# Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2015)

```
<p>Friend of the site Dustin Abbott has completed a comprehensive review of Canon’s brand new EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. If you head over to his review, there’s also a full video review if you prefer to watch instead of read.</p>
<p><strong>From Dustin</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>I’m not finding much to criticize with this lens. It isn’t cheap, but it is a pretty killer optic with a pro grade build quality. It’s expensive ($2199), but no more so than Canon’s 70-200 f/2.8L or 24-70 f/2.8L variants. When compared with the higher end telephotos, however, it is a great bargain. It offers great reach in a compact package that most users should be able to handhold due to its manageable weight and excellent image stabilizer. It has amazing image quality with next to no real shortcomings. I love my Canon 70-300L and have enjoyed my Tamron 150-600 VC, but this lens has left me in a conundrum. I am strongly considering selling both of these lens in exchange for the new Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II. I like it that much.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-usm-ii-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p>Stock of this lens is extremely scarce and I suggest pre-ordering it as soon as you’re able if you want to be able to have one for the spring.</p>
<p><strong><strong><strong>Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II $2199: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PF39PEY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00PF39PEY&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=DR7JYMNZQZ4LVBHE" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Click (Feb 13, 2015)

Very good review. Thanks Dustin.


----------



## ignomini (Feb 13, 2015)

Excellent review, thanks.

There is one comment in the comparison with the MkI which lists lack of push/pull zoom as a potential con. For those to whom this really matters, be aware the lens operates very well as a push/pull. Install the lens hood, which now locks in place, set the zoom friction to it's lowest detent, grab the lens hood and away you go. When you do this, the zoom ring spins, but I think it acts as a flywheel, so the action is actually smoother than the old lens.

Used the MKI for ten years. Absolutely thrilled with the new version.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 13, 2015)

Thanks, Dustin, for delivering again a really good review.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 13, 2015)

Solid review that seems written by a photographer for photographers. Refrehing real-world images are tremendously helpful.

Thanks!

A note about availability. Very likely the massive dock strikes on the west coast of the USA are having some impact. I wonder if supply is as tight in Europe and Asia?

Despite being very reluctant to go as slow as f5.6, this lens seems so handy and sharp, it is hard to resist.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 13, 2015)

Thanks for the nice feedback everyone, and to CR for being a great partner in sharing my reviews. Roger's breakdown makes me even more enthusiastic about this lens.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 13, 2015)

I had the chance to test mine this past week-end and I agree with Dustin's review. I can confirm that this is an amazing lens. I used mine on the other end of the mountains.

I have debated for a while whether to buy the 70-200 for my zoom lens and I am glad I haven't. I wanted the Tamron but Cameracanada.com never had it in stock, I am glad they never had.
I took it to Montreal pond hockey this past week-end and I am really pleased with it. Except in one point that I will explain later.
I haven't used a zoom lens for almost 3 years now and it took me a while to get back used to it, especially that we are talking 100 to 400mm. My biggest challenge was that I stood/seated literally 2-3m away from the goal at 100mm and when the puck run away I had to instantly zoom to 400mm to reach the other end of the field. The twist is so long that I had trouble balancing the horizon and it was seen on my photos when I track down a player from the other end to the closest that the horizon gets slightly inclined. I am not complaining at all, it just take some time if you used to prime like me.
Focus is fabulous, during the daylight it focuses instantaneously from 100mm to 400mm without any delay on a 1DX body. I was on shoot first and focus later focusing option and yet among 1200 photos I took, I missed only around 20 and I am sure that these were user errors. Don't forget I was shooting 10degree Celsius below 0.

IS is amazing. I tried all 3 of them. Mode 3 would be my favorite for sport. Mode 1 would be indoor and video.

I agree with Dustin, this lens can be comfortably used with gloves. Something that I was concerned about using a zoom during the winter.

I don't know how this behaves indoor, in poor - church lighting conditions. I haven't had the chance yet. Preliminary tests tell me that I would be able to use it without major concern at 1/50sec. I have currently used the 300mm f4 at 1/100sec and will replace it with this one at 1/50sec (using bounce flash). I expect to have difficulty in focusing from 100 to 400 instantaneously like I did with pond hockey, but I won't be needing that.

