Re: 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.
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 Sima is IMO by far the best choice on a budget and results are still excellent.
Apr 29, 2019 at 05:47 PM
Previous versions of Pixel Perfect's message #14836635 « Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 C compared to Canon 400mm f/5.6 »
