p.2 #1 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
Also for someone like me who does a good amount of close up shooting with my 7d2 I really take advantage of all of the focus points that I can quickly adjust with the multi controller. Bird turns left and I change the focus point to keep focus on the eye. Bird turns right and I can do the same thing. If I only had access to center point plus 4 surrounding points then that would greatly change the way I would have to shoot in many situations. Composing the shots would be very hard when at close range. id="130117801" style="display:none;"> Again pro Sigma ...Show more →
Not sure how close you are talking, but the bare Canon will run rings around the Sigma.
Ability to have custom settings controlled by the dock is pro Sigma. I can have C1 set to dynamic os and focus priority, and C2 set to other settings. Or can turn them off and just use the factory settings.Plus can change the focus limiter distances depending on the type of shooting you do. Plus have access to do firmware updates the second they are available. ...Show more →
Perhaps the Canon is so well-built and designed that it does not need any such custom settings, for whatever they are worth.
[quote} Another pro is that the Sigma can have a 1.4x attached to it as well giving you 840mm. ...Show more →
But according to you, it does not sound like a pro:
Isaac Grant wrote:
Also returned the sigma 1.4x. Could not get a single in focus shot with it. Tried it on 4 occasions in strong sun. Not sure if I had a bad copy or what.
p.2 #2 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
I think a comparison at f8 will answer some of those questions. Here are a few pro Sigma points (assuming IQ at 600 when stopped down is the same as the Canon or much closer than the examles posted here)
$1,089 as opposed to $2,199 for the lens plus $425 (?) for the 1.4x = $2,624 So a $1,500 savings
Also for someone like me who does a good amount of close up shooting with my 7d2 I really take advantage of all of the focus points that I can quickly adjust with the multi controller. Bird turns left and I change the focus point to keep focus on the eye. Bird turns right and I can do the same thing. If I only had access to center point plus 4 surrounding points then that would greatly change the way I would have to shoot in many situations. Composing the shots would be very hard when at close range. Again pro Sigma
Ability to have custom settings controlled by the dock is pro Sigma. I can have C1 set to dynamic os and focus priority, and C2 set to other settings. Or can turn them off and just use the factory settings.Plus can change the focus limiter distances depending on the type of shooting you do. Plus have access to do firmware updates the second they are available.
Plus have an additional 40mm in focal length. Not major but still when shooting small birds I would say that I need to crop just about every time. The more reach I have the better.
Another pro is that the Sigma can have a 1.4x attached to it as well giving you 840mm.
While individually each of these things may not be a deal breaker one way or the other, but combined they paint another picture. A $1,500 cheaper, slightly longer and more customizable lens that when stopped down to f8 produces very similar IQ. Clearly the Canon has advantages as well, such as MFD, size and weight.
The point you make about the focus points would be the most important to me. I am heavily considering this lens because of the ability to have all my points. Center point only with my 100-400II+1.4 is very limiting when you get close enough to the birds for frame filling images. That is why I often am using my 300II+2x instead these days as it gives me all AF points (and better IQ). Next time I see the Sigma in stock I may just pull the trigger.
p.2 #3 · 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 agree and the Canon doesn't need stopping down even with the 1.4x attached, and if the Sigma does and has to be shot at f/8 then it loses a huge amount of appeal IMO, which is why I didn't get the Tamron. Most reports are the Sigma's are better at 600mm but by how much I'm not sure.
The most disappointing is the S version of the Sigma, ~ 3kg and still f/6.3 and supposedly only improved IQ in the extremities, hardly an issue for wildlife/birding. For it's weight the lens needed to be a true f/5.6 and even then it'd still be on the porky side
p.2 #6 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
I really have no clue what your problem is, but it seems you should do a much better job of taking pictures and spend less time trying to sound important online. Your examples of the type of resolution that the Sigma gets is terrible. Honestly have no clue how you manage to take such bad pictures with it. Also the examples you use to prove some ridiculous point are beyond childish.
My problem is that you make all-encompassing statements without all the facts to back them up. So you returned the Tamron? Since others manage to get great shots with it, maybe you should have done a much better job of taking pictures with it, eh? Same goes for your shots with the 1.4x TC. Did you not know what you were doing? We know you could not have had a faulty copy because you are insinuating that my 150-600 is identical to yours. Shows how much you know about quality control and variances in the same lens models.
Again, you are stripping EXIF from your images even though you were requested not to and told how not to.
And you ignore contradictions to false statements that you make, like all images on one thread being yours and nobody wanting to use a lens wide-open.
You assume that other copies of your Sigma will perform identically to yours, yet say:
Isaac Grant wrote:
Also returned the sigma 1.4x. Could not get a single in focus shot with it. Tried it on 4 occasions in strong sun. Not sure if I had a bad copy or what.
