Time for a new lens...100-400 II or something else?

I live in Nairobi, and spend a fair amount of time in the national parks around me.

My current shooting gear is an 80D and 100-400 dust pump.

Am planning an upgrade, perhaps to version 2.

Before I buy, any suggestions to an alternative? I'd rather not get a prime as I dont want to carry 2 bodies, its hard enough shooting and driving as it is!

I see Tamron has a 150-600 and so does Sigma. Any real life users? Comparison to the 100-400 II?

Thanks for the ideas!

I have the Sigma 150-600mm C and I'm pretty happy with it, especially for the money. Here's some bighorn sheep that I've photographed with it. Most were cropped and all were shot on a 5d Mark III, so less pixel density than you'd enjoy with the 80D. Stabilizer works pretty good, other than emitting a slight noise.

http://www.echoesinete​rnityllc.com …phy-rams-lambs-ewes-oh-my

200-400 of course

What do you find lacking in the as you say the Dust pump ??

200-400 is way out of my budget!

My kid wants to force inherit the dust pump...so I might as well get a new one.

I need to read up on this lens.

I've used the Tamron 150-600 and a friend of mine used the Sigma 150-600 Sport. They're okay lenses, good buys for the money, but they don't really hold up IQ-wise to the 100-400II. After using a friend's 100-400II I am buying my own. Should be here tomorrow, in time for my Fall trip to Yellowstone.

Following along...

I used to have the Tamron 150-600 (V1) but found it too heavy. It hurt my wrist if I tried to handhold it and I didn’t feel like carrying around a mono or tripod anytime I wanted to use it. I returned it and bought a used Canon 400 5.6L which was very light and the AF was very quick. I eventually sold the 400mm because I found it somewhat inconvenient because sometimes when shooting BIF they’d get too close and I had no way to quickly zoom out and also I wanted to spend more time on my landscape photography. I still have a 70-200 and 1.4X so I have a bit of zoom but am craving a bit more and want to start shooting birds and wildlife again. I’d love to get the 100-400 II but even used it’s way out of my price range. I’m currently looking at used 100-400 dust pumps for more reach but from what I've read the 400mm prime is sharper and has quicker AF so I'll likely end up with another one of those.

I have the Sigma 150-600 C and the 100-400 II Canon lens. The Sigma is a good value for the money, but the image quality and speed of the AF on the Canon is in a separate league. I don't think you will be disappointed with the 100-400 Version II.

dropmyload wrote in post #18460584
..I'd rather not get a prime as I dont want to carry 2 bodies..?

Thanks for the ideas!

Give the canon 400mm a chance. It's super sharp, fast and a used one is very inexpensive. I went from dust pump to the prime and absolutely love it. Haven't used the pump since. It doesn't have IS and the MFD is relatively far, but can't be beat for the money.

Heya,

The 100-400 II doesn't disappoint any any area, unless you're reach starved. Depends on how you feel about your current reach situation. You will gain some sharpness, better micro-contrast, different design, better IS with the new lens. But you will not gain reach there. So if you're happy with the reach of a 400mm on APS-C, then go with the MKII.

If you are reach starved all the time, get a 150-600, or start considering something like a 500 F4L and a 1.4x TC or a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS and a 1.4x & 2.0x TC (also a 600mm that way). The 150-600's are cheap for what they are. They're good, sharp, very decent. They're just on the slower side of things (F6.3 which is 1/3rd of a stop slower than F5.6).

Very best,

Looks like its the new dust pump for me...400 seems enough for Kenyan parks and I like the zoom which is the only thing stopping me from buying a 400 prime.

Thanks everyone!

I've never had a telephoto prime lens. I always wonder what do you do when your subject comes close unexpectedly, get a nice shot of their eye lashes? But i guess the chances of the subject coming that close might be very low, so you might not need the shorter range. I suppose it depends on what you shoot. I've gone the route of the 100-400 II, no regrets thus far.

Mr_ipsum wrote in post #18470443
I've never had a telephoto prime lens. I always wonder what do you do when your subject comes close unexpectedly, get a nice shot of their eye lashes? But i guess the chances of the subject coming that close might be very low, so you might not need the shorter range. I suppose it depends on what you shoot. I've gone the route of the 100-400 II, no regrets thus far.

As much as I love my 100-400L ii, I have to admit, I love the photos I see from the Canon Super telephotos: the 500, 600 and 800mm. They are out of my price range, of course, but I can still appreciate their advantages, even though, I agree, a zoom lens does give me more flexibility. I've been around other photographers who were using a Canon 200-400 w/1.4X. That would also be fun to try.

I think I'd likely go with the Sigma 150-600 C. Seems to do a good job and won't break the bank. Your flickr seems to have a lot of wild-life. I would think the 150-600 would give you opportunities you don't have with the 100-400.

Anyone use the 100-400II with a 1.5x ?

Is there much degradation?