The only thing I would complain about is snow and very low temparature.
I used it without any trouble on Saturday, around minus 10-14C outdoor. On Sunday, it was around minus 20C and was snowing which forced me to to give up after 15min. I used the fixed 200mm f2.8 last year under same condition and didn't have the same issue. With the zoom, I assume because I zoomed in and out very often the snow falling on the lens melted down and created a thin layer that at some point caused more and more challenges. Besides, 1DX lost contact with the lens after 10min, I rebooted it and it worked for 2-3min and lost contacted again. After 3rd reboot, it showed unreadable red signs and at that point I decided to pack and go back home. All functioned well again after 15min under house temperature. I am not sure if it is the low temperature or the thin ice layer that caused the lost of contact.

I know, I am comparing two different lens but this becomes my 2nd favorite lens after the 85mm 1.2. I will see both on my two bodies for the majority of my works, both outdoor and indoor, both sports and lifestyle photography.

Dustin's review confirmed my own evaluation of my copy. It is a lens for me. Thanks for the review.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 13, 2015)

P.S. Here's a direct link to the video review for those of you interested: http://bit.ly/16ibRAv


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 13, 2015)

Great review hands down....


----------



## Pieces Of E (Feb 14, 2015)

I gave up reading for the annoying facebook, twitter, google+ and linkedin redirects down the left side of the page where the text is, insecure much?


----------



## zim (Feb 14, 2015)

Pieces Of E said:


> I gave up reading for the annoying facebook, twitter, google+ and linkedin redirects down the left side of the page where the text is, insecure much?



Nothing like that on the page I just read, no ads at all

Great review, thanks. Not going to stop me enjoying my 70-300L but...... Hmmmm


----------



## bholliman (Feb 14, 2015)

Well done review Dustin! Done from a photographers perspective, which is much more useful to me than a bunch of technical data. This lens is on my radar, I currently am limited to 200mm. I'd like to add a 300/2.8 II, but not sure I can convince my wife to spend that kind of money since this is just a hobby. $2K for the 100-400 II might be more do-able.


----------



## Marauder (Feb 14, 2015)

Another great review Dustin! I'm currently using the Mark 1 100-400 and this gives me lots to think about! Thanks!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Feb 14, 2015)

Pieces Of E said:


> I gave up reading for the annoying facebook, twitter, google+ and linkedin redirects down the left side of the page where the text is, insecure much?



Was this on a mobile device? It looks like a pretty standard layout for a Wordpress theme to me. Social media links are pretty standard these days. They don't take up much room on his site. No more than they took up on my site before I disabled them because I don't use social media.

As for the review - this looks good. I'm waiting to see how it does with the new 5Ds sensor before I buy, but if it does acceptably, I'll definitely be getting one.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Friend of the site Dustin Abbott has completed a comprehensive review of Canon’s brand new EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. If you head over to his review, there’s also a full video review if you prefer to watch instead of read.</p>
> <p><strong>From Dustin</strong></p>
> <blockquote><p>I’m not finding much to criticize with this lens. It isn’t cheap, but it is a pretty killer optic with a pro grade build quality. It’s expensive ($2199), but no more so than Canon’s 70-200 f/2.8L or 24-70 f/2.8L variants. When compared with the higher end telephotos, however, it is a great bargain. It offers great reach in a compact package that most users should be able to handhold due to its manageable weight and excellent image stabilizer. It has amazing image quality with next to no real shortcomings. I love my Canon 70-300L and have enjoyed my Tamron 150-600 VC, but this lens has left me in a conundrum. I am strongly considering selling both of these lens in exchange for the new Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II. I like it that much.</p></blockquote>
> <p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-usm-ii-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
> ...



Very good review! I appreciate all this information. I just need to save to get this lens. :-[


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 14, 2015)

Great review - the only problem was it was so enthusiastic I started to wonder whether a lens really could be that good!



Pieces Of E said:


> I gave up reading for the annoying facebook, twitter, google+ and linkedin redirects down the left side of the page where the text is, insecure much?



