# Canon 100-400 L II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary



## Talys (Aug 21, 2017)

I've owned the Sigma 150-600 F5.0-6.3 Contemporary for a while now and just yesterday bought the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. The main purpose of both lenses is birding and backyard wildlife. 

I thought I'd share my thoughts comparing the two. Originally, I bought the Sigma 150-600C first because of price and reach, but really, I agonized over it. Hopefully, this may help someone else in their decision-making.

First of all, since it was way too late to do anything with my shiny new Canon 100-400 II last night by the time I got home, I set up AFMA, and then decided to test it for image quality versus the Sigma, in my basement. I set up a flattened calibration target on one side, and an Xrite Colorchecker on the other, like so:







To make it apples to apples, they're both photographed at 400mm f/8. Ultimately, this helps the Sigma more than it helps the Canon, as the Sigma's IQ suffers a little wide open. There are a zillion reviews where you can see by how much; I think it's relatively inconsequential, though. 

Here are the full resolution version versions, unedited. These had CWB set against the ColorChecker White Card, but they are otherwise uncorrected. They were originally shot as RAW, and converted in Photoshop using ACR with no manipulation.

Canon: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/IMG_7995_Canon_100-400II.jpg
Sigma: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/IMG_8008_Sigma_150-600C.jpg

For sharpness, I think that they are very, very close. I wouldn't say that one is sharper than the other. However, if you look at the ruled target on the left with the two side by side:






The Canon has visibly better contrast, with whiter whites. We can haggle about the definition of "sharpness" or "pixel level sharpnes" as either bleed or edge contrast, but at the end of the day, cleaner whites and more contrast will appear more sharp in a general sense. And besides, a whiter white is a better thing, so I give the Canon 100-400L II the win over the Sigma 150-600C.

Note that on the target, the print is not a solid black, but a dark grey dithered pattern, which is accurately represented on both lenses.

Interesting aside: When I was setting up and checking focus and exposure, I had my camera set to JPEG (for faster WiFi, since I was verifying focus on PC). The Sigma exhibited a slight, but very unappealing moiré. It didn't appear in any of the RAWs. Just for kicks, I tried it on the Canon, and there was no moiré. However, I always shoot RAW, so this doesn't really matter to me.


Next, here's the ColorCheckr side by side. However, you should use this image only for judging the colors and contrast, as they have both been rotated to be square and then resized. To judge the sharpness, use the original images above, which aren't rotated.






In unedited photos, I favor the Canon, which looks a little more contrasty to me, with a nicer red, green, and blue, but that's probably just taste. When you apply the Xrite corrections, they become indistinguishable, and in the real world, whatever you do in post is probably going to have infinitely more impact.

I will give you some of my thoughts between using both, but before I get to that, I'll share my first pictures -- some animal pictures I shot today, since you made it this far through my rambling 

All of these were shot with the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L II, on a Canon 6D Mark II. The high res images are cropped, but unreduced, so that you can pixel peep if you wish. I was pretty impressed with the ISO 12,800 shot at the end.






Raccoon Family Photo, 1/800 f/5 ISO 4000 135mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Family_Photo_F.JPG





Raccoon Baby, 1/400 f/5 ISO 2500 300mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Baby3_F.jpg





Chickadee, 1/2000 f/5.6 ISO 3200 214mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Chickadee_F.jpg





Chickadee Launch, 1/2000 f/5.6 ISO 3200 200mm





Chickadee Incoming, 1/1250, f/5.6 ISO 12800 400mm, High Res: http://talys.icxi.com/canon100-400/Chickadee_Launch_F.jpg


Now, having used both, here are some thoughts. 

*Things I liked better about the Canon 100-400L II:*

- The Canon 100-400L II is a joy to use. The construction is amazing, _definitely_ a step up from the Sigma 150-600 C in the department of premium feel, first impression, and construction. It's the difference between very nice and awesome, though, so it's not like I don't like the Sigma. I just like the Canon _more_.

- The weight is amazing. It's a well-balanced lens that is great for handheld shots. The Sigma 150-600 is a hard lens to use handheld for a half-day, because it gets very heavy -- around twice the weight of the Canon. This, and focal range, are obviously the two biggest differences between the two lenses.

- The minimum focus distance of the Canon is out of this world short. 3.5 ft versus about 6.5 ft on the Sigma -- approximately, anyhow; I'm going by memory. But I REALLY noticed this, and the use cases that it opens up is pretty huge.

- 100-150 is a very useful focal range.

- The zoom lock lets you lock the lens in place at any zoom level. It's super useful, because you can extend the zoom to 250, 300, whatever -- and keep it there without it creeping to full extension, especially if you walk around with a harness.

- The manual focus ring is superb. On a scale of 10, the Canon is a perfect 10, and the Sigma MF is a super annoying 5, and that's proably being generous. The Sigma ring is very, very narrow (only a few millimeters), relatively stiff, and quite jumpy (tiniest twist can throw focus off). On the other hand, the Canon is butter smooth, responsively fast without being jerky, and very comfortable to use.

- Speaking of focus, Autofocus is very good on the Canon, _definitely_ far superior to the Sigma. At 6.3, the Sigma still has trouble at times; you really need to be wide open and zoomed out to get focus, and even then, the AF speed isn't comparable.

- IS Mode 3 is available, which makes it so that IS only kicks in the moment the shutter is going to open. Cool feature, normally on only Big White Primes. It is useful in that you don't have to fight IS to focus.

- Both the Canon and Sigma come with very nice lens hoods. Yeah, it's just a lens hood, but still. The Canon one has a little door at the bottom, which is really sweet -- you can adjust polarizing/ND filters without taking the hood off. 


*Things I liked better about the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary:*

- The elephant in the room is the price, of course. It's one third the price of the Canon. The Sigma is much better priced for casual use. (pricing note: for some reason, the Sigma is cheaper in Canada. It comes out to about $800 USD, versus about $1,000 USD in the US; the Canon, on the other hand is a about $2,050 USD at the current manufacturer's rebate, and I believe $150 or so without).

- And the other elephant in the room is the focal range. 150-600 is massively more. Now, to be fair, the Canon can mitigate this by adding a 1.4x TC, taking it to 140mm-560mm. Thing is, the 1.4TC is about half the price of the Sigma.

- After using both, I prefer the tripod collar on the Sigma. It can be easily and quickly removed and is easier to level because of intelligent markings on the collar and lens. 

- You can update the firmware on the Sigma with the USB dock and you can configure several AF parameters in C1, C2. Plus, you can adjust AF from the USB dock, if you're using a body with AFMA.


*CONCLUSION*

I was really impressed by how well the Sigma held up!

Personally, I see these as complimentary lenses: the Sigma is really too heavy for me to do handheld photography (at least for very long), so it's generally always on a tripod. That gives me the ability to shoot lower ISOs and a little slower shutter speed, which goes well with being on 80D/APSC -- which also gives me more reach (nearly 1000mm of FF equivalent magnification). 

For the Canon 100-400 II, I plan on attaching it to my 6DII to catch birds in flight. Here, high shutter speeds are really important, and because of, well, math, there aren't many ways to shoot 1/2000 at an APSC usable ISO.

On my outings, I plan on taking both, wearing them on a BlackRapid dual harness.

So if I had it to do again, which one would I buy first? Even though I think I like the Canon lens better, I think I would still buy the Sigma first. It is an amazing value, and nearly every shot you can get from a Canon 100-400L II, you could get on a Sigma... it's just that some would be a lot harder.

Which would buy if I could only buy one? Well, in this case, I'd get the Canon, or if I already had the Sigma, I'd sell that and get the Canon (plus TC if I needed the reach), when finances permitted. Ultimately, it's just too good a lens to not own, if you don't think that $2000 is too much to spend on an up-to-400mm telephoto.

But at the end of the day, it depends on what you want to shoot. I think if most of your shooting is handheld, you should get the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L II, if you can afford it. If not, I'd seriously suggest looking into the new Sigma 100-400, because it's really very impressive, and also a fraction of the Canon's price. If you're going to shoot everything on a tripod, I think that the Sigma 150-600 5.0-6.3 Contemporary is the winner.

Either way, they are both great lenses, and I'm very happy to own both!


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 21, 2017)

Talys,

nice review and everything. thank you. just a couple of observations:



> Personally, I see these as complimentary lenses: the Sigma is really too heavy for me to do handheld photography (at least for very long), so it's generally always on a tripod.
> 
> On my outings, I plan on taking both, wearing them on a BlackRapid dual harness.



if Sigma is too heavy for you and always on tripod, it is only logical that you will have to mount the lens on tripod for shooting at your outings. hence conclusion that carrying the lens on the strap would not help you much as you will have to detach the lens from the harness and reattach to tripod head for shooting.
secondly, carrying 2 long and heavy super telephoto lenses on harness hanging of both of your shoulders and swinging around your hips as you move, will kill your back, spine and shoulders really fast. trust me 
I know what it takes to carry Sigma 120 300 F2.8 on Black Rapid single strap. you can feel it. note: I am fit 
you will also have to hold both cams with your left and right hand at all time to avoid cameras swinging as you move 
with 2 lenses I suggest a large and comfortable photo backpack to fit both lenses plus other gear.
I use Lowepro Flipside 500AW. as you can see you can fit another body and Canon 100 400 lens comfortably.

you can keep Sigma lens in the backpack and have the camera and canon lens tripod foot attached to the Blackrapid single. when you need your sigma out, detach Canon, take the sigma out and place Canon lens in backpack.

If you shoot with 2 bodies, you can leave Canon lens on the second body hanging on the Blackrapid strap and get the Sigma with the first body from the back pack, and place Sigma back in backpack once you are done shooting with Sigma.

On unrelated note, do you really need two identical lenses? Man, they are identical... seriously. Your Canon with x1.4 tele converter attached becomes 160 - 560 lens. get a mint slightly used x1.4 Canon TC and sell your Sigma.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 21, 2017)

Talys said:


> Either way, they are both great lenses, and I'm very happy to own both!



Thanks for sharing Talys! I own the 100-400 II, but have never used the Sigma. The Sigma C looks like a terrific lens for the money.

Do you plan to keep both or keep your preference?


----------



## tjbstone (Aug 21, 2017)

Thanks for this review. It has assisted me with some similar decision making.
Look forward to further discussion on this topic.


