Canon vs Sigma Lens

Good evening all,

Looking for some suggestions. I am looking to upgrade my lens and the choice is between:

Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5 - 5.6 L IS II USM - approx $2,050.00
Sigma 150-600 mm f/5.6 - 6.3 DG OS HSM Sports - approx $ 2,000.00

Mainly will be used on a Canon 7DMK II for wildlife, with possible full frame camera in the future.

My thoughts are:

Canon - much lighter, slightly faster at the shorter distance,

Sigma - 200 mm more at further distance

Any suggestions or comments will be greatly appreciated. THANK YOU

I googled it and there is a lot of interesting discussion about this out there.

"clarity of Canon 100-400 ISL II vs. Sigma 150-600 lenses"

Sounds like the answer is it depends on what you need from the lens. Do you need 400 mm? Canon is much better. Do you need 600 mm, Sigma Sport is better than 100-400 with 1.4X TC.

Full disclosure, I have the original 100-400 IS L, and love it.

If you are seriously considering a Sigma, you might want to take a look at the "Classifieds" Forum here on NPN right now.

I had the Sigma 150-600c, while overall I thought it was a good lens, I had trouble getting sharp images over 500mm.  Also, found it for me not easy to hand hold.  But, I have very serious arthritis in both shoulders.  Can not raise my left arm more than shoulder height.  For these reasons I sold the 150-600 and purchased the Canon 100-400L IS II with the 1.4Xtender III.  It has quickly become my favorite lens.  Even with the 1.4 X I believe I am getting sharper images than what I was getting with the Sigma.  In fact, I have decided to only use Cannon lenses from now on.  I did get some good images with the 150-600, but for me the 100-400 is best.  Hope this is helpful.

Forgot to add I use the Canon 80D and SL1. 

Rich, I suppose the subject matter and locations you generally plan to shoot could factor into this decision as well.  If you expect to spend a lot of time shooting small birds, or traveling to wide open places like Yellowstone or Africa (where wildlife may be further away in many cases), you may well find yourself missing 600mm.

John mentioned the 150-600 C lens, and I understand it's not quite the same, as from what I've heard the Sigma S version of that lens is superior.  However, he mentions an important point about the weight.  The 100-400 is easily hand-holdable, but depending on your fitness level (or even regardless of it), you may find the Sigma awkward or too heavy to use without a tripod.  This isn't always important, but some folks do appreciate having a portable long lens to take on hikes, boat excursions or elsewhere where a tripod may not make sense, and the 100-400 certainly fits the bill.

Max

While Sigma, Tamron, Tokina make excellent lenses and fill an important niche for those with budget limitations, it's exceedingly rare to ever find a third party lens that will outperform on an absolute basis the lens by your camera manufacturer whether Canon, Nikon, or anybody else.   So, if money is not the issue, go with Canon (and in this case the difference is small anyway).

Here are some other factors I didn't see mentioned:

• Canon 100-400 version II is much more robust in both construction and weathersealing
• Sigma takes a much larger filter 105mm vs 77mm for the Canon.  The cost difference can be significant.
• With the 7D2, you can add the 1.4x teleconverter and NOT lose autofocus.  In concert with the crop factor effect, at 400mm you're over 600mm anyway.

Good luck!  Have fun no matter what you buy!!  :-)
 

Ed, John, Max & John,

Thank you for your insight, which is helpful. While I am and have been leaning towards the Canon lens I still wanted input from others. The weight of the Sigma due to its size is definitely a disadvantage for hand held, which is a majority of my photography.

Any further comments will be greatly appreciated. THANK YOU.

Some interesting dialog.  One aspect I look at is resale value.  I can tell you from experience that Canon lenses that have been cared for hold their value very well.  I've seen several people in the last year trade a Sigma (or Tamron) 150-600 that they owned for less than a year see the resale value at 50% or less of the original value.  

Keith,

This is interesting because I have a Sigma 50 - 500 lens that I purchased approx 4 years ago and when I looked into trading it in I was being offered about 40 % of what I paid for it. Obviously I probably could get more by selling it privately but that has the obvious associated hassles. Thank you.

