Long lens advice

I’m looking for a longer lens for birds and wildlife. I currently have the 55-250 STM and love the sharpness and that it weighs next to nothing. I’ve gotten some pretty good bird shots with it but would like some more reach. Currently in my local area I could get either of the following used lenses:

Sigma 150-500 - $650 / $800 – both users say the lens has seen minimal use and is in perfect condition.
Canon 100-400 Version 1 (with 2 years transferable warranty) - $1200

From what I’ve been reading it seems that the Canon is a lot lighter than the Sigma and images can be cropped to equal the longer lenses without being of less quality. Is it worth paying the extra for the Canon? I could almost get a new Sigma/Tamron 150-600 for about the same price as the used Canon. How do they compare to the 100-400 Version 1?

The old 100-400 is 3.04 lbs, the new Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is 4.3 lbs.

$1200 for the old 100-400 vs $989 for the Sigma C.

So the Sigma C is about one pound more than the Canon. I've used the Sigma hand held
all day at an air show and the weight isn't that bad.

Your 60D is 18mp. If you were to crop an image taken at 400mm until it had the same fov as
a 600mm lens, you would end up with a 8mp image. Although I have not done it, my guess
is that you'd begin to see some reduction of IQ.

Since the lens will be used for birds, I suggest the Sigma 150-600 C.
It's $211 less and provides 200mm more. Only drawback is that it weighs
one pound more, but that's not a show-stopper.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the reply. Here in Canada the Sigma 150-600 C is currently on sale for $1450+tax and the Tamron is $1375.

shane_c wrote in post #17971616
I’m looking for a longer lens for birds and wildlife. I currently have the 55-250 STM and love the sharpness and that it weighs next to nothing. I’ve gotten some pretty good bird shots with it but would like some more reach. Currently in my local area I could get either of the following used lenses:

Sigma 150-500 - $650 / $800 – both users say the lens has seen minimal use and is in perfect condition.
Canon 100-400 Version 1 (with 2 years transferable warranty) - $1200

From what I’ve been reading it seems that the Canon is a lot lighter than the Sigma and images can be cropped to equal the longer lenses without being of less quality. Is it worth paying the extra for the Canon? I could get a new Sigma/Tamron 150-600 for about the same price as the used Canon. How do they compare to the 100-400 Version 1?

I would go with the Canon, but $1200 seems too much. They are selling on eBay in the $900s CAD, occasionally up to $1050, plus shipping.

How does that 2 year warranty work?

Online they say the Canon sharpness can be variable. I have owned two and both were excellent. It's just something to be aware of. If you can run some tests beforehand, that would be an advantage.

Archibald wrote in post #17971673
I would go with the Canon, but $1200 seems too much. They are selling on eBay in the $900s CAD, occasionally up to $1050, plus shipping.

How does that 2 year warranty work?

Online they say the Canon sharpness can be variable. I have owned two and both were excellent. It's just something to be aware of. If you can run some tests beforehand, that would be an advantage.

Personally, I would agree with this. I've had terrific luck with my 100-400 and not such good luck with the Tamron. However, the Sigma C would be a very good option as they've been making a concerted effort to up their game on their optics in the last few years.

Between the Canon and the Sigma 'C', I would say find the one you can get the best deal on.

Snydremark wrote in post #17971703
Between the Canon and the Sigma 'C', I would say find the one you can get the best deal on.

But there's more to it than that. There's a 200mm difference. If the OP is using for birds, then the 400-600mm range
on the Sigma may be very useful.

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #17971810
But there's more to it than that. There's a 200mm difference. If the OP is using for birds, then the 400-600mm range
on the Sigma may be very useful.

90% of my shooting is birds, I get it. The thing that I've found, so far, in trying to get to "cheap" 600mm is that going above 400 gets you closer but the actual results tend to be softer than simply cropping 400 and upsizing it. Also, other qualities of the lens can count for something, too. The size and MFD of the Canon MkII are big wins if you pack a backpack and go wander, the way I do. The Tamron and Sigma big zooms don't fit in the pack; so, for those alone the Canon's a better option.

Especially with the recent price hikes, though, the prices are a bit closer together in Canada so it would be silly to discount one lens over the other for just one aspect of the lens. Unless that one aspect is a "make or break" feature for your situation, which it does not sound like is true for the OP.

I have shot a fair amount with rented 100-400 V1's, and it is a very good lens. Saying that I now have a 150-600 C and IMO its a better lens IQ wise all the way to 600mm. I use it with a 50D and quite a bit of the time even that is too short. So I am adding an additional 1.5× crop for an equivalent FoV of 900mm (1440mm on FF). I'm getting great results with this shooting at shutter speeds of 1/160 (thats not a mistake I didn't mean 1/1600) on aviation subjects. I've got quite a few shots with it on here, as well as the full set from the last show of last year on my Flickr.

Alan

Do you need a zoom? If not what about a used Canon 400 f5.6 ....that would give you better image quality than both the other lenses you mention and can be picked up for a reasonable price secondhand.

The OP started out asking about an Old SIGMA that zooms to 500mm, the thread is now discussing Tamron/ and SIGMA C that are 600mm.

The 600mnm's are very good. The older SIGMA 500mm not as good.

I'd rank the zoom lenses discussed in this order;

1. SIGMA 150-600MM C
2. EF 100-400mm L Mk1
3. Tamron 150-600mm
4. SIGMA 150-500mm OS

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17971875
The OP started out asking about an Old SIGMA that zooms to 500mm, the thread is now discussing Tamron/ and SIGMA C that are 600mm.

The OP asked about the sigma/tamron 150-600 in his original post.....

Snydremark wrote in post #17971850
90% of my shooting is birds, I get it. The thing that I've found, so far, in trying to get to "cheap" 600mm is that going above 400 gets you closer but the actual results tend to be softer than simply cropping 400 and upsizing it.

This tells me you never used the Sigma 150-600

don1163 wrote in post #17971892
The OP asked about the sigma/tamron 150-600 in his original post.....

The OP wrote about the used Sigma 150-500, then later the new Sigma 150-600.
I focused on the new Sigma C, because it's a very good lens.

I think you've misinterpreted my post...
Jake seemed to think that the conversation was going in a different direction, I was merely pointing out that the OP asked about the tamron/sigma 150-600 in his original post..

Thanks for all the replies. Yes, in my initial post I started by asking about the 150-500 but also the 150-600's because they weren't much more than what a used 100-400 Mk1 was going for.

I think I'll look into the 150-600's a bit more so I can try to minimize the amount I may have to crop my photos since I'm still shooting with a 60D. Eventually I'd like to upgrade that too but for now it does what I want it to.