p.1 #7 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Got to wonder- given that the Sigma is being shot at a wider aperture, wouldn't it be a closer contest if it were shot at the same effective aperture as the Canon combination? And wouldn't that allow one to use all of the focus points, possibly providing better auto-focus?
At 40% of the price, you give up the better handling of the Canon lens, but you likely gain if you're actually reach limited .
p.1 #9 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
johnctharp wrote:
Got to wonder- given that the Sigma is being shot at a wider aperture, wouldn't it be a closer contest if it were shot at the same effective aperture as the Canon combination? And wouldn't that allow one to use all of the focus points, possibly providing better auto-focus?
At 40% of the price, you give up the better handling of the Canon lens, but you likely gain if you're actually reach limited .
1. I purchase a lens based on how well it performs at its largest aperture, therefore that is how I test and compare them.
p.1 #10 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Imagemaster wrote:
1. I purchase a lens based on how well it performs at its largest aperture, therefore that is how I test and compare them...
For long lenses, me too. It should get better when stopped down a bit (but that's not always the case for long lenses), but wide open performance rules for moving subjects that (hopefully) inhabit the central portion of the image.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Thanks for the effort in putting this comparison together. I'm not surprised at the results. I think the fact that the Canon was the sharper lens even though it used an extender says quite a bit about both lenses.
p.1 #12 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Imagemaster wrote:
1. I purchase a lens based on how well it performs at its largest aperture, therefore that is how I test and compare them.
2. This is a comparison of IQ, not AF.
I'm not complaining, and I agree on the point as presented.
Another way to look at it is that the 100-400L II is the superior lens in every way except reach, and that if one accepts the limitation of f/8 autofocus, it's still competitively sharp when used with a 1.4x.
And it's going to be a personal thing, assuming no budget requirements; if most of one's shooting is at or below 400mm, the Canon lens makes more sense, but if one shoots mostly at 500mm-600mm, the Sigma lens(s) make a bit more sense- and if one is budget limited, the Sigma C lens makes a whole lot more sense!
p.1 #13 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
To me the only fair comparison is to shoot the Sigma at f8 and see how they compare. I don't think anyone buys the Tamron or the Sigma's to shoot at f6.3 (or at least they shouldn't as it is widely known that they are quite a bit sharper at f8). So you are comparing one combo at f8 the other should be f8 as well. Then and only then can you compare the 2 combinations.
Well that is your opinion. There are many people that buy any brand of lens and shoot wide open for a number of reasons. If I were comparing a Canon 500 f4 to a Sigma 500 f4.5, I would do comparison tests shooting with both wide open. If you want to compare both at f8, feel free to do your own testing.
p.1 #14 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Being weight limited rather than budget limited I would go for the C. The Canon is not superior in bang for buck as a 100-400 + TC is in excess of $3000Au whereas the Sigma is $1245. Having sold my 500 f4 IS & 300 f2.8 IS I am in no way budget limited. Just cash wise.
Our government has just allowed us small businesses to purchase items up to $20,000 & allow for tax in the first year. Great for those of us that pay cash & have several small businesses.
p.1 #15 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
johnctharp wrote:
Got to wonder- given that the Sigma is being shot at a wider aperture, wouldn't it be a closer contest if it were shot at the same effective aperture as the Canon combination? And wouldn't that allow one to use all of the focus points, possibly providing better auto-focus?
At 40% of the price, you give up the better handling of the Canon lens, but you likely gain if you're actually reach limited .
But then what's the point of having a faster aperture if you have to stop down. I shoot wide open 90% of the time and only stop down for DOF, even when using the old 100-400L + 1.4x combo. It'd be nice to have the 2/3 stop shutter speed/ISO advantage of the Sigma.
These results for the Sigma don't seem as good as those posted in the other large thread, where I saw excellent results at 600mm from the C version.
Also I'd wonder how AF compares between the Sigma and 100-400L II + 1.4x. Most report the Sigma focuses pretty quickly.
p.1 #16 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
I believe Isaac has a point about comparing them both at f/8. I shoot my C mainly at f/8 for DOF and the additional sharpness. Your comparison at 546mm shows the C to be comparable at f/6.3 only giving up 14mm in reach versus 40mm with them at max FL. My guess is the AF speed would go to the C with the TC attached too.
Bare the 100-400 is hard to beat for IQ, MFD, weight, and versatility. The C gives you great performance in FL limited situations at half the price of the 100-400. I settled for a 70-300L for versatility and MFD and the C for FL limited situations for less than the 100-400 II and the 1.4x III TC so I sold the latter.
p.1 #17 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
It's totally valid to compare the EX 150-600 OS C and EF 100-400L IS II + 1.4X at f/8, but that begs the question... Why would you carry a heavier lens?
The EF 100-400L is considerably smaller and lighter than the EX 150-600 C. In some circumstances, I'll happily lug around 'extra weight', if that gives me 'extra capability'. IOW, if the EX 150-600 C isn't better at f/5.6 than the EF 100-400 + 1.4x at f/8, then why would I take the extra effort to carry the EX around? I'd take the effort if I got equivalent IQ at a faster stop, but not for equivalent IQ at the same stop (from a much larger and heavier lens).
p.1 #18 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
jcolwell wrote:
It's totally valid to compare the EX 150-600 OS C and EF 100-400L IS II + 1.4X at f/8, but that begs the question... Why would you carry a heavier lens?
The EF 100-400L is considerably smaller and lighter than the EX 150-600 C. In some circumstances, I'll happily lug around 'extra weight', if that gives me 'extra capability'. IOW, if the EX 150-600 C isn't better at f/5.6 than the EF 100-400 + 1.4x at f/8, then why would I take the extra effort to carry the EX around? I'd take the effort if I got equivalent IQ at a faster stop, but not for equivalent IQ at the same stop (from a much larger and heavier lens)....Show more →
I've mostly been reading others' posts, but wanted to add my two cents' worth in regards to the weight of the lenses in question, as I own both the Canon 100-400L II and the Sigma 150-600 C, as well as the 1.4X III.
I just pulled out both lenses and weighed them on a digital scale, the Sigma bare versus the Canon with the 1.4X TC III attached. The Canon has the replacement Kirk foot, and the Sigma has a small Arca Swiss style QR plate. Both lenses have Lens Coats on them. (For the Sigma, I repurposed the Lens Coat from the Tamron 150-600, which actually works pretty well with the Sigma.) Here are the relative weights:
Sigma: 2255 grams
Canon + 1.4 TC: 2051 grams
So, the Sigma weighs 204 grams more, or 0.72 ounces more, or less than a half pound more than the Canon plus 1.4X TC. Just to put in perspective that the Sigma is heavier, but not significantly heavier.
p.1 #20 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Here's my take on the comparison:
1. 100-400 II + 1.4 TC (560mm) is sharper than the Sigma at 600mm
2. Sigma at 546mm is slightly sharper than Canon at 560mm.
I do not address the f-stop issue. Just addressing what I see.
.