Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk 
Thread started 30 Jan 2018 (Tuesday) 13:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 100-400 vs. Sigma 150-600 C for Birding

 
SYS
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,972 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1049
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
Jan 30, 2018 13:28 |  #1

I know this is not a fair comparison, but the reason why I'm inquiring about this is because I sold my 100-400 and am thinking about getting Sigma 150-600 C.

Again, I know it's not a fair comparison, but for those with the experience with both lenses, how does Canon's IQ at 400mm compare to Sigma's IQ at 600mm given similar lighting situation and other conditions being equal? Does Sigma's IQ at 600 suffer noticeably in comparison? I intend to use Sigma more for bird "portraits" as opposed to BIF.



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,777 posts
Gallery: 1161 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8331
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 30, 2018 13:43 |  #2

SYS wrote in post #18552581 (external link)
I know this is not a fair comparison, but the reason why I'm inquiring about this is because I sold my 100-400 and am thinking about getting Sigma 150-600 C.

Again, I know it's not a fair comparison, but for those with the experience with both lenses, how does Canon's IQ at 400mm compare to Sigma's IQ at 600mm given similar lighting situation and other conditions being equal? Does Sigma's IQ at 600 suffer noticeably in comparison? I intend to use Sigma more for bird "portraits" as opposed to BIF.

Sigma 150-600 all the way. There's no real appreciable difference in sharpness or anything. You're shooting portraits, the 600mm is going to give you more bang for your buck. Even if you were into BIF, both would be fine (for larger slower things). For zany close range BIF, I'd go with a prime for the edge in AF speed and aperture gains. But for just trying to get an excellent birding lens, the Sigma 150-600 is excellent, as is the Tamron. I'd get either over a Canon 100-400 for this purpose.

I use a 150-600 myself for the slow, big, or close range small bird portraits (song birds, lumbering osprey, etc).
For BIF, I use my 300 F4L IS and just apply a TC as needed, and I'm always very close to the subject (mostly fast shoreline birds like terns and smaller species).

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SYS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,972 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1049
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
Jan 30, 2018 13:49 |  #3

MalVeauX wrote in post #18552614 (external link)
Sigma 150-600 all the way. There's no real appreciable difference in sharpness or anything. You're shooting portraits, the 600mm is going to give you more bang for your buck. Even if you were into BIF, both would be fine (for larger slower things). For zany close range BIF, I'd go with a prime for the edge in AF speed and aperture gains. But for just trying to get an excellent birding lens, the Sigma 150-600 is excellent, as is the Tamron. I'd get either over a Canon 100-400 for this purpose.

I use a 150-600 myself for the slow, big, or close range small bird portraits (song birds, lumbering osprey, etc).
For BIF, I use my 300 F4L IS and just apply a TC as needed, and I'm always very close to the subject (mostly fast shoreline birds like terns and smaller species).

Very best,

Thanks, exactly the kind of info I need. Adorama currently offers the Sigma lens with the USB Dock thrown in for free, but they're out of stock, so I'll have to wait a bit.



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-AP-
Goldmember
Avatar
2,075 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Likes: 1177
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
     
May 05, 2018 02:57 |  #4

Funny. I just sold my 150-600 to buy the 100-400.. :)

I really like/liked the Sigma overall.


WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | Canon 5d3 | SX50 HS | T6I |70-200L | 24-70L | 50mm f1.4 | YN-622c | Bunch of lights, a few more lenses and lots of other stuff..

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SYS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,972 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1049
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
May 05, 2018 11:01 |  #5

-AP- wrote in post #18619828 (external link)
Funny. I just sold my 150-600 to buy the 100-400.. :)

I really like/liked the Sigma overall.

Is your new 100-400 the original or II edition? So far, I'm liking the 150-600 a lot better. IQ wise, it's about the same or even a slight edge to 150-600. Of course, a definite edge with 200mm more in focal length with the Sigma.



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
6,727 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 1311
Joined May 2011
Location: Gainesville, Florida
     
May 05, 2018 13:20 |  #6

I probably shouldn't comment but I subscribe to three threads: the 100-400ii Wow thread, the sigma and Tamron 2 150-600 threads. I wouldn't be happy with most of the shots I see on the 150-600 threads but I realize there are a lot of variables at work. I do know, I get extremely good shots with the 100-400ii. I recently got a 1D X2 and I already had the 1.4X TC. It actually works with the 100-400ii so that gets me to 560mm, albeit at a much higher cost.

I think it really depends. After people have stroked the Tamron 150-600 2, I've seen some pretty good results posted here.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1DX2 | 1D IV | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS | 100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition | Editing Encouraged

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SYS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,972 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1049
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
May 05, 2018 13:44 |  #7

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18620038 (external link)
I wouldn't be happy with most of the shots I see on the 150-600 threads but I realize there are a lot of variables at work.

For the most part, I wasn't impressed with the sample photo images out of Sigma 150-600 prior to my decision to purchase it, but when I saw some really good ones, I basically knew that the bad sample photos were due primarily to user inexperience or errors. Of all the sample photos I've seen, the lens that seems to yield the best and consistent results is when it's paired with full frame camera bodies, most noteworthy being Canon 5D IV followed by 5D III. The ones with cropped bodies seem to vary more. It'd be very interesting what the results are going to be like when it's paired with 7D III when and if it ever comes out.