----------



## Talys (Aug 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> if Sigma is too heavy for you and always on tripod, it is only logical that you will have to mount the lens on tripod for shooting at your outings. hence conclusion that carrying the lens on the strap would not help you much as you will have to detach the lens from the harness and reattach to tripod head for shooting.
> secondly, carrying 2 long and heavy super telephoto lenses on harness hanging of both of your shoulders and swinging around your hips as you move, will kill your back, spine and shoulders really fast. trust me
> I know what it takes to carry Sigma 120 300 F2.8 on Black Rapid single strap. you can feel it. note: I am fit
> you will also have to hold both cams with your left and right hand at all time to avoid cameras swinging as you move
> ...



The weight difficulty, for me, is in holding it up at eye level for any length of time. After a while, holding it past fifteen seconds is like... omg... just let me die  And then, I miss the shot. One thing I should mention, too, is that the sigma has the focus ring is very close to the body, which makes it even heavier to handhold (since all the weight in the front of the lens acts like a lever).

What I'm planning is to do is to attach the 150-600 onto my 80D, for the extra reach, and to seat onto a tripod, because 400mm on FF just won't give enough reach to catch a lot of perched birdies. I could put the 100-400 on an 80D -- and I'll try that for sure, as well as with a 1.4 TC -- but my problem is that now, I give up the high ISO performance, which will, I hope, allow me to shoot better BIF shots. 

Ok, I admit it, maybe I am being too ambitious trying to walk around with 100mm - 1000mm  One problem that I can foresee with walking around with two long lenses is that kneeling down would be more of an issue if the ground is rough (like gravel trails).

By the way, I don't need to unhook the camera to put it on the tripod. What I do is put the blackrapid dongle on the body, and an arca plate on the tripod foot. There is plenty of slack to easily sit the lens onto a tripod, take some shots, and then move on. With the BlackRapid system, it's also pretty easy to detatch if I want.

Another thing that I should mention that's minor but annoying: on the Sigma, the tripod foot has only a screw thread, and it's quite smooth. In practice, if you're taking this on and off a tripod all day, torque generated by the weight in the front of the lens loosens it, even if your arca plate has an L at the end to help keep it square. On the other hand, the tripod foot is nice and square and allows you to use an L attachment at the end of a 70mm or 90mm plate; on the Canon, the foot is too rounded for that to be of much use.

For the Canon, the tripod foot has both a screw thread and a second hole for a centering pin (usually spring loaded; the type you see on lots of 70mm+ plates for pan heads). Of course, now, I need to find/get an arca plate with one, as my only plates with that are ones that are not arca-swiss


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 21, 2017)

sounds like a plan to me! 

just wanted to clarify something:



> What I do is put the blackrapid dongle on the body, and an arca plate on the tripod foot. There is plenty of slack to easily sit the lens onto a tripod, take some shots, and then move on. With the BlackRapid system, it's also pretty easy to detach if I want.



If I understood correctly, you attach Blackrapid to the body and leave the long and heavy lens hanging of the body as you walk.. is that correct?
if so, I should note that this is not the best practice. you can kill the lens mount with such a heavy and long lens.
I have attached photos of my setup. Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports, 70mm Arca Swiss (Generic PU70) plate occupies 2 out of 3 mounting holes and I use the third one for BlackRapid plate attachment. you end up with a better balanced system as well. you do not need to detach the strap for tripod mounting. 

*p.s. just realised that there is a single mounting hole available on Sigma Contemporary lens. there is solution for that as well:
*
https://www.kirkphoto.com/lens-plate-for-sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-contemporary.html

as you can see there are 3 1/4" accessory mounting holes. you can attach the blackrapid plate to either mounting hole for transportation. remove for tripod mounting. I marked the one that I would use.


----------



## Talys (Aug 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> If I understood correctly, you attach Blackrapid to the body and leave the long and heavy lens hanging of the body as you walk.. is that correct?
> if so, I should note that this is not the best practice. you can kill the lens mount with such a heavy and long lens.
> I have attached photos of my setup. Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports, 70mm Arca Swiss (Generic PU70) plate occupies 2 out of 3 mounting holes and I use the third one for BlackRapid plate attachment. you end up with a better balanced system as well. you do not need to detach the strap for tripod mounting.



Wow, I didn't know that about potentially damaging the lens mount. Thank you for pointing that out to me, as well as for the recommendations on the plate!

On the subject of lens mount, I the Sigma 150-600 has a very small amount of play on some of my bodies, including 80D (always did, since day 1), but none on my 6D2. The Canon 100-400 fits perfectly on every Canon EF body I own, right back to T2i. I contacted Sigma, and they told me that a small amount of play was normal.

Do you think the Canon 100-400 is also too heavy to attach from the body, or should I use a similar setup for that too?

Thanks much.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 22, 2017)

No worries. 

The play on some of your bodies is normal as your Sigma is not a weather sealed lens. There is a rubber gasket on your Canon lens mount that tighten tolerances up. 
Your Canon 100-400 weight is 1570gr. I would attach blackrapid strap to tripod mount for camera mount protection and for better balance as well. My 70-200 II L lens weight is roughly the same at 1470gr and I always hook the strap to tripod mount when I shoot with a single body.

However, when I shoot with two bodies, I _remove_ tripod collar of my 70-200 II L lens all together to reduce the weight and run and gun with 24-70 and 70-200 lenses in Spider Pro Dual holster.
both lenses hang off the bodies, but.. there is a but.. with Spider Pro Dual holster, long lens leans against my hips and that reduces dynamics of the load at least some what. The lens does not bounce around and that certainly gives me more confidence in situation.
Also, I figured out that there are multiple ways of attaching the pin to Spider Pro plate. By default the camera sits in the holster horizontally, bottom up and with weight of the lens pushed across your body. 
there are four 1/4" mounting holes on the Spider Pro plate. I attach the pin to the centre most hole and mount the camera in vertical position with the lens pointing down instead. That improves balance and reduces torque applied to the camera mount by heavy lens.
Another benefit of this method is that the lens does not stick out too much and less chances of banging the lens as you zoom around. 

With strap, I would not risk attaching it to the body directly with 1500kg heavy lens attached. 
My opinion: use tripod mount with your blackrapid strap with every lens that comes with tripod mount.





Talys said:


> Wow, I didn't know that about potentially damaging the lens mount. Thank you for pointing that out to me, as well as for the recommendations on the plate!
> 
> On the subject of lens mount, I the Sigma 150-600 has a very small amount of play on some of my bodies, including 80D (always did, since day 1), but none on my 6D2. The Canon 100-400 fits perfectly on every Canon EF body I own, right back to T2i. I contacted Sigma, and they told me that a small amount of play was normal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> No worries.
> 
> The play on some of your bodies is normal as your Sigma is not a weather sealed lens. There is a rubber gasket on your Canon lens mount that tighten tolerances up.



I don't think it has anything to do with weather sealing, but rather the weight of the lens. The Sigma has a rubber gasket on the mount. My old 70-200mm f2.8IS was lose the on my camera bodies as well.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 22, 2017)

Just an observation:
All my first generation Sigma Art (non weather protected) lenses are a bit loose in the mount. But 135 Art is weather protected and is pretty tight. Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports is also tight. Coincidence? It may well be. 



Ryananthony said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > No worries.
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Aug 22, 2017)

Talys said:


> ...



Great pictures! Wonder where do you live if you have a whole coon family visiting you?


----------



## Talys (Aug 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> My opinion: use tripod mount with your blackrapid strap with every lens that comes with tripod mount.



I will take that advice. I wore the 100-400 that way today, and it was quite comfortable. On the long Sigma, I was used to the length of the lens kind of wrapping behind my leg. Oh well, I will adjust 

Thank you for all of your help and suggestions! 



Jopa said:


> Great pictures! Wonder where do you live if you have a whole coon family visiting you?



Thanks! I'm on the west coast of Canada, near Vancouver. They're very cool. She comes in the spring to have babies under our deck, and then moves out late in the fall when they get bigger. If it's a very harsh winter, they'll come and hide out there, too. Kind of nice because she gets rid (eats) of all the mice when she comes too 

We are a popular destination because we don't haze them out, and there is a creek nearby for water. Plus, plenty of edibles - two plum trees that have fruit for a good 5 months or so, a big yard, rodents, plenty of bugs, and if they get really lucky, eggs from birdies that nested too low.

Last year, I was taking a moon shoot (the super moon), and missed out on the REAL shot, because I didn't have the right gear with me: a mother raccoon, plus 3 babies looking at me with my camera and tripod, then turning at the moon, wondering what was so going on. It was hilarious!

I managed to get this one today, a happy moment. Male downy woodpecker -


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 22, 2017)

Talys said:


> Thanks! I'm on the west coast of Canada, near Vancouver.



Me too! Pitt Meadows.


----------



## alvarow (Aug 22, 2017)

100-400 II it's just too good a lens to not own!

I started with a used Tamron G1 150-600, and I liked it but stumbled on a Sigma brand new with the dock for the same money I could see the Tamron, so I did... I also enjoyed the Sigma, but I kept telling myself it wasn't too big and cumbersome, then I tried the 400 L 5.6 prime from a friend and it was much lighter and the pictures at 400mm cropped to 600mm equiv were sharper than the Sigma at 600mm. At 400mm it was a toss really, perhaps the Sigma being better because it had IS, but after I found that from 400 to 600 things get worse really fast I simply waited for a sale of the 100-400 II and that was the best decision for me. The lens is much more manageable to carry around and the IQ is much better than Sigma if you need to shoot wide open. At f8 it is a toss, but if you need the speed then things are noticeably better on the Canon. 

I recently got the 6DII and I haven't gone out yet with the 100-400 II, but on the 80D the Canon is the winner for me, IF, and that's a big IF, you can spring the extra dollars for it, if you you'll be happy with the results from Sigma as well.


----------



## canon1dxman (Aug 22, 2017)

Funnily enough, been down the same route. Bought the Sigma in kit form with the 1.4x at a crazy price in 2016 at a Park Cameras UK event. Loved the long reach but found it a pain for hand held over long periods. 
At the same event in 2017 they had the Canon at £1500 so I bought it to go with my 1DX2. Absolutely love it. Sold the Sigma easily to a guy with an original 6D. He also loved it but couldn't get on with the weight, hand held, so he sold it too and bought the new Sigma 100-400.
Both of us now very happy campers!


----------



## Jopa (Aug 23, 2017)

Talys said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Great pictures! Wonder where do you live if you have a whole coon family visiting you?
> ...



That's awesome!  Don't worry much about the REAL shot - you'll get it sooner or later.

