Canon 100-400 mk1 vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary

Since these 2 lenses are close to the same price, which is a better lens for the price. Is the Canon 100-400 mk1 still worth the investment, or is the Sigma better because of newer tech. I'm considering purchasing one of these lenses, but can't decide which way to go. Please help. Will be using the lens on a Canon 6D and a Canon 1DIII. Thanks

Same price? I'm seeing original 100-400s going for $700-$750. Where are you getting a ΣC for that price?

I'd go with the Sigma. I've been playing around with one and I am quite impressed by it's IQ, and AF.

I got mine new on sale for $700.00 even.

In the past none of the SIGMA's were able to keep up even with the old 100-400mm for AF IMHO, lenses like the 50-500 or 150-500mm were fine but not able to compete. I feel the new SIGMA 150-600mm C has beaten that old 1998 design for sure.

Thanks, Jake. I had no idea the Sig was available for that price.

Bassat wrote in post #17850659
Thanks, Jake. I had no idea the Sig was available for that price.

Well it was one of those amazing one day deals. Without it I would not have gotten the lens. Don;t know when we will see such a thing again, but it prompted the used price to go down to about $800.00 for a virtually new unit.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17850657
I'd go with the Sigma. I've been playing around with one and I am quite impressed by it's IQ, and AF.

I got mine new on sale for $700.00 even.

In the past none of the SIGMA's were able to keep up even with the old 100-400mm for AF IMHO, lenses like the 50-500 or 150-500mm were fine but not able to compete. I feel the new SIGMA 150-600mm C has beaten that old 1998 design for sure.

What Jake said.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17850657
I'd go with the Sigma. I've been playing around with one and I am quite impressed by it's IQ, and AF.

I got mine new on sale for $700.00 even.

In the past none of the SIGMA's were able to keep up even with the old 100-400mm for AF IMHO, lenses like the 50-500 or 150-500mm were fine but not able to compete. I feel the new SIGMA 150-600mm C has beaten that old 1998 design for sure.

What about comparing the Sigma C to the 100-400 II? Is the performance similar enough such that the IQ you give up is worth having the extra $1000+ to spend on other lenses?

I used to regularly rent a MK1 100-400 for airshows. I now have the Sig150-600. IMO the Sig is at least as good at 400 as the Canon. At 600 I think the Sigma is still as good as the Canon at 400.

It does take some more effort to get the best from it, but it is 50% longer! I knocked together a shoulder stock type support for using with it, after trying out the similar sized/weight Tamron, I used to use similar with my old Pentax ME Super and 400mm lens back in the 80s. I felt the Canon was in need of the help too, but never had one around long enough to build what I really wanted. I only mention this because I haven't actually shot with the Sigma without using the support. However a lot of my shots are at 600mm and 1/160s, and I'm also having to add an additional 1.5× crop using my 50D.

I just love my Sigma 150-600 C.

Alan

FEChariot wrote in post #17851107
What about comparing the Sigma C to the 100-400 II? Is the performance similar enough such that the IQ you give up is worth having the extra $1000+ to spend on other lenses?

Only you can say. If you have a body that can AF at F8 and a 1.4 TC I'd say it's a very close race between the 100-400 II with TC and the Sigma C. The advantage with the Canon is it can be used without the TC for even better performance but limited to 400 obviously.

If you don't have a body that can AF at F8 (or don't plan to get one soon) and the TC then the Sigma is probably a better option.

Another advantage with the Canon is that across the frame sharpness is very good so combine with FF body, crop body and 1.4 TC
you have 100-896 equiv angle of view with the 100-400 end being significantly better than Sigma C.

I have used the Canon 100-400 mk1 and mk2, and currently own the Sigma 150-600C.

I much preferred the Canon mk2 over the mk1, no doubt - IS, AF, and IQ were all superior on the copies I used.
I think the Sigma has narrowed the gap and is somewhere between the two on those 3 items.
Obviously it has the reach advantage and a weight & size disadvantage.

In my opinion, the Canon mk2 has a slight IQ advantage, and a definite AF (and possibly IS) speed advantage over the Sigma.

However, I snagged the Sigma for somewhere around $700 brand new and it's a smokin' deal at that price.
I never would've paid the ~$2k for the Canon mk2.

My order of preference, regardless of price:
Canon mk2
Sigma
Canon mk1

My original post in this thread was from my phone, so I did not include images. I shot this at my first airshow with the Sigma 150-600. It was shot at 600mm f/6.3 and ISO100 on my 50D. The image was then cropped to 4164×2776 pixels

Photo from BigAl007's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (760438)