It's also how and when the lens is being employed that could easily cause variances in results. I noticed that I get a lot more keepers when I employ my monopod as opposed to hand-held. There are, of course, factors involving the camera settings, too, i.e., SS, AF, Focus, etc.

I heard great things about 100-400 II, and that's why I inquired to the OP whether it's the original or the II edition... I can see the trading from 150-600 to 100-400 II, but not to the original 100-400.



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,335 posts
Likes: 1739
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
May 05, 2018 14:08 |  #8

I have both the 100-400I and the Siggy 150-600C and give it to the Siggy IQ wise except maybe in the corners. I have heard that the 100-400II is a better lens but I have no experience with that one.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,591 posts
Gallery: 174 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 356
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
     
May 15, 2018 01:50 |  #9

I've been using the Sig 150-600C for a couple of years now. I mainly use it on my 70D. It is a little slow on AF for BIF. I posted a few shots done recently of a Bluebird using this.

Bluebird using Sig150-600


Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
setagate
Senior Member
Avatar
328 posts
Gallery: 166 photos
Likes: 1741
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
     
May 27, 2018 07:35 |  #10

After viewing many bird photos on the Canon Bird forum, to my eyes those taken with the 100-400II are in most cases superior to those taken with the 150-600 lenses. I once owned a 100-400 version I lens and it was definitely inferior to the version II.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brassfootball66
Mostly Lurking
15 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 53
Joined May 2016
Location: Denver USA
     
May 31, 2018 09:07 |  #11

IME, image quality trumps focal length. Comparing the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II to the Sigma, there's no comparison. The Canon blows away the Sigma, plus it's much easier to hand hold. On the 5D4 and higher bodies, the AF is stunning, both bare and with the EF 1.4x TC-III added in. I know at least 5 Canon shooters that started with the 150-600mm and then traded it for the 100-400mm II.


Dave Stephens

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canonuser123
Senior Member
Avatar
584 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 686
Joined Dec 2014
Location: Southern California
     
May 31, 2018 10:05 |  #12

setagate wrote in post #18633635 (external link)
After viewing many bird photos on the Canon Bird forum, to my eyes those taken with the 100-400II are in most cases superior to those taken with the 150-600 lenses. I once owned a 100-400 version I lens and it was definitely inferior to the version II.

How much is that due to ease of use versus actual optical differences? The Sigma image stabilization effect in the viewfinder is not as confidence inspiring as my Canon lenses, it is also big and front heavy making it harder to hand hold. Also how much difference is related to people like me who suck at post processing? I still haven’t figured out how to not ruin a photo when resizing for the web.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 31, 2018 10:14 |  #13

I am also curious about the 100-400 v2 to 150-600 comparison.

I own the 100-400 v2 and am very pleased with its quality. . I can shoot it wide open at 400mm and get images that are just as sharp as those taken at f8 (to my eye and real world viewing, not according to some irrelevant scientific study charts).

I owned a Sigma 150-500mm and was extremely disappointed with the image quality. . It was even worse than my Canon 100-400mm v1.

With my Canon 100-400mm v1 I would have to stop down to f7.1 or f8 in order to get optimal sharpness. . That ruined a lot of good image-making opportunities for me.

Is the Sigma 150-600mm absolutely razor sharp wide open at 600mm the same way the Canon v2 is razor sharp wide open at 400mm? . If it is then I would consider ditching my 100-400 v2 in favor of the Sigma. . But if I would have to stop down a little then there is no point to owning a lens like that. . I suffered for years with a "stop down lens" and I never want another.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,335 posts
Likes: 1739
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
May 31, 2018 10:31 |  #14

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18636465 (external link)
..
Is the Sigma 150-600mm absolutely razor sharp wide open at 600mm the same way the Canon v2 is razor sharp wide open at 400mm? . If it is then I would consider ditching my 100-400 v2 in favor of the Sigma. . But if I would have to stop down a little then there is no point to owning a lens like that. . I suffered for years with a "stop down lens" and I never want another.


.

In fairness, both lenses should be used at 400mm or at 600 with the 100-400+t-con if you want to compare quality.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 31, 2018 10:39 |  #15

gjl711 wrote in post #18636473 (external link)
In fairness, both lenses should be used at 400mm or at 600 with the 100-400+t-con if you want to compare quality.

.
Not for me. . I'm not interested in fairness - I am interested in usefulness. . If the Sigma is just as sharp wide open as the Canon at 400mm, then why would I change?

I am looking for confirmation that the Sigma is better - a.k.a. more useful - than my Canon.

If I am going to give up the range from 100mm to 150mm (which is very important to me), then I need to know that I am gaining something equally important.

If 600mm wide open isn't tack sharp, then there would be no point for me to make the change because I wouldn't really be gaining anything because that would cause me to consider the long end of the zoom to be unusable.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,381 views & 22 likes for this thread
Canon 100-400 vs. Sigma 150-600 C for Birding
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Gorge guy
830 guests, 414 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.