If you ever have extra raccoons - please send them to Mid Tennessee. Rodents recently chewed up some wires in our van, and the repair is going to cost me $500+ (I could have spent this towards the upcoming 85/1.4!!!).


----------



## Talys (Aug 27, 2017)

@SecureGSM - Thanks for your recommendations. I found this arca plate on Amazon, that does the trick pretty well, for about USD$11:

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01FQ3YRGI/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1






It seems quite solidly manufactured and well-machined. It fits into a Movo gimbal and most generic arca heads; it does NOT fit into a Manfrotto Xpro ball head (xpro version), which is very picky and needs at least one side to to have a shaper wedge.

The dimensions may be deceptive -- it is very wide. The length of the arca portion is longer than the foot on the Sigma 150-600C.

There is no stop screw for the front. However, if you put a blackrapid bobble on the back for the clip, that acts as a safety "screw" for the back, and prevents the camera from sliding forward off the tripod, which is the more dangerous likelihood (as opposed to sliding back into you).

In practice, it works quite well for sling it forward into a slightly loosened arca plate.


----------



## Talys (Aug 27, 2017)

So, more stuff to report.

First, the 1.4 III teleconverter is not really a solution for birds in flight, in my opinion, at least not on 6DII. Maybe it would work better on a 5DIV; I didn't have one to try. 

At F8, the 6DII's autofocus is just too slow, even in full daylight. It _works_, but even more poorly than 600mm/6.3 on the Sigma. If you have a slow, gently gliding big bird, you get the odd focused shot in, but generally, both are pretty terrible, compared to 400mm at 5.6, which is instant AF. The worst is when it doesn't lock, and hunts for a couple of seconds.

The solution I ended up packing was 6D2 with 100-400 II on a blackrapid for handheld shots (but with an arca plate in case I wanted to put it on a tripod), and 80D with 150-600 C in a small Thinktank backpack that I'd take out and set up when I wanted a long distance shot. For a tripod, I settled on using a Manfrotto 190 Go 4-section, with a Movo gimbal as a compromise between weight and stability, but most importantly because the maximum height between column down and column halfway up is the perfect height for me when I have a large head installed.

On my outing, I was hunting for shots of the Great Blue Heron, at a lake.

I managed to catch a few good shots with the 100-400 II, handheld:











I took this one on the tripod with the 100-400 II:






However, there were some cases where the subject was just way too far away. For example, there was a cool rock, but unless I could walk on water (boats aren't allowed), I wasn't going to get close enough for 400mm. I took this one at the full length of 600mm on an APSC:






I would like to mention that on that particular picture, I got maybe 5 keepers out of 50 shots. Most of them had a very undesirable white softness around the head of the subject. They were manually focused in liveview x 10, and once again, I'd like to whine about how sticky the focus ring of the Sigma is. They were also all taken with a remote trigger, and I would watch through the viewfinder or through liveview magnification to ensure that there were no jitters, and I took shots at everything from 1/100 to 1/4000, with apertures ranging from 6.3 to 11, and a whole bunch of ISOs.

The shots I liked best were taken at around 1/500, f9, ISO 400; TTL metering said I was at -1EV. 

One last point. After trying many exposure combinations, I really hate pictures taken on the 80D over ISO 800. They are just so grainy Really, ISO 500 is as far as I'd go to keep the image sharp and clean; ISO 400 or lower being ideal.

Conclusion from the day of shooting... I really like the 100-400L II, but I didn't get a single, bird in flight keeper with the extender on it. I think that realistically, for now, if I want 600mm APSC and fast autofocus, it will require big bucks and a prime.

The 150-500C is still a great tool, with excellent reach, and stopped down a little, it takes great pictures.

I will keep both!


----------



## alvarow (Sep 13, 2017)

The 80D will AF at f8 with the 1.4X ... perhaps give that a try as well, maybe you'll be positively surprised...


----------



## Talys (Sep 13, 2017)

alvarow said:


> The 80D will AF at f8 with the 1.4X ... perhaps give that a try as well, maybe you'll be positively surprised...



I have indeed!

The problem is that I'm not crazy about 80D performance over ISO 800, and at f/8, most photos are over ISO 800 except on the brightest of days or in the perfect sun


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 13, 2017)

Talys said:


> alvarow said:
> 
> 
> > The 80D will AF at f8 with the 1.4X ... perhaps give that a try as well, maybe you'll be positively surprised...
> ...



The AF of the 100-400LII +1.4 III extender works flawlessly on my 1DXII, and probably 5DIV as well.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 13, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > alvarow said:
> ...


I suppose, Talys was complaining about the high ISO IQ and not the AF. 

By the way I can confirm your experience with good AF 100-400LII +1.4 III for the 5D3.


----------



## Talys (Sep 13, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Right  

About the AF at f/8 on the 6DII: It's flawless for subjects that are still, moving slowly, or large. For smaller birds in flight, even against blue sky, it's a little slower than f/5.6. The difference is small, and not really noticeable on birds that are large. However, for birds that are small, or insects that are large (like dragonflies) that tiny difference in speed takes "challengingly hard" to "impale myself frustrating".

My initial impression was dissatisfaction, because in backyard shooting, it's mostly little flighty things; however, in "real" birding situations, it isn't a huge deal with BIF, because of two factors: first, it's actually brighter wherever I go on birding walks than my back yard, because I have a couple of mature trees that sometimes often cast partial shade; and second (and more importantly) most birders, myself included, find larger birds like waterfowl and birds of prey more fun to photograph in flight than than songbirds


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2017)

I find on my very frequent bird photography outings that the Sigma 150-600mm C has now become the most popular telephoto lens, both for Canon and Nikon, and has eclipsed the Canon 100-400mm. I use both the 100-400mm II and 150-600mm C, as well as the 400mm DO II on 5DIV and 5DSR. At 400mm, there is little to choose among them at the centre, but the prime wins out easily at the edges.

For fast birds in flight that are close by, the 400mm DO and 100-400mm II are significantly better than the Sigma at 400mm (I don't use 560-600mm), with very fast and precise AF. For distant slow birds, extenders on the Canon (560/800mm) and the Sigma at 600mm are OK. IS is better on the Canons. Both are much more stable in the viewfinder and about a stop better in practice. The new Sigma 100-400mm C is very good optically but not as good IS as the 150-600mm C.


I can strongly recommend both the 100-400mm II and the 150-600mm C - but you must test that you get a good copy. If I had to sell one of my two, it would be the Sigma. But, I am not going to sell it.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2017)

Talys said:


> About the AF at f/8 on the 6DII: It's flawless for subjects that are still, moving slowly, or large. For smaller birds in flight, even against blue sky, it's a little slower than f/5.6. The difference is small, and not really noticeable on birds that are large. However, for birds that are small, or insects that are large (like dragonflies) that tiny difference in speed takes "challengingly hard" to "impale myself frustrating".
> 
> My initial impression was dissatisfaction, because in backyard shooting, it's mostly little flighty things; however, in "real" birding situations, it isn't a huge deal with BIF, because of two factors: first, it's actually brighter wherever I go on birding walks than my back yard, because I have a couple of mature trees that sometimes often cast partial shade; and second (and more importantly) most birders, myself included, find larger birds like waterfowl and birds of prey more fun to photograph in flight than than songbirds



There are not many birds that are more fun to photograph and more difficult than the small Eurasian kingfisher diving. And you need really fast AF for birds like puffins going past you like rockets.


----------



## tjbstone (Sep 13, 2017)

"Plus, you can adjust AF from the USB dock, if you're using a body with AFMA"

Can I please clarify the above. I thought that with the Sigma lens and the Dock the adjustments were made to the lens and not in the camera with the AFMA system.

I ask as I do not have AFMA so only have a limited understanding of it but have recently bought the Sigma 150 - 600mm C Lens and was considering getting a dock to fine tune it.

Bauldy


----------



## Talys (Sep 13, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There are not many birds that are more fun to photograph and more difficult than the small Eurasian kingfisher diving. And you need really fast AF for birds like puffins going past you like rockets.



I am trying to catch a kingfisher here, too -- the belted variety though! Their approach is very cool. All the birds that interact with water give great opportunities for amazing shots, and yeah, these guys are not big.



AlanF said:


> I find on my very frequent bird photography outings that the Sigma 150-600mm C has now become the most popular telephoto lens, both for Canon and Nikon, and has eclipsed the Canon 100-400mm.



Yup, me too. However, I'm sure that this is because of price. It's certainly the reason that I bought it first. 

People who own the 150-600 always note that it's not really too heavy to take handheld shots -- which is absolutely true. However, at least for me, it's far too heavy to take hours worth of handheld shots, and birding is as much an endurance exercise as anything. You need to spot, wait, watch, and track birds -- and also keep that up a couple of hours or more into a hike, and be able to whip it up to eye level very quickly.




AlanF said:


> I can strongly recommend both the 100-400mm II and the 150-600mm C - but you must test that you get a good copy. If I had to sell one of my two, it would be the Sigma. But, I am not going to sell it.



I couldn't agree more!

One other thing that people often neglect to mention is filter size. The 150-600 is 105mm, which makes every filter spectacularly expensive, if you can even find it. The available selection is terrible.

The 100-400II is 77mm, which allows it to share filters with a lot of popular L lenses.




tjbstone said:


> "Plus, you can adjust AF from the USB dock, if you're using a body with AFMA"
> 
> Can I please clarify the above. I thought that with the Sigma lens and the Dock the adjustments were made to the lens and not in the camera with the AFMA system.
> 
> ...




You're correct: the lens dock allows you to adjust AF in the lens itself. However, it's not the easiest thing to use, because what do you adjust it to? In order to fiddle with it, you need to attach the lens to the dock, front or back adjustment, put it back on, and take another series of test shots, and repeat.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 13, 2017)

Talys, it would be 95mm for the "C' version and 105mm for the "Sports".
there are some very nice UV filters available in this size from HOYA, B+W all priced under US$100.00.

105mm filters are quite a bit more expensive. Still, I was able to source HOYA Fusion 105mm Protector recently for A$145.00 brand new.




