canon 100-400 mk2 +1.4 extender vs sigma 150-600

[SpikeK6]

Recently gone full frame with a canon 5dmk4 and have been toying with the idea of upgrading my 100-400 lens to the mk2 version

I would like to add a 1.4 extender to that to give me longer focal lenght but then had the idea about the Sigma 150-600

so

Canon 100-400 mk2 + 1.4 extender OR

Sigma 150-600

Heard and read that the contemperary sigma lens is better than the sport version

 

[Dale.]

This might not help much but..............

I have a 100-400, although it's a MK1. I also have the Sigma as well as a 5Div. I more often than not leave the 100-400 at home in favour of the Sigma. My copy of the Sigma is as sharp, if not sharper than the Canon.

I have heard great things about the 100-400MK2 though, it's allegedly an incredible lens. I would've sold my Mk1 and got the Mk2 if I didn't already have the Sigma.

PS, If it's the Mkiii TC, it will have a very marginal affect on image quality, if any but you will lose some light. It may also affect AF. 400mm with a 1.4xTC will effectively be 560mm and f8, whilst the Sigma is 6.3 at 600mm.

 

[SpikeK6]

This might not help much but..............

I have a 100-400, although it's a MK1. I also have the Sigma as well as a 5Div. I more often than not leave the 100-400 at home in favour of the Sigma. My copy of the Sigma is as sharp, if not sharper than the Canon.

I have heard great things about the 100-400MK2 though, it allegedly an incredible lens. I would've sold my Mk1 and got the Mk2 if I didn't already have the Sigma.

PS, If it's the Mkiii TC, it will have a very marginal affect on image quality, if any but you will lose some light. It may also affect AF. 400mm with a 1.4xTC will effectively be 560mm and f8, whilst the Sigma is 6.3 at 600mm.

What you have explained is sort of the way I was thinking last night hence my post,
If the sigma is a good sharp lens then why start to adding length only to be limited in other areas with the canon, i.e light etc

Thanks for the reply

 

[Dale.]

I know for sure, you won't be disappointed with either, just bear in mind TCs bring caveats.

 

[Mike.P]

I have both the Canon 100-400mm MKII (with 1.4x III extender) and the Sigma 150-600mm Sport (Have also had the 150-600mm contemp)

First off the contemporary version is not better than the sport, IQ wise the sport just edges it (IMO) and has much better build quality but at the same time it's quite a bit heavier and so not a walkabout lens as such.

As for IQ between the Canon and Sigma, I have always found the Canon (don't bother with the MK I, the II is a massive improvement) the better lens between 100-400mm but once you add the teleconverter and shoot both at f/8 the Sigma is ever so slightly sharper.

I know it's difficult to decide from other peoples pics but these were both taken on a 7D MKII, I am happy with both lenses tbh but 9 times out of 10 I take out the Canon with the 1.4x because of the weight difference.

Canon with 1.4x III


Shelduck by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

150-600mm Sport


Grey Heron by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

 

[Tysonator]

I have both the Canon 100-400L mkii and Sigma 150-600C, plus I also now have canon R7 mirrorless to compare against my 7Dii ( which I love to bits ) !

The eye AF on my 100-400L Mkii works amazingly well, not quite as good on the sigma. Both lens are heavy, both a re very good, though the Sigma my need tweaking vis sigma dock as not all sigma's are great straight out of the box, though once tweaked are very, very good.

The next issue is the Sigma is a lot cheaper than the canon 100-400L Mkii

One think I would not do is use TC on the 100-400L as you lose light, AF speed and it is another expensive bit of canon kit. For DSLR users and a budget the sigma 150-600C offers so much bang for buck.