I thought they were in a pretty annoying place too, reading on a tablet, until I realised that in portrait orientation they move to the bottom right - or disappear altogether depending which browser I'm using. Out of curiosity I just looked at the page on my desktop PC, and they are there on the left but the left margin is much bigger (despite the resolution being identical to my tablet at 1920x1200) and this makes it ok. Responsive web design is great, but they don't always get it right!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 14, 2015)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Great review - the only problem was it was so enthusiastic I started to wonder whether a lens really could be that good!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks to everyone for the feedback on this issue. I've passed it on to my web developer. I don't have an issue on my devices, so it's good to know there is one from others. We'll have to work on the positioning of that widget.

I get a lot of feedback about the importance of social media sharing from my partners, but it is all a work in progress for me. I'm a writer and a photographer, but web developer, not so much.


----------



## candyman (Feb 14, 2015)

zim said:


> Pieces Of E said:
> 
> 
> > I gave up reading for the annoying facebook, twitter, google+ and linkedin redirects down the left side of the page where the text is, insecure much?
> ...




True! And, not to forget, the 100-400 II takes the canon extender - the 70-300L not.
This wonderful review of the 100-400 has strengthen my interest in this lens - though the 400 DO II is still nr 1 on my list.


----------



## bmpress (Feb 14, 2015)

Great review...thanks. I have the Tamron 150-600 too and am in a total quandary about whether to switch to the new Canon 100-400. The worst thing I can say about the Tammy is that it is cumbersome in length and weight. And the next issue is that it is not as sharp as as I would prefer. I have never used an extender and wonder if using one would make the Canon + extender a real pain in the butt. Since money is not my problem what do some of the forum members think on this subject?


----------



## WillThompson (Feb 14, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > Great review - the only problem was it was so enthusiastic I started to wonder whether a lens really could be that good!
> ...



The floating crap stopped me from reading the review.

These web people just don't get it that nothing should ever float over the page ever.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 14, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > Great review - the only problem was it was so enthusiastic I started to wonder whether a lens really could be that good!
> ...



Interesting that you're not seeing a problem. I've now also viewed it on my phone - Galaxy S3 - and it's even worse on the smaller screen.

Great review though - thank you!


----------



## LukasS (Feb 15, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Thanks to everyone for the feedback on this issue. I've passed it on to my web developer. I don't have an issue on my devices, so it's good to know there is one from others. We'll have to work on the positioning of that widget.



I had the same problem while reading on on of my screens that is set up in portrait orientation (Full HD resolution). I've attached screen.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 15, 2015)

The problem should be solved now. The "Share" buttons have been moved to the right side where there should be the buffer of the side links to prevent a similar problem. If any of you that have had a problem would be kind enough to let me know if this solves the problem for you, I would be obliged!


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 15, 2015)

bmpress said:


> I have never used an extender and wonder if using one would make the Canon + extender a real pain in the butt. Since money is not my problem what do some of the forum members think on this subject?



Background: I sold my 1.x4 vII extender in June with my 70-200/2.8L IS vI. I sold the zoom because I was purchasing the vII model under a rebate offer, and the buyer wanted the extender, too, which I didn't use much.

I didn't have any issues with the extender's performance, I just didn't like the hassle of removing it and remounting it as the need arose. I usually only use focal lengths greater than 100mm when I'm hiking; therefore, out "in the wild," where any lens changes are opportunities to drop, damage or at least sully equipment.

I bought the 100-400 II in December, so I now have more reach with it than I did with the 70-200 + 1.4x. I'm not ruling out the possibility of someday picking up a 1.4x III, but won't do so unless I absolutely need it.

IMHO, your degree of satisfaction with using extenders (with the exception of the built-in one in the 200-400) depends largely upon how frequently you need / want to mount and unmount them.


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 16, 2015)

Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.

This lens plus TC plus 7D II will set you back close to £4000.

Now a Tamron 150-600 (or the equivalent new Sigma C - due March) plus the new hi-res 760D (coming soon) will give you much much bigger images to work with......for only about £1700!


----------



## fragilesi (Feb 16, 2015)

Can someone ban Dustin from this site please?

I was doing so well telling myself I didn't *absolutely need* this lens until that excellent review


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 16, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Can someone ban Dustin from this site please?
