Upgrade from Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary.

[Daniel Godin]

Hello,

I've been using the Sigma 150-600mm C version for the last two years and I'm not quite sure where to go from here. I’ve used it with a Canon 7Dii for most of that time, and have recently purchased a Canon 5Div. I like the photos better with the 5Div, especially in low-light, but missed the perceived "reach" of the crop camera. I decided to purchase the Canon 1.4x Extender iii, to use with the Sigma, but unfortunately it does not work, except in live-view mode, and really not well there at all. I didn't realize the newest firmware made it incompatible.

My biggest problem with the Sigma is the autofocus. It honestly seems to be getting worse, perhaps there is something wrong with the lens, or maybe I'm much more discerning and putting it through its paces these days. I do get lucky and get sharp photos, but not when they are a good ways out, or flying usually. I've been using Servo with extended single point and single point one-focus. It’s just not very fast.

I primarily walk around and photograph what I can find, but I’ve been doing more “blind” type shooting with a tripod lately as well. I photograph waterfowl, small birds, & BiF. I'm still learning to get closer, instead of just relying on lens reach.

I like the zoom range of the sigma, which allows me to take some telephoto landscape shots when I'm out, but that is not a necessity for me. I also own a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II. I've been looking at the Canon 100-400ii, as it is a direct comparison to the Sigma. I think it would probably be better, but by how much? I already have the extender, so that would help it's range a bit. I'm comfortable with the long end, as I use 600mm 95%+ of the time, and do not have problems getting the bird in the frame.

I think ideally I would want a 600mm f/4, but that is far too expensive for me at the moment, same with 400mm f/4 (& 2.8). Are there any other lenses I am not considering? How much of an upgrade would you consider the Canon 100-400ii vs. the Sigma 150-600C? I guess they would be about the same range with the 1.4x extender, but I go from f6.3 @ 600mm to f8 at 560mm. Not that the Sigma is super sharp wide open anyway (f/8 seems to be better).

Thanks for your time and consideration.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Daniel,

I always stay away from third party lenses, there is a reason they are significantly cheaper. The Canon 100-400 II is an excellent lens but it is going to be too short for general bird photography , with the TC max. aperture will reduce to f/8 which means both 7D and 5D will struggle with AF if you like to capture birds in flight.

Unfortunately there is no solution other than stepping up to a super telephoto prime lens (600 or 500) or the 400 DO II. If you are open to switching brands you could go for a Nikon D850 or D500 and Nikon 200-500 VR. It will give you much better results at this price point.

[Vaughn Stamm]

Daniel; Although I shoot Nikon your story sounds similar to mine. I too had owned the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens. I managed a few keepers but I found the autofocus to be too slow and I was convinced I could do better with a different lens as well.
I settled on Nikon's 200-500 f5.6 lens. It has been a big improvement in the number of keepers, but I do not use the tele-converter as I don't want to loose any more light or speed. I do often wish for more reach and am always working on trying to get closer to the subjects instead of relying on the lens reach as you have stated. I now have also been fortunate enough to own a 500 f/4. The autofocus speed and clarity is remarkably better but it comes at a price. It's big and heavy and most always requires a tripod, whereas the 200-500 remains my walk-about lens and with the vibration reduction I can get by without a tripod many times.
I apologize that I do not have much knowledge about the Canon lens line up but I have heard good things of the 100-400ii lens.
I totally understand wanting to not give up the reach of the 600mm.
Good luck!

[Daniel Godin]

Thank you Vaughn for your response. I dearly wish canon had something with a 500 or 600 5.6. There seems to be a gap between the 400 5.6, 100-400ii, and 300 2.8, 400 f/4. Then a big gap again up to 500 and 600 f/4's.

The question for me also comes down to a cropped shot from the 100-400ii vs. a less cropped shot from the 150-600mm. If shot from the same spot, would the sigma be better than the canon? I can't seem to find this comparison anywhere.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

I decided to purchase the Canon 1.4x Extender iii, to use with the Sigma, but unfortunately it does not work, except in live-view mode, and really not well there at all. I didn't realize the newest firmware made it incompatible.


There is your biggest mistake. The Sigma lens works with the matching Sigma converter, however, that zoom is best not used with converters. I had a Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II USM zoom and sold that, as I did not like how it worked with a Canon TC. If you have to crop anything more than about 5-10% off your full frame shot at 600mm (960mm field of view with a 7D MkII), then you need to get closer. Cropping excessively (for me) is not the solution for good quality images. Sure, they look good on the web and social media, but that's all you get.

I purchased a new Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport with its matching converters after seeing no difference in the field compared to results obtained with my old EF 500mm f/4L IS USM lens, which I have since sold off. In fact, I find its performance a touch better even wide open with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, believe it or not, with my 1Dx MkII. All this snobbery towards third-party lenses makes me laugh. I doubt I'll ever buy a Canon super telephoto again, they are too expensive and it just shows that Canon and Nikon have had photographers tight by the nuts for decades.

[arash_hazeghi]

There is your biggest mistake. The Sigma lens works with the matching Sigma converter, however, that zoom is best not used with converters. I had a Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II USM zoom and sold that, as I did not like how it worked with a Canon TC. If you have to crop anything more than about 5-10% off your full frame shot at 600mm (960mm field of view with a 7D MkII), then you need to get closer. Cropping excessively (for me) is not the solution for good quality images. Sure, they look good on the web and social media, but that's all you get.

I purchased a new Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport with its matching converters after seeing no difference in the field compared to results obtained with my old EF 500mm f/4L IS USM lens, which I have since sold off. In fact, I find its performance a touch better even wide open with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, believe it or not, with my 1Dx MkII. All this snobbery towards third-party lenses makes me laugh. I doubt I'll ever buy a Canon super telephoto again, they are too expensive and it just shows that Canon and Nikon have had photographers tight by the nuts for decades.

