Lens Advice for Birds ? Sigma 150-600 sport (contemporary)

I am coming back to backyard bird photography after a couple of years break.
I have 7D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 70-200 F2.8 Mark II and some shorter L prime lenses. Unfortunately I sold my 400 L 5.6.

I need a longer lens. I am between a cheaper and more versatile Sigma 150-600 Sport (or Contemporary) and a used Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS.

Used and discontinued Canon is around $3000, Sigma is around half of it (contemporary is even one third).

I need some advice to make this decision. Can Sigma 150-600 be a good alternative to a used, first generation Canon 500 F4 IS ? Or not even comparable with 500 F4 IS first generation ?

I will rent Sigma next week, but first generation 500 F4 IS is not available for rent at lensrentals.com.

(Or should I consider going back to 400 mm F5.6 ?)

Thanks in advance !

The SIGMA is only comparable to the Prime in that it will offer you 500mm. Otherwise there isn't much of a comparison. It stacks up well against other zooms,. it's a HUGE improvement over older SIGMA zooms, but for IQ, AF and aperture it's not in the same ball game as the prime.

Of course it's advantages are 150-600mm, lighter weight, lower cost, easy to transport and carry, etc.

Although the Zoom appears to be longer at 600mm, it really isn't. The Prime will take a 1/4X T-Con very well, almost as good as bare lens, so 700mm f/5.6 > 600mm f/6.3. Also that 500mm WILL work with a 2X @ 1000mm. You lose all kinds of AF and IQ, but ti's still MUCH better than the Sigma will be with a t-con.

These two lenses are very different shooting experiences also based on size and fixed FL vs zoom, so again, a difficult comparison. Depending on your health/age/build, the 500mm prime may be tripod only. The zoom is pretty easily carried and hand held without having to lug around another half dozen pounds of tripod etc.

CyberDyneSystems
Thanks for you reply. I saw your Canon EF 500mm F4 L IS review, I was planning to DM you.
I know zoom variable aperture zoom lenses are not comparable with an L prime, speed and sharpness is more important than flexibility for my purpose.
All my lenses are L primes except 70-200 F2.8 Mark II.
My only question is, 500 F4 IS I can effort is a used, first generation, 10 years old lens. Can a recent model zoom be comparable to an old 500 F4 prime, or is the prime a timeless piece?

Hello AE-1.

Jake has answered your questions already.

I know the Canon EF 500 F/4 L IS (version 1) so well I used it between 2014-2018. It is a fabulous lens.
I do not wish to put down the amazing very popular Sigma Zoom 150-600. Both very different lenses.

The Canon EF 500 F/4 L IS (version 1) actually came out in 1999. You have to ask yourself why does a 20 year old design of a lens still go for $3000. Simple answer, they are worth it. The quality of the glass is amazing.

It will out perform the very latest Sigma Zoom lens of today for sure. I know several people that have gone from the Sigma zoom to this Canon Prime and their photography has gone to the next level. All wishing they had of made the move earlier.

The Canon Prime is in a league all by itself. The image quality of photographs taken with this lens is absolutely superb.

Reach is almost everything in bird photography and again Jake has said this takes the Teleconverters with ease. I hardly ever took my 1.4 off and so 700mm at f/5.6 is an ideal focal length. The most important thing to keep in mind – the speed of focus acquisition. This lens is fast.

At f4 the EF 500mm is tack sharp, and only increases in sharpness a tiny amount when you stop it down. I took the below image in 2016 at f/4 handheld. Also remember it has a 2-stop Image stabilisation. There's no doubt about it this lens is loved by Wildlife and Sport photographers.

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …31187532221/in/​datetaken/

Common Redshank

AE-1 wrote in post #19059919
...
My only question is, 500 F4 IS I can effort is a used, first generation, 10 years old lens. Can a recent model zoom be comparable to an old 500 F4 prime, or is the prime a timeless piece?

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that aspect, (I thought I was when I said "Otherwise there isn't much of a comparison")

... but I'm 100% with Paul on this. The big Prime is going to offer better IQ by a good margin. There are recent model zooms that challenge primes, but these super telephoto primes were the best of the best, and the hyperzooms are not the best zooms. The only reason I went to the newer version of the 500mm was weight due to my age and rather serious disk issues. The "old" 500mm is still amazing.

Hi I had the Sigma great lens but has it limitations with its f6.3. I sold it and bought a used mki 600mm f4 is and a 1.4tc mkiii never looked back. Heavy yes but it’s the image quality that matters.
I have a few friends with the sigma and all had build problems with them after a while with the body parts coming loose.

filam wrote in post #19060094
Hi I had the Sigma great lens but has it limitations with its f6.3. I sold it and bought a used mki 600mm f4 is and a 1.4tc mkiii never looked back. Heavy yes but it’s the image quality that matters.
I have a few friends with the sigma and all had build problems with them after a while with the body parts coming loose.

I purchased the Sigma 150-600C lens last month along with the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 TC. What body parts seem to come loose?

Inspeqtor wrote in post #19060620
I purchased the Sigma 150-600C lens last month along with the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 TC. What body parts seem to come loose?

I know that the body is made from plastics and a couple of friends had his section started to come loose/separate near the rear of the lens. My lens had the lens collars seize up, it was the little rollers working loose you have to keep check on those. Also if you use it on Tripod there is quite a bit of flex in the foot and found it difficult to get a steady shot especially when fully extended.

I cannot disagree with Jake and Paul regarding the IQ comparison between the Sigma and the Canon 500. If you can 1) afford the 500, 2) willing to also purchase the TC should you feel more reach is needed, and 3) have no issues carrying a much heavier gear should you venture out beyond your backyard, then yes, the 500 should be given a serious consideration.

I've been using the Sigma 150-600C for about 2 years now, and I cannot be happier considering the all of above 1), 2) and particularly 3) into the overall picture. And no parts are coming loose - yet! For the current price of $899, it's a darn good lens. You can browse my bird photos in my gallery link here for some sampling as they were all shot with the Sigma. They may not be on par with what you'd get with the Canon prime, but I'm very satisfied with what I have. The Sigma should pair really well with your Canon 5DIII. I upgraded the body from 5DIII to 5DIV for more crop-ability, and it pairs really well with the lens. I don't think I can say the same of the crop sensor bodies, though, but I cannot say how it'd pair with your 7DII as I've only tried it with the 90D and my old backup 40D.

I have the 150-600 Contemporary and use it with a 7D2 and 5D4. The extra reach of the crop sensor is nice, but the autofocus is better with the 5D4. A 6.3 lens can't always give the 7D2 the light it wants. I haven't used a 500, but I tried a 400DO2 and the autofocus difference with an f4 lens is huge with both cameras, and the brighter image in the viewfinder is a plus. I have no doubt the results would be the same with the 500. The Sigma isn't bad and it's certainly easier on the wallet.

FWIW I found the 400DO to be easier to handhold than the Sigma. I do have doubts about getting that result with the 500.

SYS wrote in post #19063956
I've been using the Sigma 150-600C for about 2 years now, and I cannot be happier considering the all of above 1), 2) and particularly 3) into the overall picture. And no parts are coming loose - yet! For the current price of $899, it's a darn good lens.

The latest Sigma and Tamron zooms are excellent for their price. Even if they eventually wear down or fall apart faster than the big whites, it is like a very cheap rental.

The big thing to consider when choosing vs the Canon big white lenses is how demanding the AF is going to be, and how small an angle of view you will need. When you don't have to crop with the zooms, and fill the frame with your desired composition, they can give excellent results, even at 600/6.3, which is a bit softer than the diffraction of f/6.3 alone would dictate. If, however, you have to crop hard from 600/6.3, you are going to want to use a lot of sharpening, much more than you would need to do with a big white, which will increase noise.

My 400/4DO II with a 1.4x at f/5.6 looks almost as sharp as the bare lens at the pixel level (limited mainly by the AA filter), and it takes a 2x to see a more visible drop in pixel-level contrast with the 90D's relatively small pixels. My G1 Tamron at 600/6.3 doesn't look all that much different if I use the entire frame and don't view at poster-size magnification, but with small birds at a distance that need significant cropping, there is no comparison. The Canon white primes, are more extendable in detail through TCs or pixel density. Pixel density is optically better than a TC, but many cameras are being designed more for burst speed than pixel density, so TCs still have a lot of value.

Thanks everyone for the replies, especially CyberDyneSystems and PCousins for helping to make the decision to buy this lens.

Next question is EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS MkII. I rented and tested this lens 5 years ago when it was released. I had 400mm F5.6L back then. Any alternatives to consider ? Anybody compared 100-400 MkII with 400 F5.6L for small birds ?

Male Oriole from first day of the lens.

AE-1 wrote in post #19066462
Thanks everyone for the replies, especially CyberDyneSystems and PCousins for helping to make the decision to buy this lens.

Next question is EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS MkII. I rented and tested this lens 5 years ago when it was released. I had 400mm F5.6L back then. Any alternatives to consider ? Anybody compared 100-400 MkII with 400 F5.6L for small birds ?

Male Oriole from first day of the lens.

Hosted photo: posted by AE-1 in
./showthread.php?p=190​66462&i=i130271597
forum: Birds

When I purchased the mkii I was at the time shooting both the mk1 and the f/5.6l prime. I felt I needed the prime at times for superior iq, and autofocus vs the old zoom.

Once I got my hands on the Version II, I sold the both the older lenses. The new zoom beats the prime in all other aspects, and at least matches the prime wide open at 400mm

Thank you CyberDyneSystems.
I love 500mm F4 so far, I also need a lighter 400mm to carry aroud.

When I am shooting for serious, my kit is invariably the same. 500mm on one body, 100-400 on another.