Canon or Sigma lens ?

Messages
22
Name
Neil Sweeting
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm finding that I need a greater focal length than what my Tamron SP 70-300mm lens can give so am thinking of getting either a Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM or a Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM 'C' for my Canon 750D. Both seem to be around the same sort of money secondhand so not sure which one to go for really so could do with some good advice please, which ever one I get will mainly be used for wildlife but open to any other suggestions
 
Are you looking at the previous or new version of the Canon 100-400 ? The new version is very nice and def worth a look at...
 
The Canon 100-400 L IS Mk2 is an excellent lens but it would be well beyond the OP's budget.

Having owned the Canon 100-400 Mk1 and used the Sigma C and S models I would recommend a new or used Canon 400 F5.6 L. It is a nice simple, slim lens with no IS to muck up AF and will blow the socks off the other two in the AF department. Add to this the better IQ, reduced weight etc etc (possibly cheaper too).
A small price to pay for the lack of a "zoom" function which you, almost certainly, will not need. My primary lens is a Canon 800mm and it is almost never too long - but frequently too short!

Happy deciding.
 
I have the sigma 150-600c and I am very pleased with it. Before I got it I tried the canon 100-400mk2 which was a very good lens. In the end it came down to the extra reach of the sigma for me
 
I'm finding that I need a greater focal length than what my Tamron SP 70-300mm lens can give so am thinking of getting either a Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM or a Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM 'C' for my Canon 750D. Both seem to be around the same sort of money secondhand so not sure which one to go for really so could do with some good advice please, which ever one I get will mainly be used for wildlife but open to any other suggestions

Unless you can get really close to your wildlife subjects 400 mm will never be enough, in fact if you get a 600 mm you will still want more.
 
Will the 750D AF at F6.3?
 
Neil where are you located one of our fellow toggers here might let you try out either lens. I have the Sigma 150-600 great lens also had the Canon 100-400 again a great lens but I wanted more reach.
 
I changed a canon 400mm f5.6 for the sigma 150-600mm sport haven’t looked back.

I use it mainly with a canon 1.4tc and getting shots I couldn’t dream of with the others. The af on the sigma is just as quick imho as my old 400mm f5.6 which was quicker the 100-400mm zoom.

At times with wildlife the longer range you can have the better.

But the sigma does hunt a little more with the 1.4tc then without, but not as much as the 400mm f5.6 did with it fitted.

My opinion The sigma, which competes more with the 400mm f4 DO imho. (New v second hand)

Here’s what I got last night with the sigma and canon 1.4tc for an example of quality.

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/182875825@N08/48359173276/in/dateposted-public/


Only factor to consider for yourself is the weight, try them both in your hand if hand holding see what you can manage. My sigma 150-600 is heavier the the canon 100-400 and the I think heavier then the contemporary too.
 
Last edited:
I have a 7D (no 750) but I haven't tried my Sigma on it. I also have a 5Div and my Sigma is hardly ever off that body. I also have the 100-400 MK1 which is suprisingly sharp as not all of them are, I must have a good copy and I wouldn't part with it.

My scenario was that I had the 100-400 lens on my 5D and I found it a little short at times for what I was trying to do. I couldn't stretch to the big Canon's, (600L etc) as they are close to £10k, even second hand and well over that new. I'd heard good reports of the Sigma ( I have the C ) and for the money, I think I paid about £750 new in January, it was worth a punt. I've not looked back, in my opinion, it's as sharp as the 100-400, the only thing I would criticise would be the aperture at 600mm, which is 6.3 but you get what you pay for in that department.

My advice? Go for the Sigma, the L is a lovely lens but you'll wish you had the extra reach of the Sigma. I'd also suggest some good gear, camo clothing etc and spending lots of time with your subjects, studying their habits and working on your fieldcraft, this will get you closer than any lens currently out there. (y)
 
I suggested the Canon 400 F5.6 due to it's AF performance, price (especially used) and slim design (ease of carrying/handling). I have never been quite happy with the AF on third party lenses, it certainly works, but for me AF performance is more important than absolute reach. I am lucky as with my 800mm I have both but it is not fun to lug about!

The Sigma lenses are good lenses by any standards - I just find the 400 F5.6 better overall. If I didn't stumble across a 100-400 L IS Mk2 going very reasonably priced than I would have the 400 F5.6 myself.

Only the OP can decide which is the best option for them.
 
Firstly thanks so much for all of the replies & first hand experiences with both lenses. If I went for the Canon it would have to be the MK1 version as the MK2 is out of my price range sadly & will be for quite a few years. It's nice to hear such good feedback about the Sigma lens as I was swaying more to it than the Canon due to the extra reach but know it's not a light lens but once I get the surgery done on both of my shoulders I should manage it ok or at least for a few years if the issue comes back & have to have the surgery done again
 
Had the sigma 150-600s and desperately want another one, the C is great too.
 
Weight and range is the biggest thing to think about. I doubt you notice much difference between the two lenses in iq terms. Just you get the longer range, and less cropping. less cropping better images. so that's the second thing to think about do you nee the extra range. For wild life id say youd miss the extra range of the sigma.
d
it was the range that made me change the 400 f5.6, my images with the sigma plus 1.4tc are better then with the 400 f5.6 which s better then canons 100-400mm. Always hard choice.
 
It's fine saying go for a 600mm max range lens, or add a teleconverter to a 400mm, but if you end up missing shots with it (not locking on to focus quickly enough, or the aperture is too small to give you the shutter speed you need for a sharp image of a moving object without going too 'noisy' with your ISO), then it's probably no more use than a faster and more accurately focussing 400mm max range lens and a bit of a crop.

Unfortunately, all round quality and performance doesn't come cheap and you can't get a Rolls Royce for Mini money. So for many of us something has to give, be that AF performance, zoom range, aperture stops and/or weight and size.

Could it be that a lot of the 'lightly used' 150-600mm zoom lenses you see for sale have been bought by people who subsequently realised they're a pretty big lump to carry around and use hand-held, and found they weren't using them as much as they thought they would because of that?
 
the sigma at 5.6 around the 400mm mark, its the weight factor I have pointed out before, I am used to it but still use a mono pod with gimbal head for long shoots and hide sessions.

I want the 400mm f4 DO to go along with my sigma 150-600mm sport.
 
Back
Top