality of the advice.

tongard wrote in post #17834179
Do I keep 70-200 f4 is and get sigma 150-600c or trade in 70-200 for canon 100-400 mkii? Got canon 6d . Like general photography.
I just can't seem to make my mind up . I have tried both in the shop and took some snaps . They both seemed nice and sharp , l liked them both.

Heya,

If this is for "general photography" I can't see how having 600mm would really fit into the general category. Someone looking at a 600mm lens is either doing lunar photography, wildlife, birding or something that really needs a lot of reach. A 70-200 makes sense as a "general photography" lens. Which is why it's one of the most popular telephotos out there. 600mm is for a niche crowd that want as much reach as possible.

What do you need 400mm or 600mm for that you're just not able to do with 200mm right now? Be specific. This will help you figure out if you need the 400 MKII, or a big 600mm. They are very different lenses.

The properties of the two lenses are rather different. The 400 MKII is smaller, faster aperture, faster focus, sharper, weather sealed, etc. The Sigma 600C is of course significantly longer, a little slower aperture, slower autofocus. One is $1k. The other is nearly $2k. Big difference. Are you planning on hand holding? Or do you have a good mount system?

I was in your shoes and I went with 600mm because I needed more pixels on target. Plain and simple. But that was for my needs, which was 99% birding, 1% lunar.

Very best,

Those two lenses really can't be compared, wouldn't you say?

Hi guys thanks for the posts. The 70-200 is the longest I have therefore fancy something a little longer to play with its as simple as that.
I would like to shoot a couple of air shows a year and a little bit of sport and wildlife , I'm a part time hobbist, I may not pick my camera up for weeks, but when I do I enjoy it.

I'm not sure I would use the 70-200 that much if I bought the 100-400, but feel I would use it if I had the sigma.

I tried both lens out at shop , there does seem something very special about the canon looking at the snaps I took, I fine myself leaning toward it once I can get over the price . 2600 usd in uk

Another option I am really interested in is trade 70-200 for 70-300 and get sigma it still works out cheaper.

Since I got the 6 d I really have found 70-200 just a little short .

tongard wrote in post #17834639
Hi guys thanks for the posts. The 70-200 is the longest I have therefore fancy something a little longer to play with its as simple as that.
I would like to shoot a couple of air shows a year and a little bit of sport and wildlife , I'm a part time hobbist, I may not pick my camera up for weeks, but when I do I enjoy it.

I'm not sure I would use the 70-200 that much if I bought the 100-400, but feel I would use it if I had the sigma.

I tried both lens out at shop , there does seem something very special about the canon looking at the snaps I took, I fine myself leaning toward it once I can get over the price . 2600 usd in uk

Another option I am really interested in is trade 70-200 for 70-300 and get sigma it still works out cheaper.

Since I got the 6 d I really have found 70-200 just a little short .

Ugh, UK prices are nuts.

Have you thought about just going for a 2nd hand 100-400 MKI? I mean, you're talking about 2~3 times a year using it. Maybe a bit more with some wildlife, but as you put it, several weeks at a time you're not shooting and there's only 52 weeks in a year, and a lot of those are not friendly to electronics all year round, so you have limited times to do that. So it might be a better route to simply get great glass and save $1500+ and get a used 100-400 MKI while they're still flooding the market and being cheaper with the MKII release. It's still an awesome piece of glass and even more awesome now that it's really affordable.

Alternatively, a 150-600C Sigma is a beast. You may find it too long depending on what airshow you're talking about. Great for wildlife that isn't moving a lot. It's good for moving wildlife, birds in flight even, if you're in really good light. But if you're in haze, fog, dark weather skies of England for it, you will find it to be a slow lens in that kind of light, and may want to stick to things not moving as much. Really, for where you are (depending on what you shoot), I'd probably push more towards a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS instead. Costs more, but it ultimately gives you way more options if wildlife is something you really want to get into, especially in darker light places in the world.

I'd keep your 70-200. It may be short, but sometimes, shallow depth of field, and/or more ability to shoot in lower light is important. The 70-300 is slower aperture, so you're losing light, gaining a little bit more reach.

Very best,

You have raised some interesting points. I tried the sig c on a dull winters morning and before I new it I was at 3200 to get a decent shutter speed. I would like to say that I took some snaps at 600 and 400 on canon and I compared them on my screen and they were both very sharp , I couldn't really tell the difference. So have we narrowed the decision down to canon 100-400 mk1 or sigma 150-600.

I don't really need the weather sealing and the sig would have better image stabilising

gonzogolf wrote in post #17834376
Even though the longer zooms cover the same range they really serve different purposes. So if you do portraits, event work etc. The 70-200 might be worth keeping. But if you only use it because it's your longest lens then let it go. Not knowing what your uses are limits the quality of the advice.

Tend to agree. I've just got the 100-400 II but never once considered selling my 70-200 - they may look quite similar but they're totally different lenses for different purposes, especially on full frame where, in my experience, a 70-200 is almost a walkabout!

Regards the UK price on the 100-400, it is extortionate. You can get it much cheaper via grey import obviously but, if you want to stay "legit", then have a look on Amazon Germany, where it's €1935 which equates to about £1422 at current rates. Within the EU so no import duty/tax to pay and all Canon warranty is intact