How could you have a bad copy of the 1.4x TC when you have assumed that I don't have a bad copy of the 150-600.
p.2 #7 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
gavin_emmons wrote:
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. ...Show more →
OK, so the Sigma is a bit heavier. The Sigma is also a lot bigger. Consider the volume of a cylinder or container that just fits each lens diameter and length. The Sigma cylinder is almost twice the volume of the Canon: 2252 mm^3 vs. 1339 mm^3. I'm not counting the Extender because you can fit that in just about anywhere.
p.2 #8 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
I didn't say all images were mine, I said the sharp ones were
Quite sad, you can't even remember what you said, or you are a liar:
Isaac Grant wrote:
And by the way, I am the one who posted all the shots with the Sigma C in the other thread.
Do I know how to use a converter? Let see, I attached it, pressed the shutter and it hunts in all situations. Made sure I had high contrast situations, shot in bright sun, aimed at close and far subjects, shot on and off of a tripod, used servo and one shot, used single point auto focus and expanded zone, shot at f9-f13 and every other combination. In all situations the focus was consistently terrible. Kind of like the photos you get with the Sigma.
p.2 #10 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
I managed great shots with the Tamron. Had it for a year. It is a very good lens, but just not as good as the Sigma.
Yet, there are many who think the Tamron is just as good. I guess they just don't know how to take good pictures, or should be shooting at f8, eh?
Next to each picture I posted is the name of the bird that is underlined. Click on that link and it takes you to my flickr. On that page you will find the exif. I post these pictures by cutting and pasting the bbc code. Can't honestly remember what people said about including exif. But if someone would care to explain how to do it I am happy to make sure it is included.
Many FM'ers don't have the time or inclination to go clicking on links to take them to other sites just to view the exif.
If you would subscribe to Fred's Upload & Sell Membership, you would only have to put a check in the "Show Exif" box, and you would be helping to support this site.
While you are there you can go to my photostream and find about 1,000 shots with the Tamron that are all of much better quality than what you are getting with the Sigma. Feel free to have a look.
Feel free to search my 36,000 shots over the last 11 years on the Nature & Wildlife Forum and you may find a few that are of much better quality than I am getting with the Sigma. So what?
And I didn't say that no one wants to use a lens wide open. Obviously it would be great if the Sigma was as sharp at f6.3 as it was at f8 but that is not the case. When buying this or any lens people need to know what they are dealing with. The lens is sharper at f8 (or at least it is when I use it). You are just not going to get the use of all focus points, ability to use custom settings, longer reach and the other mentioned advantages without a cost. The cost is that the lens performs better at f8. Which is the equivalent as what you would get with the Canon plus 1.4x. ...Show more →
The Sigma is certainly a great lens for the price. The bare Canon is far better in nearly every way for those that only want to shoot from 100-400mm. And in that range, it is better at f5.6 than the Sigma at f8. IMO
This thread is showing comparison shots between the two lenses, and you have not shown a single comparison shot because you have none from the Canon combo to show.
p.2 #11 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Imagemaster wrote:
So far, I am finding the Canon combo sharper than the Sigma at 600mm. The Sigma's IQ comes closer when taken down to the 500-550mm range.
p.2 #12 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
I have the 100-400 II, 1.4TC III, and have been kicking around picking up the Sigma 150-600 C. But for me, shooting racecars as opposed to birds or other smaller things that don't follow a predetermined path, I can normally get by with the single AF & assist points you get when shooting the 100-400 at f/8.
That being said, I was still being swayed towards the Sigma due to the good price, as well as the ability to get reach out to 840mm (with 1.4TC, obviously) those few situations a year that I could benefit from it.
As opposed to f/8 vs. f/6.3 arguments, to me the decision for many will come down to whether they want to spend $2k on the Canon vs. $1k for the Sigma, and/or do they need more AF points for what they shoot over 400mm?
p.2 #13 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
Seems you have lost it. I was responding to the person who said that they saw very good examples with the Sigma on another thread. In my opinion the other shots posted are not good examples of what the lens can do so I said that I am the one who posted all the shots (not every shot on the thread) that he was referring to as being sharper than what you have posted.
Seems you never found it in the first place. I am the one who posted all the shots (not every shot on the thread)
"all" the shots means "every" shot. Do you have a dictionary?
I must remember that when you write "all" that you don't mean "every".
All it proves is that the Sigma converter that I got does not work well. I know quite well how to use them. I have heard on another forum that the Canon 1.4x iii works much better than the Sigma that I got. Not sure why that would be the case but multiple people reported good success with it, and some said that they had equally bad success as I did with the Sigma.
Yet you can't understand how others could possibly have a defective converter or lens? You know it all, yet you have no idea if my copy of the lens performs identically to yours.
Send me your copy and I will do a comparison. After all, "comparison" means you have more than one object to compare.
p.2 #15 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Isaac Grant wrote:
Can't speak for others but I can tell you that to me the Tamron is not as good. I had about as much experience as anyone with that lens. Got it at the very beginning of the 2nd batch that went out. Got it I think in late March of 2014. It is not as sharp as the Sigma. People can say what they want, but if they take shots as lousy as the ones that you have posted here than I give very little if any credence to their opinion.