> 
> I was doing so well telling myself I didn't *absolutely need* this lens until that excellent review



LOL. Just call me a troll and ignore me


----------



## The Flasher (Feb 16, 2015)

Thanks for taking the time to write this review, Dustin. I'm from Canada as well, but lucky enough to be traveling in Hawai'i as I write this. In my attempt to travel as light as possible, (traveling with 10 m.o.) I brought my 6D, an old school 28-80 (incredibly light, pretty sharp - 1st gen) and 70-200 2.8 L. If the weight of this 100-400 is comparable to the 70-200 2.8 II as you say, it would have been a much better choice. 

My alternative was the 300 f4 prime for incredible image quality, but decided to flexibility of the zoom.

cheers.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2015)

Plainsman said:


> Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.
> 
> This lens plus TC plus 7D II will set you back close to £4000.
> 
> Now a Tamron 150-600 (or the equivalent new Sigma C - due March) plus the new hi-res 760D (coming soon) will give you much much bigger images to work with......for only about £1700!



Before you buy either 150-600 make test that it works well on your crop. The Tamron is great on FF but it is not as good on crop. The 100-400mm II does give good images on the 7DII.


----------



## dcm (Feb 17, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.
> ...



I've seen this mentioned several times but can't find a good reference that quantifies this. TDP only has the Tamron on FF. It would be interesting to see it on a 7DII. Did I miss a post somewhere? 

I seem to get pretty good results with the Tamron on both my M and T2i, ranging from nearby targets to moon shots. On the 6D it required AFMA +8, but the 550D AF (no AFMA) seems to handle it fine. The differences I've noticed so far are the same as any other FF/crop comparison I've done. Since the Tamron doesn't take my Canon extenders the extra reach on my crops is sometimes beneficial, such as shooting the moon. 

I am considering the 100-400mm II for a smaller/lighter solution since I already have both extenders. Even with AFMA my copy of the Tamron is really only sharp up to 400mm (consistent with TDP). In many situations I'll take a shot at both 600mm and 400mm so I have a choice in post.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2015)

I tried it myself on a 70D in an earlier post before I got the 7DII, and the Tamron was not as good. Unfortunately, all of the reviews apart from TDP use just FF, which is sad because many people seem to be using it on the 7DII. It's an interesting exercise to compare the old and new 100-400mm on the 60D on the TDP site. The centres of both lenses on the 1DsIII look very similar but the II draws significantly ahead on the 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

DxO shows that the Tamron better at the edges than the old 100-400 on the 5DIII and only slightly worse in the centre, but on the 7D the Canon is significantly better in the centre at 400mm.

All these lens seem good in isolation - it is only when you compare them that you can see that some are better!

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-7D


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I tried it myself on a 70D in an earlier post before I got the 7DII, and the Tamron was not as good. Unfortunately, all of the reviews apart from TDP use just FF, which is sad because many people seem to be using it on the 7DII. It's an interesting exercise to compare the old and new 100-400mm on the 60D on the TDP site. The centres of both lenses on the 1DsIII look very similar but the II draws significantly ahead on the 60D.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
> 
> ...


Hi Alan! 

The German "fotomagazin" journal just tested the new telezooms. Canon, Tamron, Sigma S on both FF and APS-C.
Result:
All three got a 5 star "super" (best quality seal), all were really good from open aperture on, with max IQ stoped down one step, but getting worse with higher f numbers. 
The Canon got the best numbers in the overlapping focal ranges, but also the note, that 100 to 400 mm were easier to design than the others. 
No comparisons with TC. 
So seeing this result, in real world usage to me it's about price, brand, convenience (weight, size, reach), AF/IS performance but not that much in IQ.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 18, 2015)

This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html


----------



## dcm (Feb 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.
> 
> http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html



Thanks. And sorry, I did not mean to hijack the thread. We can now return to the regularly scheduled discussion about the 100-400mm II.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 18, 2015)

dcm said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.
> ...



I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic. A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget. The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight. Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D). It looked pretty great in his hands.