Hi Akos,

with all due respect it is not snobby. you are comparing your 20 year old obsolete canon lens (500 MK I) with the new Sigma lens. You need to compare the 500 f/4 IS II with the sigma lens, which I doubt you have. It is lighter, sharper and MUCH faster to focus. I have shot with the Sigma 500, the optics is not bad for bare lens, but frankly AF and IS are a joke when compared to MKII lenses which also perform flawlessly with series III extenders 1.4 X and 2X alike. The Sigma really has CA with the 1.4X. If you are not shooting challenging subjects you may not notice these differences though.

the only reason one buys Sigma is because they cannot afford Canon. Do you think if it were the same Canon would be able to sell their lenses for twice as much? The Sigma lenses don't have much resale value either, at least here in the US and Canada, not sure about other places . Like anything else in life, you get what you pay for.

Good luck

[Roger Smith]

Wondering if there is a distinction to be made between the Sigma / Tamron offerings for Nikon vs. Canon. In my subjective opinion I feel that the Nikon mounted versions of these lenses produce significantly sharper images that those on Canon. My assumption has been that 3rd party lens quality can't "get over the sharpness hump" of the AA filter on the Canon sensors, and it becomes apparent when comparing images between the two (same lens, different mounts). Thoughts?

[Daniel Godin]

Hi Daniel,

I always stay away from third party lenses, there is a reason they are significantly cheaper. The Canon 100-400 II is an excellent lens but it is going to be too short for general bird photography , with the TC max. aperture will reduce to f/8 which means both 7D and 5D will struggle with AF if you like to capture birds in flight.

Unfortunately there is no solution other than stepping up to a super telephoto prime lens (600 or 500) or the 400 DO II. If you are open to switching brands you could go for a Nikon D850 or D500 and Nikon 200-500 VR. It will give you much better results at this price point.

Thank you for your response Arash. You mentioned the 100-400 II with 1.4x struggling with BiF, but would that lens work best for my situation if they are perched/floating? I guess I could take off the TC if I wanted to capture birds in flight if you believe that lens' AF is fast enough. The sigma can't get many keepers anyway, so I'm not losing reach there.

Would you say the progression would be 600 f/4 II > 400 f/4 DO II > 100-400 II? the 400 5.6 prime seems like it's not useful unless you can't buy the 100-400 II.

Thank you.

[arash_hazeghi]

Wondering if there is a distinction to be made between the Sigma / Tamron offerings for Nikon vs. Canon. In my subjective opinion I feel that the Nikon mounted versions of these lenses produce significantly sharper images that those on Canon. My assumption has been that 3rd party lens quality can't "get over the sharpness hump" of the AA filter on the Canon sensors, and it becomes apparent when comparing images between the two (same lens, different mounts). Thoughts?

Hi Roger these lenses are optically exactly the same, the only difference is the mount at the back of the lens. there is no difference in IQ. you might have seen some sample variation.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thank you for your response Arash. You mentioned the 100-400 II with 1.4x struggling with BiF, but would that lens work best for my situation if they are perched/floating? I guess I could take off the TC if I wanted to capture birds in flight if you believe that lens' AF is fast enough. The sigma can't get many keepers anyway, so I'm not losing reach there.

Would you say the progression would be 600 f/4 II > 400 f/4 DO II > 100-400 II? the 400 5.6 prime seems like it's not useful unless you can't buy the 100-400 II.

Thank you.

Hi Daniel,

the problem with 100-400 is that a 400mm lens is too short for general bird photography unless you are shooting from a blind at close range. so you will have to use it with the 1.4X III all the time. With a non pro body, the AF and sharpness will be satisfactory and much better than your sigma zoom but only for perched birds.

If you are serious about bird photography you really need a 600mm or 500mm f/4 lens, anything else is just a compromise or a special application lens. Consider the older series I super telephoto lenses, especially the 500 f/4 IS aka the old five. It is still reasonably light, tack sharp with the 1.4X and has descent AF.

The 400 DO II is a great lens, but to unlock its full potential you really need a 1DX or 1DX MK II body to use it with the 2XIII. So in your situation it is probably not the best option.

best

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Hi Akos,

The only reason one buys Sigma is because they cannot afford Canon.

Good luck

I don't need luck mate. I can afford the Canon, don't worry about that. I am not mad to throw money away though. That's all. The Sigma is perfectly fine for my needs. I've read enough positive reviews and was able to test the lens prior to buying.

You still make me laugh....

[David Salem]

Hi Daniel,
I have the Sigma also and I only bought it because I needed an intermediate lens to take on a trip. I am not in love with the lens or the image quality but I'm probably jaded because I shoot my 600 almost exclusively for the last 4 years. After reading your post I was going to make a suggestion but was confused by your statement that the old 500mkl is somehow completely outdated and not even comparable. I think that's very far from the truth and I still have my old 500 that I would put up against the Sigma any day of the week. That's exactly what I was going to suggest for you would be a used 500 version 1. Good solid lens at a great price. Fast enough and a great bokeh too.
I have hundreds, if not thousands of great images from this lens, and I would put them up against anything out there, even today. I use it for a loner for my clients that don't have a big lens and all of them love the image quality from it, especially coming from a 100-400 or a Sigma
It's your best bet for a reasonable price lens that's going to get you good performance with a 1.4 also. You can find them sometimes for less than $3500. Good glass is good glass and the auto focus has not changed dramatically, in the sense of the motor and speed.
That's my suggestion but good luck otherwise.