p.1 #1 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
Hi
I'm considering a new lens for bird and wildlife, and am stuck between these two. Is the Canon better in image quality or focusing speed by a relatively large margin to outweigh the additional versatility the sigma offers? Thanks!
p.1 #2 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
WinstonZ wrote:
Hi
I'm considering a new lens for bird and wildlife, and am stuck between these two. Is the Canon better in image quality or focusing speed by a relatively large margin to outweigh the additional versatility the sigma offers? Thanks!
depends - do you shoot a lot of "BIF" - birds in flight ?
The Canon prime has a faster AF and is sharper at 400mm but the Sigma 150-600 'C' has better image quality at longer distances, it's also much heavier and longer
I use the Sigma 150-600 C for surf shots and birds on a Canon mirrorless
p.1 #4 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
Consider the Canon 100-400 II if you can. Even with the 1.4x III you'll still get about the same image quality as the 150-600, plus much better AF when not using the teleconverter. The IQ of the 100-400 is as good as the 400 5.6 and it has image stabilization which will get you significantly more keepers in low light on static subjects.
p.1 #5 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
Hands down the Sigma IMO is the best bang-for-buck supertele zoom. This lens worked a dream on my 1DX and given it can often be found for under $800 it's ridiculous value in this day and age of high priced gear. Used it for a ton of action and birding.
p.1 #6 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
Lovely photos, but if you're not comparing them against the same shots with a 400 5.6 then I don't think it helps the OP much.
Personally I'd endorse the 100-400 II suggestion, here in the UK they are now consistently below £1000 ( $1300 ) second-hand which is trememdous value for money; yes, expensive in absolute terms but a huge reduction on new price and a fabulous lens.
I recently loaned my 100-400 II to a friend with a 5DSr and he was stunned by the image quality, to the extent that he is now shopping for one! He previously shot with a Sigma 50-500 and Canon 70-200 2.8 and couldn't believe the difference.
p.1 #7 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
I have 100-400L and 150-600 C on a 6D. I have yet to reach a decision on which is better. I get great images from both. I think compared with the 400 5.6 I would go with the Sigma C, just for its versatility. If handling or AF speed is an important criteria then the 400 5.6 would win hands down. The C is a lump of a lens and front heavy. I shoot junior rugby and I use the 100-400L hand held for this, another chap uses a crop sensor and a Sigma C. He finds it difficult to hand hold for the match and uses a stool to sit on and a monopod for support.
The C has relegated my 100-400 from wildlife and birds, mainly because that extra 200mm of reach on the C gets a lot more keepers.
I would agree with the comment that this lens is a bargain for what it delivers, but in Australia the new price is creeping upwards.
p.1 #10 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
WinstonZ wrote:
Hi
I'm considering a new lens for bird and wildlife, and am stuck between these two. Is the Canon better in image quality or focusing speed by a relatively large margin to outweigh the additional versatility the sigma offers? Thanks!
Since the Sigma 60-600 Sport as been released last December if you can wait a bit i am sure that the Sigma 60-600C is will get out in a near futur and also for extra reach you could use the Canon 1.4X III or the Sigma 1.4X converter that would give you 840mm.
Francois.
Apr 29, 2019 at 03:25 PM
Guest
Guest
p.1 #11 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
I think the first version of the 100-400L should also be considered. I know the IS may not be very effective on that one but the 400/5.6L has none at all (looks like a recipe for disaster to me if shooting handheld but YMMV )
p.1 #12 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
luminaire wrote:
Lovely photos, but if you're not comparing them against the same shots with a 400 5.6 then I don't think it helps the OP much.
Personally I'd endorse the 100-400 II suggestion, here in the UK they are now consistently below £1000 ( $1300 ) second-hand which is trememdous value for money; yes, expensive in absolute terms but a huge reduction on new price and a fabulous lens.
I recently loaned my 100-400 II to a friend with a 5DSr and he was stunned by the image quality, to the extent that he is now shopping for one! He previously shot with a Sigma 50-500 and Canon 70-200 2.8 and couldn't believe the difference. ...Show more →
Why do I need to compare them? The IQ of both is excellent, I'm showing the 150-600 is capable of fast action and that IQ is largely irrelevant. The 400 bare, of course, has faster AF, but 400mm is bare minimum FL I use for birding and 150-600 is better than 400 + 1.4 and you get OS. The price of the 100-400II is so much higher it's hard to justify if you're on a budget. I could not tell much difference in IQ between the 100-400II + 1.4x and the 150-600 and AF speed is close. Yes the bare 100-400II is the best and I would recommend that over 400 f/4.6 if you can afford it, but if you can't the Sigma is IMO by far the best choice on a budget and results are still excellent.
p.1 #14 · Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6
WinstonZ wrote:
Hi
I'm considering a new lens for bird and wildlife, and am stuck between these two. Is the Canon better in image quality or focusing speed by a relatively large margin to outweigh the additional versatility the sigma offers? Thanks!
I had both side by side for about 3 months (albeit only on a 700D)
600mm IQ of 150-600 @ f/8 vs. 100-400 II + 1.4X TC III @ f/8 = neck & neck with just a bit more micro contrast going to the Canon. 100-400 without the TC vs. the Siggy, the Canon pulls ahead a bit more, but the Siggy is still a really nice bang / buck kinda glass. If I was "stuck" with the Siggy, I could still get the shot.
I couldn't compare AF @ F/8 on the 700D, so can't speak to that.
Native IS vs. OS, the Canon wins by a fair margin, BUT the Sigma can be improved via the Sigma Dock (didn't have one).
I sold my SIgma and retained the 100-400 II for two primary reasons.
1) MFD of Canon is much closer and I like close MFD stuff
2) Sigma was a bit awkward / heavy on the far end, I preferred handling the Canon even with the TC.
)