<div>Richard,  both the Canon and Sigma lenses are excellent.  I was facing a decision like yours a little over a year ago, and discovered that some highly respected bird photographers who had the very expensive Canon 400 and 500 mm. lenses found themselves using the Sigma 150-600 more often than the the larger Canon lenses.  This is due to the Sigma's image quality being close to that of the Canon L lenses (not as good, but need to pixel peep to see a difference), AND equal to the Canon zooms.  But they mostly use the Sigma due to the increased versatility, lighter and smaller, and ability to hand-hold the Sigma.  (One of the guys put his 400mm. up for sale after using the Sigma for a year.)  I ended up buying the lighter (but just as sharp) C version of the Sigma, while a close friend bought the new Canon 100-400.  After seeing my pictures (out to 600mm), he also purchase the new Canon 1.4X TC, and now uses that combo most of the time (100-400 + TC).  He is shooting at f/8, while I am shooting at f/6.3 (faster at shorter focal lengths) because I have no TX to reduce light transmission.  We both use 7D2s and you can't see any difference in resolution between our two setups.  The Canon, however, does have about 1 stop better image stabilization.  (He hates tripods, so that's the best choice for him.  I always used monopods and tripods a lot, so that's not important for me.)  ALSO, the Canon focuses much closer, so it's better for hyper-telephoto macro shots.  (I use my 150 mm f/2.8 macro for that, often with a 1.4X TC, which is much faster than the huge lenses).  In general, we now get about the same pictures in the same situation.  I spent $900 for the Sigma, while my friend spent somewhere around $2,500 for the Canon + TC. </div> <div>
YOU SHOULD REALLY READ THIS THREAD ON NPN:   (Right-click to open in New Tab -->)   Sigma 150-600 Contemporary Lens Review by Nate Chapel.  (http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=78552&CGISESSID=657ca48bb310f074626f91fb650b1a30&u=26793)

______________________________________________________________

P.S.  Just found that I did no delete my final pro/con list that I made while shopping:

 Sigma 150-600mm vs. New Canon 100-400 -- MY SUMMARY, Nov. 2015:</div>   <div> TWO VERSIONS:  C (Contemporary) is lighter, but no weather seal except for lens mount; weighs 4.3 lb. -- $ 1,089
                S (Sport) built like a tank and weather sealed very well, BUT WEIGHS 6.3 POUNDS -- $1,999
                  (Note, I kept my EXCELLENT copy of the older Canon 100-400 for shooting in the rain -- rarely use it.) 
      PROs:  - JUST AS SHARP AS CANON out to 400mm. (even sharper at some shorter focal lengths)*
             - JUST AS FAST AS CANON, out to 387 mm.
             - MORE REACH, AND EVEN FASTER THAN CANON if you use Canon 1.4X
                -- only dips to f/6.3 from 388 to 600 mm.! (Canon would be f/8 with 1.4x out to 560mm.)   
             - Way cheaper, since no TX needed to get same speed and IQ as Canon.
      CONs:  - 3 Stops of IS, compared to 4 on the new Canon.
             - Sports Model weighs 6.3 pounds - but great build and weatherseal  (but nobody enjoys carrying it.)
             - only focuses to 8.5 ft. compared to 3.2 ft. for new Canon.  (Not as big a drawback as it appears -- see below)
                (Sigma is 50% longer, so magnification is only 1/3 smaller, not 1/2:  Factor is 0.2x Sigma vs. 0.31x. Canon)
   
         *See  OBJECTIVE TEST DATA ONLINE (www.ephotozine.com) SHOWS THAT THIS LENS 
               AS SHARP AS THE NEW CANON 100-400 -- AND QUITE GOOD even out to 600mm.
_______________________________</div>   <div>      A note about "third party" lenses:  SOME of the sigma lenses are better than same focal length made by camera makers.  (For instance, the Sigma 50-500 is not so good, but the 150-600 is on the same level of performance as the Canon zooms.  Most newer Sigma primes outperform older Canon/Nikon primes.)  Objective testing shows the results, so you need to do the research, especially scientific tests to make an objective decision.  Blanket statements about all lenses of one brand being better than those of another brand are usually made in ignorance, except possibly for statements about resale value.  You need to decide if are buying a lens to make the best photos or to make the best deal if and when you sell it, but remember, if the more expensive brand costs twice as much as the other lens, you can still end up spending more to own it in the end.  Do the math.  (e.g. If my friend sells his $2,500 Canon lens + TC for $2,000, he spent $500 to use it.  If I sell my $900 Sigam for $500, I spent $400 to use it. If we DON'T sell our lenses, I can spend the $1,600 I saved to buy more lenses, tripods, etc. (which I did).  So resale does not mean much if they both take the same quality pictures.  Just get the product that will do the best job for you.)

AND... ANOTHER NEW 150-600 TO LOOK AT (Wait for the objective scientific tests.) (Right-click to open in New Tab -->) Tamron announces 2nd generation SP 150-600mm Di VC USD 'G2'   (https://www.dpreview.com/news/6044873650/tamron-announces-2nd-generation-sp-150-600mm-di-vc-usd-g2)</div>

LENS TESTS:  I ALWAYS look for these tests when shopping for lenses.  Did a quick search and found the following tests for the New Generation 2 Tamron.  (I have not really considered this because I already have the Sigma, but it looks like one that might be in the same class.)  You can look up tests for all the other lenses in this range on the same Web sites to make comparisons. <div>
http://www.popphoto.com/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-63-di-vc-usd-g2-lens-review#page-8
 </div> <div>https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-g2-review-30082
 </div> <div>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx
 </div> <div>https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-SP150-600mm-F5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-G2-Canon-review-Upgrading-a-classic

  My note: DXO tests found that the Canon 100-400 is sharper than the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses, but   fails to consider the real-life fact that the longer reach of the 150-600 lenses really does produce better pictures when you need those longer focal lengths.  If the longer lenses were not sharp at 500+ mm, cropping 400 mm. shots might give you better pictures, but the 150-600 mm. lenses ARE sharp at the focal lengths that the 100-400 just does not have.  Adding a 1.4 TX to the 100-400 eats up some light (1 stop) but does produce comparable results.  In then end, this means the choice boils down to factors other than image quality at the longer focal lengths, such as budget, prestige, weather proofing, weight/size, etc.</div>

Richard, thank you for asking this question, and thanks to everyone who has answered, especially Wayne for providing all the comparisons.
I have been asking myself the same question.  I have the old 100-400 L, and it is my most-used lens. (I have a 70-200 that I very, very rarely use.)  Now I am trying to decide if the 150-600 is for me.  I too have looked at the C versus te S models.  Interestingly, I found several of those reviews where people said the C did better than the S for light transmission and sharpness.
  I am primarily a landscape person, so I think I might just be coveting this thing.....  imagine that,  but I am really interested to see all the responses to this.

Wayne thank you for your response, which was very helpful.

Genny you are welcome. I too have the anon 70 - 200 - 2.8 lens and that is my primary lens. I have the Sigma 50 - 500 but I am not particularly happy with it. With the Sigma 150 - 600 the C model certainly has some advantages over the S model (weight & cost) I would be concerned about it being out in the environments that I sometimes are in.

I am certainly leaning towards the Cannon 100 - 400 II with the 1.4 converter, but wanted to ask this group because of the amazing amount of knowledge, experience and input that is available.

I am truly grateful for all the responses, which I take very seriously. I still plan to wait a few weeks to look for more info due to it being a large investment.

Thank you.

Wayne,
Who are the highly respected bird photographers using the Sigma lenses?  I've not seen any other than the ones supported by Sigma.
JR

To all,

Thank you for all your suggestions and comments. I have decided to go with the Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5 - 5.6 L IS II USM with the 1.4 tele converter.

Thank you again.