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

s1a1om wrote in post #18471445
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.

I don't know, maybe its unconscious bias, but I think the Canon 100-400 ii is sharper than the Sigma 15-600. I've looked at that lens before thinking about getting it, but from the photos I've seen I think the Sigma is not as sharp. I haven't worked with it on my camera, but that is just my impression from what I've seen and I'm not willing to trade sharpness for extra reach.

I suspect the 150-600 compared to the cropped FOV on the 400mm on the 100-400II is going to be very close. The Sigma is sharp, provided you go through and either use AFMA or use the dock to really nail down exacting focus. The problem is that folks use poor filters (since the filter is so large and expensive for a good one), or they don't make sure they have set up AFMA.

https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com …e-Wild-Yonder/i-zxh8BMB/O
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com …e-Wild-Yonder/i-SS3qDhN/O
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com …e-Wild-Yonder/i-8f4Vpgn/O
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com …e-Wild-Yonder/i-5WFfM7v/O

The only way I'll get to 600mm is to buy one of the 150-600's. I can get to 560 with my 1.4X lll teleconverter but the results are mixed at best.

I haven't really decided if I'm going to go down that path or not.

fotoworx wrote in post #18471590
Anyone use the 100-400II with a 1.5x ?

Is there much degradation?

No one?

I've been pretty happy with my Sigma 150-600C for almost 2 years now. I bought a 70-200 II last winter and have been so impressed with it that I've wondered if I should have gone with the 100-400 II. I do like having the ability to go to 600mm though.

I've been obsessed lately with thoughts of getting a supertelephoto prime. Even at $6,000, the Siggy 500 f/4 is out of my range but I'm starting to save in hopes that I might have that option in the future.

Ideally, I think I'd have a 500 or 600 prime on one camera and the 100-400 II on another camera. And since this is more fantasy than reality, let's make one of these cameras the upcoming 7D mkIII.

There have been a number of Canon 500 f4 for sale in the 3500-4000 range in the used equipment forum.

Just like the 70-200 f/2.8 is vital for wedding photogs, I'd consider the 100-400 II a staple lens for any wildlife photographer. It pairs perfectly with my 500, and a lot of the time I take it out instead of the bulky super-tele. IQ-wise, you aren't giving anything up with the zoom either.

For up to the minute reviews, just browse the photos in the ever-ongoing "EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Review WOW!" thread over in the Lens sub-forum.

fotoworx wrote in post #18472138
No one?

None that I can really see, though I've found that going to a shutter speed faster than the 1/focal-length rule is advised. At a minimum, I like shooting at 1/800 - 1/1250 w/ the 1.4x.

Here are a couple of shots with the combo on my 5D4 and 80D:

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (861334)

sandwedge wrote in post #18473282
I've been obsessed lately with thoughts of getting a supertelephoto prime. Even at $6,000, the Siggy 500 f/4 is out of my range but I'm starting to save in hopes that I might have that option in the future.

Ideally, I think I'd have a 500 or 600 prime on one camera and the 100-400 II on another camera. And since this is more fantasy than reality, let's make one of these cameras the upcoming 7D mkIII.

You can get the original 500/4 for under $5K. That is an excellent lens, just a little heavier than the II.

The setup you mention is exactly what I have. The 500/4 II on one 7D2 and the 100-400 II on another. I can easily handhold both and carry them on slings on my birding walks.