Talys said:


> One other thing that people often neglect to mention is filter size. The 150-600 is 105mm, which makes every filter spectacularly expensive, if you can even find it. The available selection is terrible.
> 
> The 100-400II is 77mm, which allows it to share filters with a lot of popular L lenses.
> 
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 13, 2017)

sorry, overlooked your post.

yep, this looks like a Sirui TY-LP70 knock off.

it does the job though. I looked at this option a while ago and concluded that the mounting 1/4" hole the strap attaches to is positioned way too far from the mounting screw. it creates a stronger torque due to massive leverage.
The absence of the stop screws at the bottom of the plate supported my hesitation to consider the plate any further. I am not brave enough 

I ended up purchasing this plate instead (Haoge PQR-70L):

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PQR-70L-Universal-Quick-Release-Plate-Arca-Swiss-Compatible-with-Hand-Strap-Boss-/172107385198

let me explain what makes this plate a better choice for me personally:

1. 1/4"-20 threaded hole located very close to the mounting screw (reduced torque)
2. 2 stop screws at the bottom
3. fixed backstop - antirotation rim. nice feature as Sigma 150 600 C tripod mount comes with a single mounting 1/4" hole only. ( see photos on the page)
4. the plate does not protrude towards the lens or back of the camera.

5. it fits perfectly 5D / 6D level bodies.





Talys said:


> @SecureGSM - Thanks for your recommendations. I found this arca plate on Amazon, that does the trick pretty well, for about USD$11:
> 
> https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01FQ3YRGI/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> ...


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 13, 2017)

Talys said:


> So, more stuff to report.
> 
> First, the 1.4 III teleconverter is not really a solution for birds in flight, in my opinion, at least not on 6DII. Maybe it would work better on a 5DIV; I didn't have one to try.
> 
> ...



I have the 7D II and have the same slow focus issue with the 1.4TCIII and 100-400 II. It works fine for large birds but medium to small I get few keepers if at all.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2017)

For birds in flight, I gave up using the 1.4xTC with the 7DII. And now I tend to use the bare lens with the 5DSR as the TC slows down AF, loses a stop and goes above the diffraction limited aperture at f/8. It also narrows the field of view. My copy of the Sigma at f/6.3 and 600mm is more useful than the Canon at f/8 and 560mm.


----------



## tjbstone (Sep 13, 2017)

Talys, Thanks for your clarification.

Regards

Bauldy


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Talys, it would be 95mm for the "C' version and 105mm for the "Sports".
> there are some very nice UV filters available in this size from HOYA, B+W all priced under US$100.00.
> 
> 105mm filters are quite a bit more expensive. Still, I was able to source HOYA Fusion 105mm Protector recently for A$145.00 brand new.



You are right, of course! The polarizing filter is pricy too  

I have to have one -- there are many shots at the lake that are just dramatically better with. However, the only filters I own are clear and CPL, which I bought essentially when I got the lens. Amazon.com was where I got mine (both B+W), and drove across the border to the US to pick them up. The Canadian retailer prices were outlandish. Ironically, the best priced protector filter I could buy local would have been a Nikon 95mm, hehehe.

Incidentally, I think every lens hood should have a little door like the one on that comes with the 100-400 to allow you to adjust a CPL without taking the hood off!


By the way, on the subject of filters for these things... it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but for polarizers, I have a B+W KSM filter, and for the 100-400, I'm using a Hoya HD coated Circular Polarizer (not the nano one).

I could be wrong, but surprisingly (at least to me), I think the Hoya actually lets in more light at the lowest setting.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 14, 2017)

Correct, by a very slight margin. I would say 1/2 stop? 



Talys said:


> I could be wrong, but surprisingly (at least to me), I think the Hoya actually lets in more light at the lowest setting.


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Correct, by a very slight margin. I would say 1/2 stop?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, about that, I think. On those BIF shots where I'm trying to squeeze out more shutter speed, that's still something, and sometimes the difference between deciding to leave it on or take it off. 

One of the immutable laws of bird photography is that they watch me closely and just as I am taking off my expensive, hard to clean filter that I don't want to drop in sand, they do something really cool


----------



## IslanderMV (Sep 15, 2017)

I was surprised at the number of posters who found the Sigma 150-600 C to be heavy. I had not noticed much of a problem in the field.
Checked the weight of a 100-400L II and 1.4xTC vs. 150-600 C.
1.81 kg - 1.95 kg, not that big of a difference.

My copy of the Sigma 150-600 C seems to have dead on auto focus. Getting a high proportion of keepers.


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2017)

IslanderMV said:


> I was surprised at the number of posters who found the Sigma 150-600 C to be heavy. I had not noticed much of a problem in the field.
> Checked the weight of a 100-400L II and 1.4xTC vs. 150-600 C.
> 1.81 kg - 1.95 kg, not that big of a difference.
> 
> My copy of the Sigma 150-600 C seems to have dead on auto focus. Getting a high proportion of keepers.




First of all, by the numbers, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Factor in the price, and this is why I bought the Sigma 150-600C, instead of the Canon 100-400 II, originally. The only way I can describe it is that after a friend lent me his 100-400 II for an afternoon, I wanted one, bad.

As several people have mentioned, the 100-400II with TC is a lost cause for things like handheld BIF, because autofocus is too slow. Frankly, I think 600 @ f/6.3 is too slow, too -- I've missed a LOT of shots because AF couldn't lock until it was too late. Most of my BIF pictures shot handheld at 600mm on the Sigma required that I acquire focus lock at 5.6, then extend to 6.3, and by then, I've mostly missed at least half the frames, if not all of them. The more successful 600mm shots were on a gimbal, where it was already focused on the bird, before they went into flight.

Weights and lengths without hood are -- 

Canon 100-400LII - 1.59kg, 193mm retracted, 260 extended
Sigma 150-600 - 1.93kg, 260mm, 335 extended

That's quite a big difference; the 100-400II is essentially the same dimensions as the 70-200/2.8, and the combination of collapsed length, short MFD and 100mm make it so that it's a lens that I can take around anywhere, and that opens up a lot of interesting opportunities.

The Sigma is just too large to do that. But the biggest difference, actually, is that handheld, the Sigma is becomes very heavy if you use the manual focus and switches. When you use them, the leverage created by the distance to the heavy front elements puts a lot of downwards force. Try holding up the Sigma for just 2 minutes continuously, by the manual focus ring, pointing it at one spot, and you'll see what I mean.

The MF ring on the Canon is much better balanced (not to mention, it's a thousand times better). And when I have it on, the extender actually moves the MF ring and switches forward, which balances the camera better.

It's fair to say a lot of folks don't use MF much. For me, On very agile smaller subjects like songbirds, hummingbirds, or dragonflies in flight are really hard to catch with autofocus (usually AF focuses on something other than the bird). Even on larger birds, if they're in the trees, AF gets it wrong often. Or, if they're in flight but not against blue sky, AF might lock onto whatever is 100 yards behind them. So, even when I use AF, I want the option to quickly turn it off and MF, so my hand tends to be close to the ring/switches.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I think the 150-600 C is an awesome lens, especially for the price. For me, it's not going anywhere. But that doesn't mean that the 100-400II doesn't have it's definite advantages, either.


----------



## IslanderMV (Sep 18, 2017)

I have two friends in my area who are wildlife photography enthusiasts. For some time we all had the same gear, a 7D, and the 100-400mm. 

They both recently updated to the mark two versions and added the 1.4xTC. One of them agrees with the comments about slow autofocus with the extender, and takes it off for bifs. Still, both love the combo and are glad they made the considerable investment.

I took a different direction. A full frame and a sweet stable of version “L” lenses. (This was done to help break a bird photography obsession.) I use the Sigma C with a full frame and I am pleased with the combo.

I am presently salting away some cash for the rumored 200-600mm-5.6, from Canon. THAT should be something. The extended reach of the Sigma with all the virtues of Canon design, performance and construction.


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2017)

I've uploaded a whole bunch of photos that I took on the 100-400 L II, including this one, which was shot handheld (though it was the best of 4 taken at the same exposure) - 1/400 f/6.3 ISO 100 with Mode 3 IS on:





Full Image: http://talys.icxi.com/cr/20170917/crHeron-Portrait-05_FW.jpg

Here is the head with the eye , only reduced a tiny bit, to fit forum width. The link above is 100%. I've only had the 100-400II for a couple of weeks, and this was not a level of crispness I could have ever dreamt of handheld on the 150-600C. Part of it is also the mode 3 IS, which is just phenomenal.

For me, my favorite bird portraits capture the eye crisply, with a glint of a reflection of light in them. I find also that when they're printed, this gives them a lot more dimension.






This duck's eye is also a handheld shot. The cute little thing wandered very close to me, not knowing that I happen to think that BBQ duck is delicious ;D







A whole bunch more photos here - I think most of them are taken with the 100-400II, though.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33475.msg686773#msg686773


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2017)

Talys
There is a distribution of strength and age in this forum and the wider world, varying from some who can hand hold a 600mm f/4 and 1DX to the other extreme of those who find a 70-200mm f/4 heavy. I am at the old and weak end of the spectrum, but find the Sigma 150-600mm C easy to hand hold for extended periods of time. It makes no real difference to me whether I am using the Sigma or Canon both weight and IQ wise, but the Canon is better for packing for travel.

Your comments about birds in flight need modification. For large, slow flying birds or distant ones, the Sigma C at 600mm or the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC are more than adequate. My wife has got some great shots of beeeaters in flight using the 100-400mm II at 560mm on a 5DSR, and all she does is point, back button focus and shoot.

If you are serious about BIF you need the right equipment and technique; fast AF and fast focussing lenses - read Ari Hazeghi's site to see how a pro tackles it with a 1DXII and 400mm DO II. A 6DII, I am afraid, is not designed for this job. I use a 5DIV plus bare 400mm DO II for fast birds in flight close (extenders slow even this combo down, and I like a wide field of view). 

I am not sure whether your settings are optimal. I would not use iso100 at 1/400s. There is no need for such a low iso for what you are doing, and high shutter speeds are far more important. I would use iso 400 and 1/1600s or most frequently iso 640 in decent light. Also, for birds perched in a tree I would use Mode 1 IS not Mode 3. Mode 3 is designed for action shots where you don't want a lag caused by IS, and it can cause trouble when you are trying so distinguish a bird from foliage and your image stabilization doesn't operate until you press the button. (Manual focus on a tripod is not in my repertoire, or come to that even a tripod).


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2017)

AlanF,

I am rarely looking to take photos of bird portraits, so usually, my camera will be set to 1/2000 or 1/4000 (depending on light), and Mode 3 IS. When I wander a good opportunity, like the photo above, I start taking handheld shots at 1/2000, and work my way down in ISO an EV or two at a time, then keep the lowest ISO shot at good focus. Basically, click click, turn dial, click click, turn dial click click. You need a few shots anyways, in case the bird closes its eyes.

At the end of it, if I have ISO 100, 200, and 400 shots of the same thing, all at good focus, I'll keep the ISO 100  On the above shot, I was amazed that I captured it that crisply at ISO 100. I actually have another heron portrait on my 6DII sample images thread where I took it at 1/30, again, perfectly focused! Of course, I didn't start at 1/30; it just happened that one of the 1/30 photos was shockingly focused.

I usually don't switch to IS Mode 1, because at any moment, I could be trying to catch a BIF. Also, in mode 3, I don't have to fight IS to manually focus. My thumb usually moves between the focus ring and the MF switch (and sometimes the focus limiter switch), rather than the IS switch at the bottom.

Of course, I'm not saying that it's impossible to get BIF shots on at 6.3 of f/8. And, I don't doubt the AF system on a 5DIV is superior to than 80D or 6DII -- but this is a camera that I won't ever buy, even excluding the price, because it is missing a flippy screen, which I need for other things. Even with an 80D, I've gotten tons of great handheld BIF shots at 600mm. 

_However, I've missed a lot more than that_. I have had occasions where I've tracked the bird for several seconds, and every single shot is out of focus. 

On the other hand, at 400mm, if I successfully track a bird for a couple of seconds, there will be at least some shots with the bird perfectly focused (of course, some will have AF on the wrong subject). 

Even against blue sky in perfect lighting with the sun behind me, it's possible at 600mm for the AF to just wander and not lock, which I find infuriating (because that's a missed, potentially perfect shot). If I reduce zoom to about 450mm, it locks fine, and when I zoom back to 600mm, AF will continue to track. You may be entirely correct that this is a problem with the 6DII -- others who own both lenses and a 5DIV will need to chime in.

About the weight -- I agree, there is a wide distribution of people who are comfortable holding heavier lenses than others. To be clear, I don't have a problem handholding the Sigma 150-600C. I _do_ have a problem handholding it for an afternoon of shooting, which could be anywhere from 2 - 5 hours, with a very high percentage of the time holding the lens at wildlife and waiting for a moment.

Most of the time, unless it's something I've never photographed before, I want more than an in-focus photo of a bird or an animal. What I'd really like is for that animal to do something interesting, and to catch that, I need to be patiently watching it through the viewfinder, and usually for more than a few seconds.

The difference between the 150-600C and the 100-400II is that on the former, I need at least a monopod if I'm going to do that more than a couple of times. Maybe some people can go all afternoon holding up a 150-600C for minutes at a time, but I don't think that's the majority of photographers. On the 100-400II, even if I pack a monopod or tripod, I will often not use it, unless I'm at a location that I know I'll be staying out for a good long time.


----------



## piovanil (Oct 9, 2017)

It is a very difficult question, which lens you should buy, The Canon 100-400 II or the Sigma 150-600 C?
Of course, both are very good options and I have both (together with a Canon 400 f5.6L).
If you budget only goes up to 1000 dollars, your answer is the Sigma.
But when you can afford the Canon, you start looking for reasons to justify the difference.
Well, dont look too much, the Canon IS better, as it should for double the cost. It is better in almost all the checkpoints, like weight, AF speed, Stabilization, Construction, Image quality, minimum focus distance... but that is if we only talk up until 400 mm. 
When you can get very close to the subject, you can even fill the frame more with the Canon 400 than with the Sigma 600 (because of the MFD).
But when you need the 600 mm and cannot get closer to the subject, then for me the Sigma was a better option. And filling the frame really helps on the image quality department!
If I have to choose only one, for me it would be the Sigma. With almost 2 years of use, I've found myself accustomed to the weight (and I carried the lens for more than 20 kilometers per day on a 15 days vacation on the mountains) and have no problem to handheld all day if needed. Also have a monopode I can use without effort.
Add to that the customization I made with the dock, which allows me to have a speed focus mode (in 400 mm almost as fast as the canon) and the chance to have all that range up to 600 mm all the time with me using all the focus points, and it is a no brainier for the type of environments I use the lens on.
So my wife use the 100-400 II with her 7D II and she is a happy camper!.
I settled for my Sigma 150-600 C (got the Canon 400 f5.6L in the box for a year now) with my 7D or my 1D IV. And still been able to sell pictures and won contests (had some luck).
Just wanted to share my experience with the lenses. I try to avoid extenders (even the 1.4x) since the time I sold my Canon 300 f4L IS.
Here are some pictures taken with the Sigma and I give you a link with more pictures too.

LINK:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Samples:


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2017)

piovanil said:


> It is a very difficult question, which lens you should buy, The Canon 100-400 II or the Sigma 150-600 C?
> Of course, both are very good options and I have both (together with a Canon 400 f5.6L).
> If you budget only goes up to 1000 dollars, your answer is the Sigma.
> But when you can afford the Canon, you start looking for reasons to justify the difference.
> ...


+1 for everything

Stunning photos. But, with your skill, you would produce stunning shots with any lens! My wife too uses the 100-400mm II, but now on the 5DSR, while I use either the 400mm DO II or the 150-600mm C on the 5DIV when with her and the 100-400mm II on the 5DSR often myself alone. The 100-400 at 400mm on the 5DSR gives the resolution of 600mm of the 150-600mm on the 5DIV.

Of your four shots, 2 were at 600mm, one at 150mm and another at 388mm (which the 400m notch shows). Frankly, at 400mm all of those lens have the same resolution in the centre, but the 400mm DO II is ultra-sharp all the way to the edges at f/4. I too have given up extenders in the main except on the prime lens.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 9, 2017)

One thing to point out.

I agree with all the above. The issue with any lens that is outside the 5.6 parameters is that yes it is spot on for subjects that are moving slowly or are still but as soon as they start moving like BIF I have found that the 100-400mm MKII is far superior.

I made a thread about my experience, I was about to go on the trip of a life time 6 months across Africa and South East Asia with primary reason for travel being flora and fauna.

The Tamron 150-600mm vs the 100-400mm and the BIF comparisons were startling. (no experience with the sigma but I assume because its a 6.3 the results will be similar) This was also the opinion from a 5DMKIII.

The reason I bought the Tammy to start with is because it was equivalent to the 100-400mm with the lens being a 5.6 from 226-427mm and the tammy could lock out at that point. The sigma on the other hand is a 180-387mm so you enter 6.3 much sooner and you have to be careful when you are framing.

Once you go out of the F5.6 range hits are dramatically reduced.

You can have a read on the thread I created

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

As an overview at 400mm the lens and my 5DMKIII got 88% focus hit rate, which is impressive.

At 600mm tracking a bird traveling toward the lens the hit rate dropped to 50%.

At 600mm horizontally 50-60% hit rate max. 

The other thing too is that it consistently thought it was hitting and the subject was a hair OOF not tack.

The 100-400mm on the other hand is deadly consistent in comparison. I know this isnt the Sigma but I cant see it having much more luck because its at F6.3 and essentially your not even getting a 400mm lens at 5.6 not including what ever focus breathing you have.

Things to take away is if your a BIF guy I wouldnt bother, the hit rate isnt great it just cant keep up. If your shooting fairly still subjects then its great.

I ended up buying the 100-400mm and it is a beast in every way. Stick a 1.4 and it was still sharper than the Tammy. Crop down to 600mm equivalent and it was sharper.

This was a few years ago and it may work better with the newer crop of cameras with extended AF points above F5.6 like the 7DMKII, 6DMKII, 5DMKIV and 1DXMKII.

When it came to still subjects I thought the lens was a great choice.

Heres an example and a 100% crop



Rhea, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Rhea, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2017)

Agreed about the BIF bit, Tom. I use the bare 400mm DO II on the 5DIV for BIF - the wider field of view at 400mm than 600mm makes it much easier and the prime focusses so fast, and f/4 helps. However, Piovanil does say he tweaks the setting on the Sigma Dock to get fast focussing at 400mm.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 9, 2017)

@piovanil Those shots are amazing. Can I ask where you took them?


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 9, 2017)

No experience with the Sigma C, but I will explain why I just traded in my still mint condition 100-400ii. I usually had to decide which telephoto to take in my backpack - either that one or the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS). The 100-400ii is very sharp and a good lens. However it would have difficulty locking focus if light was a little dim or subject was dark (real life example - black jaguar at a zoo). My 70-200 locks on instantly. Since I usually had to choose one or the other I started taking my 70-200 so I decided to give up the 100-400ii. It is still a good lens (and if you are in the USA you can get mine right now at KEH as I said in mint condition). I just find the less responsive focus and the slightly unpleasing bokeh make it not worth keeping for me. I am also so used to internal zoom on the 70-200 that I find a lens that physically extends during zoom to be annoying. I realize the Sigma and Tamron (150-600) would have the same problem, so no easy solutions.


----------



## piovanil (Oct 9, 2017)

The 4 previous pictures were taken in Costa Rica. I also took the Canon 100 f2.8 macro with me and use it a lot on frogs.
I made my own neoprene lens coat and a rain cover, which I used later in the tropical forest to take pictures under the rain with my Sigma:
















Regarding Birds in flight, I upgraded the firmware to the last version (it is really faster to focus with that), and used the usb dock to set C2 with this configurations

- AF speed in motor priority
- MFD starting in 3,5 mts (instead of 2,8)
- IS in Dynamic OS

The lens in 400 mm locked when possible and the camera on servo mode

This example is with the old 7D in 600 mm 1/2000; f/6,3; ISO 500; TV mode on servo:






This action picture is also possible with the Sigma autofocus:






BUT...... you cannot compare the previous with the results you can get spending lots of money!
Because in Costa Rica I was in a group of wealthy men and had the chance to get something borrowed for a couple of hours, I can now show you a picture taken with a Canon 1Dx II and Canon 500 f4L IS II, using 8 tripods, 5 flashes with radios, a remote control, one local guide as assistant and MY Memory card (a real 20.000 dollars picture!).






The picture is for real, no photoshop trick, 4 different species wrestling for the flower. Looking back, I could have made the same picture with my 7D, the Canon 100 macro and only 3 flashes.

Well, the last part was for you to understand that it is not all about the lens or the camera, and you will be very happy with every one you choose!

Regards

PS, I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS too, so in the near future I plan to exchange my Sigma Contemporary for a Sport that can support my heavy use.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 9, 2017)

Incredible shots, piovanil!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2017)

Piovanil
Why are you going to exchange your C for a Sport? There are several reports that the Sport is no sharper than the C, and the Sport is really heavy with the weight concentrated in the front so it is unbalanced and difficult to hand hold.


----------



## Click (Oct 10, 2017)

Awesome shots. Well done, piovanil.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 10, 2017)

Beautiful shots.

Like has been said many times. Put gear in the hands of people that know what they are doing and you can get incredible results without spending $$$ although there are drawbacks you can work around them.

The thing for me is its hard to get the bird in the perfect position and nail the focus at the same time. At 400 you can because of 5.6 but at 600 at 50% in focus the likelihood of hitting the bird at the right time is still not high and can be a frustrating experience.

In my infinite wisdom... decided to get rid of the Tammy in the first two weeks and spend tripple the budget on the 100-400 with a 1.4. On a FF camera the lens and extender works well as long as the subject isnt moving too fast but on a crop camera its just too much.

I bought it for Africa and tbh once you go over 600mm you struggle with atmospheric issues. Most of the time the 100-400mm was sat on my 7DMKII natively and I found it to be excellent. 

Now I have the 6DMKII the 100-400mm with the 1.4 works so much better with the F* autofocus more than one point in the 5DMKIII and with the resolution increase and sharpness boost of the 6DMKII sensor you can get incredible results, cropping 50-100% is a real and decent proposition.



Lyme Park Red Deer by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I took around 100,000 images over the 6 months. Here's a couple with the 7DMKII/5DMKIII with the 100-400mm MKII from across africa and SE Asia.



Fish Eagle, Lake Naivasha, Kenya by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Lake Naivasha Kenya






Trecked for 6 hours through Biwindi National Park Uganda for this one.
















Livingston Zambia






South Luangwa National Park, Zambia

Indonesia






Gunung Leuser National Park in Northern Sumatra






Comodo Island


----------



## piovanil (Oct 10, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Piovanil
> Why are you going to exchange your C for a Sport? There are several reports that the Sport is no sharper than the C, and the Sport is really heavy with the weight concentrated in the front so it is unbalanced and difficult to hand hold.



My Sigma is taking serious usage... on any kind of environment... not sure how much it will withstand, even with the lens coat and rain covers... wouldnt be nice to get the only long lens broken in the middle of an expensive trip like Africa for example. 
So looking on the Sport only because it seems more ruggedly constructed. Probably ended up getting both the Sport and the Contemporary (but will sell the 400 f5.6L).


----------



## piovanil (Oct 10, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Beautiful shots.
> 
> Like has been said many times. Put gear in the hands of people that know what they are doing and you can get incredible results without spending $$$ although there are drawbacks you can work around them.
> 
> ...



You've done perfect! It was the right choice for you, for sure!. Travel light, with lens and cameras that can support you and you can trust on is always the way to go.
And very nice pictures you've got also!.
In my case, having already a 100-400 II "in the family", and having used the 600 mm of the Sigma, there is no choice. I've tried the 300 f2.8 IS and the 600 f4 IS old versions, but still 150-600 seems better option for me.


----------



## piovanil (Oct 10, 2017)

With my Sigma 150-600C I've escalated mountains to follow the eagles and the Condor...











I got into cold lagoons looking for rare egrets...











Walk thru the endless grass fields of the Patagonia...






Followed the flying Harriers in the glacier's land...





















Crossed the "yungas" in the search for the torrents duck...











And many adventures more... I ended up loving the lens, just for being my pal


----------



## rpt (Oct 10, 2017)

Piovanil, Tom, lovely shots!


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 10, 2017)

That last batch of photos look very, very sharp. Seems like the Sigma 150-600C is capable of producing professional results.


----------



## canon1dxman (Oct 10, 2017)

A lot of good points in the thread. We live directly backing onto the river Thames in Berkshire and so have everyday opportunities for BIF shots. 
Last year, I had the Sigma 150-600C with the original 1DX and couldn't fault the image quality but always had difficulty locking onto BIF, no matter how much I tried, even with a gimbal. I had previously used the 100-400 II in Africa with great success and after chatting with a couple of well known Canon pros, bit the bullet and bought one to go with my newly acquired 1DX2.
Never regretted the change, despite the reduced range. I still fancy trying the Tammy G2 though.....


----------



## bholliman (Oct 10, 2017)

Piovanil and Tom Scott - Stunning images! These show what can be done with even relatively inexpensive equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer. Very impressive.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2017)

The fantastic photos by Piovanil plus all the others in his Flickr are nearly all of perched birds or static animals in good light. The 150-600mm C is superb for those conditions, and I take mine with me for trips under such conditions. But, there other circumstances where it isn't going to be much good - namely poor light. I posted questions quoted below of what lenses to take with me to Borneo, including my 150-600mm C or 400mm DO II. At the last minute, I unpacked the Sigma and took the 400mm f/4, which saved the whole trip. Nearly all the photos I took were at dawn or dusk or at night or in the rain forest. I was shooting at f/4 and iso 6400 most of the time. The 100-400mm II was being used by wife at doubly long shutter speeds hand held. The 150-600mm at f/6.3 and its poorer IS (about a stop less in my experience) would have been a disaster. Also, on a recent trip to film puffins in flight I needed exceptionally fast AF, which the Sigma is not good at.

It's nice to have a choice of lenses, but if you have only one, then the Sigma is excellent for much, but not all of the time.



AlanF said:


> I know what gear and lenses to take on a South African safari or a bird photography holiday, but my wife and I have a trip of a lifetime coming up at the end of August - Sabah in Borneo. The itinerary is:
> 
> KOTA KINABALU - Wet land, mud-flats and open country habitats.
> SEPILOK – Lowland old secondary forest habitat.
> ...


----------



## Click (Oct 11, 2017)

@ Tom and piovanil,

Great shots, guys. 8)


----------



## piovanil (Oct 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The fantastic photos by Piovanil plus all the others in his Flickr are nearly all of perched birds or static animals in good light. The 150-600mm C is superb for those conditions, and I take mine with me for trips under such conditions. But, there other circumstances where it isn't going to be much good - namely poor light. I posted questions quoted below of what lenses to take with me to Borneo, including my 150-600mm C or 400mm DO II. At the last minute, I unpacked the Sigma and took the 400mm f/4, which saved the whole trip. Nearly all the photos I took were at dawn or dusk or at night or in the rain forest. I was shooting at f/4 and iso 6400 most of the time. The 100-400mm II was being used by wife at doubly long shutter speeds hand held. The 150-600mm at f/6.3 and its poorer IS (about a stop less in my experience) would have been a disaster. Also, on a recent trip to film puffins in flight I needed exceptionally fast AF, which the Sigma is not good at.
> 
> It's nice to have a choice of lenses, but if you have only one, then the Sigma is excellent for much, but not all of the time.
> 
> ...



Yes.. of course an f4 lens with a full frame is a lot better... the 400 f4 DO II is a great option. Sharp, fast enough at f4, with a good IS and very light... but cost almost 6 times more than the Sigma!. Also it is a fixed lens... I've got a 400 f5.6L for a long long time, and it is great. Very fast focusing and ideal for BIF. I used to take more of those pictures when I used that lens.
But the main reason I bought the Sigma was that I ended up cropping all my pictures taken with the 400. I was really eager to learn to compose into the camera and get rid of the cropping if possible, or at least minimize it.
So I bought the Sigma 150-600C as a tool to learn, to improve my composition. Then I use it... and everything changed for me. The 400 is inside its box since then, almost two years now.
When I went to Costa Rica in past January, I was very worried about the jungle and the lack of light... to use an f6.3 lens and with a 7D in which I didnt trusted beyond ISO 800 was crazy... but I've already had a chance to test it before, together with my flashes into the Yungas, almost same environment... very dark and constantly under the rain.
And also I had my secret weapon... yes, the monopod and tripod!.
So it would have been nice to had a 300 f2.8 IS II... but just could not afford it... My travel companions carried big guns with them, Canon 200-400, Canon 500 f4L IS II, 1Dx II, 5Ds... but in the end I dont feel that they've got more and lot better pictures than myself. At 960 mm the DOF is very thin, especially from 3 meters, so f7.1 is usually needed anyway.
If you look at the parameters in some of my pictures you will see that were taken with very bad light... knowing the behavior of your subject helps to make the difference. When it will stop, where and for how long... and of course being able to use that moment to take the picture.
Still, I would recommend an f2.8 any day, if you can afford it and carry it with you!. That is the reason I bought my 70-200 f2.8 IS. And I plan to use it as a complement to my Sigma when the subject is big and close and the light is bad. I'm planning a trip to Africa myself, and two cameras with the 70-200 and a 150-600 for now is my winning combination.

An example... this Quetzal male stood only for 3 seconds in the open and fixed in that position. It was really dark, at almost 8 pm and with spray rain. The parameters, 373 mm - 1/80 - f7.1 - ISO 1250 with monopod.







Want to know what happened on the 4th second when it moved? Not one of my best moments!






So yes, f6.3 is very bad... and the Sigma autofocus may not be quick enough for you... even the picture quality is lacking under some conditions. But knowing the limits give you a chance to work around them to get the better possible result with the minimum amount of money. Of course, if someone is eager to donate me a 200-400, a 300 f2.8 IS II or a 500 f4 IS II I could easily put my Sigma into it's box and never use it again!. Until then, I'll try to make the best I can with what I have!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2017)

There are problems with f/2.8s. The 300mm/2.8 II and the 400mm/2.8 II are the sharpest lenses on the block. I have just sold my 300mm/2.8 II as I haven't used it since buying the 400mm DO II, and Art Morris says in his blog that the price of used 300mms has dropped since the 400mm II has come out as birders prefer it. 300mm is too short. 

It might be a surprise, but there is little advantage in light-gathering f-stop using a 300mm at f/2.8 compared with a 400mm at f/4 when you are cropping. You get nearly as much light going through the 400mm/4 as the 300mm/2.8 as they have similar sized front elements. If you double the iso with the 400mm to get the same shutter speed as an f/2.8, and then downsize 1.4x, you end up with very similar signal to noise.

The 400mm/2.8 II is too heavy to hand hold for birds in flight. On my puffins in flight trip, I was able to swing around quickly with my 5DIV and 400mm/4 and get shot after shot whereas the person next to me with a 1DX and 400/2.8 on a tripod was too slow. For static shots, the 400/2.8 was the winner.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 11, 2017)

TBH for Africa I didnt need my 70-200mm I wasnt there for 2 weeks was there 3 months and came across pretty much all situations you would find yourself light wise.

Many people think you need the biggest lenses you dont. Animals except a few are all within framing with 600mm. Birds are always a difficult one but again I had no issues except small birds like bee-eaters or lilac breasted rollers etc but they are everywhere so its not like you have to go far to find them.

I didnt find myself needing the 2.8, and its far too shallow for most subjects. Plus you have to think about the weight. The nice thing about the 70-200mm is you can put a 1.4 and get a good 280 F4 or 450 F4 on crop, I used to shoot primarily with the 70-200mm with a 2x and got some of my favourite shots with it.

The 100-400mm is just the best of both for me. Want 600mm stick a 7D on it want better IQ at lower light stick it on a full frame body. Essentially what I did, most of the time left it on the 7D and put a 24-105 on the 5DMKIII. There wasnt any time I needed more reach except once where a leopard was in a tree but the atmospheric issues with heat rising ruined the shot anyway.



Fish Eagle, Chobe National Park, Botswana by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Fish Eagle, Lake Naivasha, Kenya by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Even shot this with a 70D and 55-250mm 



Fish Eagle, Lake Naivasha, Kenya by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Probably the most bang for buck/weight saving combo ive ever used. IQ is excelent for a £100 lens. What the GF took with her and went toe to toe with me. Although the 100-400mm has its advantages.

The one reason I wouldnt take the 150-600mm is the fact its beyond dusty. At the end of every safari all the gear, me etc absolutely head to toe. The 100-400mm didnt come home with one bit of dust. I took the tammy out for an afternoon at a zoo to test it and it came back full.

The thing is the Canon lenses are built to take the hammer one thing I really like about them.


----------



## piovanil (Oct 11, 2017)

tomscott said:


> TBH for Africa I didnt need my 70-200mm I wasnt there for 2 weeks was there 3 months and came across pretty much all situations you would find yourself light wise.
> 
> Many people think you need the biggest lenses you dont. Animals except a few are all within framing with 600mm. Birds are always a difficult one but again I had no issues except small birds like bee-eaters or lilac breasted rollers etc but they are everywhere so its not like you have to go far to find them.
> 
> ...



So you were 3 months in Africa and took with you a 100-400 II and a 24-105 with a 7DII and 5DIII, and that covered all the possible situations?
I wanted to get the Sigma 150-600 Sport because of the weather sealing and good construction and the 70-200 f2.8 IS to complement in the second camera and go with those lenses plus the 100 f2.8 macro and the 17-40. Today I have 7D and 1DIV (should be nice to change to 7DII and 1Dx, but probably wont be able to do it).
In Galapagos the 100-400 II is the ideal choice (as you can get very close), but I went with my Canon 400 f5.6L and ended up getting good images too. 
For Costa Rica the 150-600 C worked fine even when it was slow (f6.3) and suffered the bad weather conditions.
As I never went to Africa I was curious on your experience. In the past I've taken 2 cameras but only 1 long lens with me.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2017)

My one safari in Africa used the 7D + 70-200mm f/4 L IS, which Photozone described as "Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date.". But, to agree with Tom, the 55-250mm is fantastic. My copy of the STM is sharper than the f/4 L at 200mm and carries through to 250mm, so I have just sold the L and use the STM on the M5. I think the 100-400mm II is the best safari lens ever, being able to cope with close ups and distance of animals, and it is sharper than the 70-200mm L IS.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 12, 2017)

piovanil said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > TBH for Africa I didnt need my 70-200mm I wasnt there for 2 weeks was there 3 months and came across pretty much all situations you would find yourself light wise.
> ...



The first time I went traveling I spent 2 months across South America and 3 months across North America. I wanted to travel light so I took:

5DMKIII
16-35mm F2.8 MKII
24-105mm F4 L
70-300mm L

iPad mini

For most of the trip this was fine except when it came to wildlife which wasnt the main reason for the trip unlike my second. But I did go to the colca canyon to see the condors and got no where near and spent 2 weeks in the peruvian Amazon, tambopata.

For the amazon it was a struggle although I still got some great images it just wasnt ideal. But my back was very happy for it. One small backpack with one section at the bottom with all my gear and the top half for supplies. Small and light. The problem I found was I had to shoot SML jpg to the SD card slot to transfer to the ipad so no redundancy and of corse no way to attach a HDD to the ipad so I had to buy a Colourspace UDMA HDD card reader device which was expensive and not really very good. The ipad I took was a first gen mini retina and its colour accuracy was awful. I was editing the images and posting and people were telling me they looked awful although on screen looked great.



Mesa Arch, Canyonlands, Utah by Tom Scott, on Flickr

It was also a pain that I then would have to edit the image again when I got home as the SML jpgs were really small files. It was super convenient tho and did the job of getting images out.

For my trip across Africa and SE Asia, my main concern was wildlife and knew I would be on an overland truck for most of the trip so weight wasnt too much of a concern but I still would need to carry everything between stops.

The gear I took with me

5DMKIII
7DMKII
16-35mm F2.8 MKII
24-105mm F4 L
100-400mm MKII L
1.4x MKIII


11inch Macbook air 
2x 4tb seagate HDD
1x 1TB SSD for editing

GF brought (seperate bag)
70D
18-135mm EFS
55-250mm EFS

I was backpacking so had this in a Fstop Loca Lite which was about 15-16kg in total. Because it looks like a backpack I never needed to weigh it at check in and carried it no problem as a carry on believe it or not. I also had a big bag I had my clothes and supplies etc in a 60L bag which was about 18-20kg. 

This covered me for 90% of situations. The only thing I missed out on was macro but the 100-400mm MKII has a great close up feature so you can use that in a pinch.

The thing about Africa and if you read people get funny about which lens to use at which locations as some are quite wide and open and others not so. It also depends on the time of year, if you go in the summer then its very lush (depending where you are) much harder to see animals, in the fall its more arid and easier to spot animals. I was there in january-march and it was perfect. The advice I read said anything from only a 70-200 all the was up to 800mm. 

I went to every major national park across southern Africa from the arid Etosha and the very green lush Ngorongoro crater and pretty much saw all seasons, wet, arid and lush. What I found was that the animals are super used to people and are not scared at all, infact more curious and a lot of the time I had more reach than I needed for mammals. For birding I think I had about enough with 600mm equivalent. The other thing is that Safari isnt really like shooting a sports event... All the animals are generally super chilled. The action happens in the morning and the evening but in the whole time I was there and the 50+ safaris I went on I didnt really see and chases. Most of the time you happen upon these animals chilling in the shade, so although I put loads of emphasis on the 150-600mm not being the best at tracking moving subjects I didnt shoot a lot of movement, except BIF.

Im glad I didn't just take a 70-200mm and im glad I didn't take a prime, the subjects were all over the place so the zoom was really useful. A lot of the time I found myself switching to wider lenses to capture the environment. 






The other thing you have to bare in mind like I spoke about earlier is the atmospheric problems, once you go over 600mm all the images will be OOF due to heat rising. The only thing you can do is get closer. Its a real issue especially on the plains or the desert. It was pretty rare as you do get so close. The two in memory were a leopard in a tree because we physically couldn't get closer. I put the 1.4 on the 100-400mm on the 7DMKII to make 900mm. I got the image but it certainly isnt technically the best or the sharpest because of the heat and distance. But I got the image.






The other was a black rhino that was heading off into the distance in the opposite direction we were traveling in.

The thing is the tammy is a big lens, the sigma sport is even bigger and heavier. This is the reason I bought the 100-400mm because its sharper than all the lenses previous. On two bodies FF + crop which dont take not much extra room you can have the best of both worlds. Thing is its super convenient with those two bodies it covers the same range as having the 70-200mm and the 150-600mm except with the 600mm on crop but from my experience I wasn't happy with the IQ from that combo it was super soft and found cropping was a better solution. Just pushed the lens too far with the 150-600mm on a crop body being over 1300mm.

The only negative is you loose the F2.8 but F5.6 on a FF body up to 12800 ISO I was getting some good results. The only time I struggled was on night safaris where they used an infrared light but even with F2.8 it would be a struggle.

This was one of those times, in the middle of the Namib desert it was around 3am and these zebra were coming for a midnight drink and I stayed up to watch. The actual scene was black to the eye apart from the light at the water hole.

I also edited this on the road and it has FB compression so isnt amazing. This is 5DMKIII 100-400mm F5.6 at 25600ISO






TBH the other issue is on safari the Defenders or landcruisers are not big and unless you have private safaris will be full of people. You will really struggle to move the 150-600mm around as its probably half the length of the wheel base. I was lucky I was on a private safari and we had me and 4 friends who were really happy for me to be moving around. The action moves so fast you will want to be right, left, front and back and the 100-400 is so convenient in this situation because its small and fairly light and you have so much range.

Basically left the 100-400 on the 7DMKII and a 24-105 on the 5DMKIII and kept swapping around as and when I needed. One morning and evening safaris I used the 100-400mm on the 5DMKIII. TBH the 7DMKII does pretty well too at high ISO.

This is 6400ISO with the 7DMKII






Again has FB compression and was edited on the road so could have done a better job.

Im sure as you know from being in Costa Rica through the rain forrest that its not easy trekking. Those mountain gorillas in Uganda we trekked though the Biwindi NP and it was 100% humidity and about 35deg C it was torture, no trails just cutting though with machetes. Took us 6 hours to get to them, having a little bit less weight was a god send.






If your on a small trip say 2-3 weeks and have a good base then I would say take what ever you feel comfortable taking. If not then its worth saving your back and condensing gear. The other variable to take into account was that I knew I had a lot of Safaris so I wasnt ever disappointed, if we didn't see something on one we would at another and we tended to do 2-3 a day when in the national park. i know not everyone has this luxury so some people just take everything.

The other thing im really glad I took was the 16-35mm I got some incredible images like MT bromo volcanoe erupting. Our guide decided it was fine to take us up on the rim and there was a 25km exclusion zone (we had no idea) and it errupted as we stood on the rim. One of the most incredible but terrifying experiences.






Later that evening I went to a viewpoint and go this...






Believe it or not this was shot with the camera on a Gorilla pod attached to a metal fence.

Also some beautiful views like Fish river Canyon





Spitzkoppe





MT Batur





to name a few and tha I have images at hand.


The 100-400 is just such a good performer and with 2 bodies you have a very very versatile lens that is about as sharp as you can get at this price point and is lightweight. It also performs super well with tele converters. 

It does depend on your situation. If I had the money and the space and probably a porter to carry it all I would have 3 bodies, 400mm DO II, 100-400mm, 24-105, 2x and 1.4. It just not feasible.

The other thing you have to worry about is safety and obviously with all this gear you are a target. I got by fine with just street smarts but it is something to consider. I bought metal wire security cables that I could padlock and put them through the Zips. Obviously isnt going to stop someone stealing everything but its a deterant and will certainly take more time to get to the gear..

The nice thing about the Loka is it has an internal camera compartment that has its own zip bag and I then had Carabeana that attached it to the internal metal frame of the bag. So if someone slit the bag they wouldn't be able to pull the gear out without me or someone noticing.

Obviously I was backpacking so this is maybe more specific to that kind of traveling.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 12, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There are problems with f/2.8s. The 300mm/2.8 II and the 400mm/2.8 II are the sharpest lenses on the block. I have just sold my 300mm/2.8 II as I haven't used it since buying the 400mm DO II, and Art Morris says in his blog that the price of used 300mms has dropped since the 400mm II has come out as birders prefer it. 300mm is too short.
> 
> It might be a surprise, but there is little advantage in light-gathering f-stop using a 300mm at f/2.8 compared with a 400mm at f/4 when you are cropping. You get nearly as much light going through the 400mm/4 as the 300mm/2.8 as they have similar sized front elements. If you double the iso with the 400mm to get the same shutter speed as an f/2.8, and then downsize 1.4x, you end up with very similar signal to noise.
> 
> The 400mm/2.8 II is too heavy to hand hold for birds in flight. On my puffins in flight trip, I was able to swing around quickly with my 5DIV and 400mm/4 and get shot after shot whereas the person next to me with a 1DX and 400/2.8 on a tripod was too slow. For static shots, the 400/2.8 was the winner.



Would love a 400mm DO II they look lovely, small (for the focal length and in comparison to others) and amazingly sharp. For me just a bit too big for travel and price restrictive. Love the versatility of the zoom. I think the versatility of a zoom is worth the stop penalty. 

One day maybe!

Would love to see some images. Puffins are one of my favorites. I have a yearly Jaunt to the Farne islands in the UK to see them.



AlanF said:


> My one safari in Africa used the 7D + 70-200mm f/4 L IS, which Photozone described as "Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date.". But, to agree with Tom, the 55-250mm is fantastic. My copy of the STM is sharper than the f/4 L at 200mm and carries through to 250mm, so I have just sold the L and use the STM on the M5. I think the 100-400mm II is the best safari lens ever, being able to cope with close ups and distance of animals, and it is sharper than the 70-200mm L IS.



Completely agree! Was so chuffed with the images she took with the combo, shes not a really a photographer but she got some incredible images and never complained with the weight etc. She mostly shot video which came out really well.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 12, 2017)

One thing is clear, we are all having incredible fun with our lenses. We are so lucky to have such a choice of excellent light to medium weight telephotos that just about cover everything from close ups of beetles to birds daring past us close and far.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 13, 2017)

piovanil said:


> Want to know what happened on the 4th second when it moved? Not one of my best moments!



Not one of you best moments? This sir, is one of your finest moments! ;D Maybe I'm just odd, but there's something about this one that I just love - it looks like painted brushstrokes  

I wish I could have such wonderful accidents


----------



## piovanil (Oct 23, 2017)

Quirkz said:


> piovanil said:
> 
> 
> > Want to know what happened on the 4th second when it moved? Not one of my best moments!
> ...



Glad you like it! I do like the picture, but not very fond of obtain the results "by accident"!. I wanted a freeze and sharp Quetzal, but got something very different.
If I would wanted that surrealist painted movement I would have been very happy!.
But I had both, so should not be so bad.

Here I have 2 pictures were the light also was very bad and the small birds were moving a lot, but was able to take the picture anyway. The monopod helped and it was a matter of shoot when the bird stood quiet for a second.











Regards


----------



## Jopa (Oct 24, 2017)

Piovanil and Tom Scott - you guys got some *SUPER IMPRESSIVE* pictures. Thank you so much for posting.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 31, 2017)

I just recently acquired a new 100-400 II and truth be told, I am not overly impressed so far. Focus seems a little slow and a bit hit and miss (this is on a 5D3) and quality even on sharp shots is not brilliant in my opinion. It is conceivable I had unrealistic expectations. My previous rig was the 300 II with a 2x tele. 



Emma Gray&#x27;s Forest Lizard (Calotes emma) by Kris Bell, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2017)

The 300/2.8 II is one of the best lenses available. My 300/2.8 + 2xTC gave some remarkable shots with excellent acutance and sets a very high standard that the 100-400mm II +1.4x can't match. However, the 300/2.8 + 2xTC is pretty slow focussing so if the 100-400mm II is slower, then something is wrong with either the lens or the camera.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Oct 31, 2017)

piovanil said:


> Here I have 2 pictures were the light also was very bad and the small birds were moving a lot, but was able to take the picture anyway. The monopod helped and it was a matter of shoot when the bird stood quiet for a second.
> 
> Regards



Where did you focus at on these two pictures. It seems, if you focused on the eyes of the birds, that the focus is slightly shifted to the mid of the bird bodies. The feathers in the middle of the body are looking sharper than the eyes.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 31, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The 300/2.8 II is one of the best lenses available. My 300/2.8 + 2xTC gave some remarkable shots with excellent acutance and sets a very high standard that the 100-400mm II +1.4x can't match. However, the 300/2.8 + 2xTC is pretty slow focussing so if the 100-400mm II is slower, then something is wrong with either the lens or the camera.



Hi Alan, thats interesting. I havent done anything 'scientific' in terms of comparisons and I havent used it enough to form a fully rounded opinion but I would say focusing so far has been no better than 300+2x. How would you expect IQ to compare between the 300+2x and bare 100-400 II?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2017)

krisbell said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 300/2.8 II is one of the best lenses available. My 300/2.8 + 2xTC gave some remarkable shots with excellent acutance and sets a very high standard that the 100-400mm II +1.4x can't match. However, the 300/2.8 + 2xTC is pretty slow focussing so if the 100-400mm II is slower, then something is wrong with either the lens or the camera.
> ...



I have sold both my 300/2.8 and 5DIII but I still have test results as well loads of shots. The combination is particularly good. The 300x2 has 50% more reach than the 100-400mm II and it shows - it has 50% more resolution and not much less acutance. I am not without some remorse selling the 300mm, but I have the 400mm DO II and can't justify having both. The advantages of the 100-400mm II are simply it's a zoom, it is far lighter and focusses very close. It's my travel lens, and I like it on the 5DSR.


----------



## birdforthought (Apr 23, 2018)

Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).

So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI

FYI: I also have the 1.4x TC version 1 but rarely ever use it

Thanks,
Greg


----------



## unfocused (Apr 23, 2018)

birdforthought said:


> ...So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI
> 
> FYI: I also have the 1.4x TC version 1 but rarely ever use it...



Your choices for lenses would be either of the Sigma 150-600s, the Tamron 150-600 or the Canon 100-400 II. There is really nothing else in the under $2,500 range. If your upper limit is higher, you could look at the version I of either the Canon 500mm or Canon 600mm or the Sigma 500mm f4 Sport. 

I have the Sigma C and it is a decent lens, although I generally prefer the Canon 100-400 II. 

You've hit on the dilemma many people face.

APS-C gives you reach, but not low-light performance (Although both the 7DII and the 80D are much improved over the original 7D)

For low-light, the best compromise is probably the 5DIV, which has 7fps (not as good as the 7DII or 1DxII, but certainly usable). Of course, you lose some reach, but with 30 mp, you have some room to crop.

You might also want to upgrade the extender to the III version. Either the 80D or 5DIV, will give you multiple autofocus points at f8. 

If I were in your shoes and I didn't want to buy or carry around one of the older big whites (weight being the major difference between the older and newer versions), I'd update the 100-400 and update the 7D, with a 5DIV or an 80D or 7DII (depending on budget). I believe I see significant improvement between the 100-400 versions I and II and you can sell the version I to make the switch a little less painful. Both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s go on special regularly, so you could add one of those to your kit as an additional option. 

In short, there is no ideal solution, but updating your kit might be the place to start.


----------



## Talys (Apr 23, 2018)

birdforthought said:


> Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).
> 
> So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI
> 
> ...



I think your best bet is a 150-600 Sigma. Without spending big, I think 600/6.3 is as much reach as you can get, with the benefit of it being very sharp at 600. 

The reach is not going to be a lot longer than your 400+1.4, but 6.3 autofocuses better and is more usable than f8. If you like to shoot birds really close in the 100-400L2 is a princely lens that is a big improvement over the mark 1, including a much closer MFD.


----------



## snappy604 (Apr 23, 2018)

birdforthought said:


> Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).
> 
> So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI
> 
> ...




your situation is similar to what I went through.. had a 7D Mk1 and a 100-400 sigma (not the canon, but it died to excessive rain). I purchased the 80D as interim due to certain features and I recently purchased the Sigma C 150-600... 

The 80D is cost effective and a significant leap over the 7d Mk1 on many levels, though I do miss the joystick and the fps... but I find way more keepers with the 80D and better recovery. 

The 150-600mm is really quite sharp, though I find from time to time it seems to get stuck hunting for focus. I also tried the 150-600 with the sigma 1.4x TC (thinking it would only take sigma, but canon works) on the 80D, but found images got too soft and autofocus worked only on centre and was slower than useful. I may continue to play to find a balance, but I regret buying the sigma TC and felt it was a waste of $... but the 150-600 has been worth it and a cost effective alternative to the higher end canons (they are a bit better, but that price!). Yes I was seeing it was possible to get equivalent to 950mm ;-) (600 x 1.4tc x 1.6crop)


----------



## Talys (Apr 23, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> birdforthought said:
> 
> 
> > Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).
> ...



This is exactly what I did, and I had the same experience as you 

I am quite happy with 80D+150-600. 

In comparison to the next step up cost-wise, which is 6DII or 5DIV + 100-400LII, the performance for bird portraits is excellent (better!) when there's enough light for fast shutter and low ISO, about the same around ISO 400-640 (trading more pixels/deeper crop for more noise), and poorer above ISO 800. 

For birds in flight, the challenge is always the autofocus, and the 150-600 just won't keep up in AF speed any of the much more expensive lenses. On the other hand, the 100-400LII is a great handheld shooter, while the 150-600 is a little tougher.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 24, 2018)

birdforthought said:


> Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).
> 
> So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI
> 
> ...



You get a lot more low light capability for your dollar by going to FF. If you are focal length limited with your crop, its going to cost you to get a faster and longer lens.

I'd suggest a FF body and crop the image as long as you don't have to crop too much. You can move from 7D MK I to a 5D MK III and gain a lot of light sensitivity and reduced noise.


----------