> 
> http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html



All of these lenses are capable of excellent results when the images are large. What I want to see are side-by-side shots from different lenses on the same cameras or quantitative measurements or both. I want to know how they cope when you have to crop out most of the frame.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Hi Alan!
> 
> The German "fotomagazin" journal just tested the new telezooms. Canon, Tamron, Sigma S on both FF and APS-C.
> Result:
> ...



Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.


Sorry, but it is a paper journal. And giving more information than this summary would surely be against their copyright. 

Here is their homepage (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/

And here they offer reviews for a fee some time after the paper journal is available (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/technik/tests

The test I am refering to is not available there yet.


----------



## dcm (Feb 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Agreed, but maybe we should start a separate thread for a discussion of the Canon / Sigma / Tamron super tele zooms, especially with upcoming zooms, rather than repeat it in multiple threads for the individual zooms. I wouldn't have picked this title to find the comparison.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.
> ...



It would be a breach of copyright to reproduce a page from their journal, however it is perfectly legal to report their results in a table prepared by you.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic. A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget. The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight. Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.


I routinely shoot my 300/3.8L II plus 2x III hand held, so the Sigma (S version) which is just a fraction heavier would certainly be possible. And for less than a third of the price who wouldn't give it serious consideration!? It may even focus faster without the handicap of the Extender.

Based on what I've learned from two friends who have/had the Tamron (one has returned it), the optics are very good but AF in AI Servo mode is not very good making it a disappointing lens for BIFs etc. Very good for static shots where maximum reach is needed though.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2015)

Steve Balcombe said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic. A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget. The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight. Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.
> ...


The Sigma is much longer than the 300 + 2xTC and by all accounts that makes it much more difficult to hold because of the greater torque. Just about every review complains about the difficulty of holding it.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 19, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > I routinely shoot my 300/3.8L II plus 2x III hand held, so the Sigma (S version) which is just a fraction heavier would certainly be possible. And for less than a third of the price who wouldn't give it serious consideration!? It may even focus faster without the handicap of the Extender.
> ...



The length is important, yes - in fact just adding the 2x to mine makes a huge difference as it shifts the weight 53 mm further away. It took me a while to find the length of the Sigma fully extended (Sigma doesn't include that in the published specs) but it turns out to be 80 mm longer than my combination which would be very noticeable.

However, it's important to understand that the comments in reviews are relative and subjective - for somebody moving up from the 70-300 USM for example, all the 150-600 lenses are 'monsters'. Compared with what I'm using now it's just a little more (though maybe the straw that breaks the camel's back). And you do get used to it - I'm *much* more comfortable with mine now than I was when I first had it two years ago.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2015)

The lens hood by all accounts is also heavy, unlike the carbon fibre one on the 300 2.8 - the published weight of the lens doesn't include that hood, which also protrudes out very far..

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/11/02/first-impressions-sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-lens/#.VOXVi3ZnkdI

"... my arm was shaking under the weight of the lens while I took these images. "

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/24/sigma-150-600mm-sport-hands-on-preview-of-sigmas-latest-massive-sigmonster

"When I said "massive super-telephoto lens," I meant it. This lens feels huge and heavy, and it's probably the largest lens I've ever had the opportunity to shoot with."

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_150-600mm_f5-6-3_DG_OS_HSM_Sport/

"It should be clear at this point that the 150-600mm Sport is bigger and heavier than most alternative propositions. That said, it's not impractical - I squeezed it into my F-Stop Loka pack with some other gear and even managed to do some handheld street, bird and sunset shooting with it. But it's not a lens you'll want to handhold for long, and neither is it one that you'll forget about carrying around. If you're upgrading from the earlier 150-500mm you'll really notice the difference, especially if you're hiking to shoot wildlife."


----------



## LukasS (Feb 20, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone ban Dustin from this site please?
> ...


If it would be that simple .

Thanks Dustin, my preorder has been set up few weeks ago, since in Poland it's almost impossible to get that lens from reputable store (I saw it at maybe two sellers at the moment, but waiting for one from my trusted one) right now.

It's crazy how this lens is selling, I'm putting my aviation set (7dmkII + Tc 1.4 + this lens) for this season. Can't wait to get my hands on.


----------