Blah, blah, blah. This thread is not about the Tamron, yet you can't stop talking about it. Your very first post on this site was whining about how the 400 DO II with a 1.4x TC examples were not as good as your Tamron shots. Too funny. I owned 3 copies of the Tamron, 2 of which were defective. Blah, blah, blah.
We get the point that you think the Sigma and yourself are the greatest. Give it a rest.
I have posted excellent examples of what this lens is capable of. I also have 1,000 plus excellent examples of what the Tamron is capable of. Funny how you don't have the time to hit a link but you have the time to multi quote and go back to other threads to prove some childish point. You also have the time to complain about the lack of exif. Seems like many of your arguments are rather ridiculous.
I make special time just for you to try and correct your childish points.
I do not know why you can not understand that if you want optimal performance out of a very inexpensive zoom lens than it needs to be stopped down. And with regards to this thread, your results when both at f8 where not at all surprising. I did not show a comparison. First correct thing you said. But I did point out an obvious flaw in your comparisons. And since we are all so busy, you don't want me to look through 36,000 bad shots to find a few good ones do you?
We all know that you can't get a decent shot with the Sigma at f6.3. It is a flaw with the lens, hence the price. Do you have any clue as to why people buy a 300 f2.8 lens? Do you know that they want it to be as sharp at f2.8 as at f4? They pay the big bucks for that lens for a reason.
Yes, I would like you to look at all of my 36,000 bad shots, so you can make 36,000 derisive comments.
p.2 #16 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
While I do appreciate any effort for our comparison, I do completely disagree with an IQ quality test that doesnt at least include each at the same Fstop.. You test the 400 1.4 at F8 at 560mm but the 150-600 at f6.3 at 600 instead of 560mm its just apples to oranges...its like testing a 1.8 85mm prime to a 50mm 1.4..then to make it even less relevant that extra stop of light the Sigma is providing you ( given your wanting to test them at each lenses wide open point ) you dont take advantage off by keeping the SS the same and lowering ISO..you tested the Canon at 1/320 and ISO 1600 and the Sigma at 1/500 and ALSO ISO 1600 it would have been a little more relevant ( read fair ) had you shot both at the very least at the same shutter speeds then the 6.3 which is already at a disadvantage for a fair comparison vs F8, might have shown better detail since it would have been a STOP LESS ISO....
I do appreciate the effort but to me what conclusion can one draw from any of it? that a lens at 6.3 instead of f8, at 600mm instead of 560mm, and not leveraging its advantage of taking the same photo at HALF THE ISO for IQ comparison may be sharper but also slower to AF?
Id like to see one with them both at F8 and certainly if you force the Sigma wide open at least take advantage of that light you gained by halving your ISO ( which would have increased feather detail ) ....its just an ODD way to compare something rationally to me....but I myself could certainly be the crazy one here hehe...
But I appreciate ANYONE aking the time to put up ANY photos for each of us to draw our OWN conclusions ( biased or not ) from...so thank you
p.2 #17 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Thanks for the posts. They seem very similar. I echo the thought that an f/8 comparison would be awesome to see, but thanks for what you did anyway, I'm not going to complain about a freebie!
They seem pretty similar. It seems clear the bare 100-400 lens is sharper than the Sigma C (and probably even the Sigma S).
If you ever do more tests what I'd love to know.
1. How does the image stabilization compare between the 1-4 and the sigmaCk.
2. How much real world performance difference is there between them at their maximum magnifications.
p.2 #18 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
sgilbert1967 wrote:
Id like to see one with them both at F8 and certainly if you force the Sigma wide open at least take advantage of that light you gained by halving your ISO ( which would have increased feather detail ) ....its just an ODD way to compare something rationally to me....but I myself could certainly be the crazy one here hehe...
If you had bothered to read page 2, you would see examples from both at f8 and the same ISO.
p.2 #19 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
woos wrote:
Thanks for the posts. They seem very similar. I echo the thought that an f/8 comparison would be awesome to see, but thanks for what you did anyway, I'm not going to complain about a freebie!
If you had bothered to read page 2, you would see examples from both at f8 and the same ISO.
p.2 #20 · Sigma 150-600C versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC
Perhaps an unintelligent question, but I'm wondering if using the 100-400 II bare (with it's higher resolving power, lighter weight, faster AF, shorter MFD, sharper image) and then cropping by a factor of 1.4 or 1.5x in PP might yield just as good or better IQ as the bare Sigma C, albeit with a smaller file (due to cropping)? In other words, rather than use the 1.4 TC, crop it. You get to use all the AF points, preserve the original AF speed, you don't need to buy a 7DII (to get AF with the TC), etc.
But according to you, it does not sound like a pro:
