Which Would You Prefer?

Dale.

Dale.

Bo Derek
Moderator
Messages
11,984
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 100-400L, it's a Mark 1. I have been wanting to update it, if that's the right word for the Mk2, which is, or so I've heard/seen, is sharper than the Mark1. I also prefer the twist zoom of the Mark2.

That said, I have an R7 and of course, EF glass can be used seamlessly on R bodies with the adapter but I'm thinking ahead now and it's ony a matter of time before I do switch to Canon mirrorless, once I've had my use out of the 5Div. The R7 has blown me away, I feel much happier with it in my hands and a future R, FF body is on my mind now. I loved my Fuji previously, there's just something about mirrorless.

For now though, I'm sticking with the 5Div, I love that camera too. I am though reluctant now to spend in the region of £2k for the Mk 2 100-400, and now I have the R7 as a second body, I am making the transition and enjoying it too.

All my glass is currently EF.

It got me thinking though, I have a lot of time for the newer Sigma lenses, I am considering the 24-105 Art, to replace my Mk1 24-105, that has a small but annoying AF glitch.

I'm thinking, in my situation, that the Sigma 100-400 might be a better buy for me than the Mk2 100-400L. I'm not saying it's a better lens than the Mk2 but is it a better, (mainly sharper) lens than the Mk1 100-400.

The change from the Mk1 to the Mk2 is obviously an improvment but what about the Sigma 100-400, versus the Canon 100-400 Mk1? Have I missed any caveats?

For the foreseeable, any new lens purchases will be EF, not RF, as the 5Div has plenty of life left in it, it may even outlive me. I can use EF on both my 5D and on my R7 but not the other way around.

TIA.

EDIT:- just to add, this is a bit speculative at the moment, not forgetting I already own the 150-600C.
 
Last edited:
I have a Sigma lens I really like. Also a Tamron is my main walk around lens. Truth be known though I don't have the same lens's in Nikons for no other reason than I can't afford them. I somehow doubt I'd gain much going to the Nikon lens's but OME equipment just seems to me the way to go. Probably won't gain much if any by going Canon over the Sigma but probably cost quite a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Re the Canon 100-400L mk1 vs the mk2 - buy, beg, steal or borrow a MK2 its a megga lens, and on an R7 even more so with the crop factor.

You won't be dissapointed

David
 
Dale. said:
I have a Canon 100-400L, it's a Mark 1. I have been wanting to update it, if that's the right word for the Mk2,
Click to expand...
I didn't own the MKI but the MKII is a cracking lens, I'd go as far as to say, its better than the MKII 70-200 2.8.
I use the 100 - 400 MKII in preference to the 70-200 these days, and yet that was my favourite lens for years.
 
In the past with my now sold Canon gear.

I started with the MK1 100-400, then as soon as the MK2 came out I traded in the MK1.

Optically the MK2 had noticeable improvements but it took me a while to get used to the rotary zoom compared to the 'push pull' of the MK1.
 
Don Fischer said:
Probably won't gain much if any by going Canon over the Sigma but probably cost quite a bit more.
Click to expand...
I agree.

My Sony A65s wear a Tamron 16~300mm and a Sigma 10~20mm. They provide images that meet my wishes, so that's OK. ;)

On the other hand, different people have different needs and desires...

Sony A65s with Tamron and Sigma lenses GX7 P1140617.JPG
 
Last edited:
It seems we're leaning towards the Mk2 and that's cool. I think I knew all along it is the better lens of the 3. My problem is the cost and do I want to be spending £2k on an EF lens, which will depreciate badly in the not too distant future. Or will it?

There's always used but I've never had much luck buying used glass from used dealers.

My 150-600 is sharp, as sharp if not sharper than the Mk1 100-400 I have, which is no dog of a lens, it is sharp too, I just think that at f8, the Sigma is sharper. As I have the 150-600, I'm wondering do I actually need a 100-400 of any kind.


Gav. said:
You've got the Sigma 150-600 so may be a long prime lens instead?? f4 or f2.8 will keep you shooting longer to the evening ... and the best of the British weathers ;);)
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense, I've had a hankering for the 500 f4 for a number of years. it's the ensuing divorce settlement that could make the cost of that lens sky rocket.

That said, they are not too scary used. There's a motorbike in my workshop that sometimes looks like a 5 or 600 f4. ;)

I considered the 400 f4DO MK2 but I would need a TC as well to get me to the focal length I like to work at.

The wider aperture would help too, especially here in Scotland.


Too many choices but I am in no rush.
 
Gav. said:
Ouch :LOL: I think fast glass is safer ...
(I gave up bikes, knees aren't what they were :ROFLMAO:)
Click to expand...


I would regret selling it but I do often wonder. Being a dad now has changed my view.

I'm good at saving when there is something I want/need, so I'd probably go with that. (y)
 
Dale,

Where in Scotland are you based? I'm in South Lanarkshire and have the 500 f4 (Mark 1) and 100-400mm II if you want to try either.

Neil
 
Have you thought about the rf 100 to 500 for the R7? I am thinking about trading my sigma 150 to 600 for one.
 
I have the 100-400mk II and it is a cracking lens, my favourite lens and just love using it. Very sharp and i have taken in my opinion some of my best work with it. I can't comment on the Sigma or any of the prime etc as ive never used them, but a big thumbs up for the mkii
 
Gav. said:
Sorry for derail :)
Click to expand...

Don't be daft, not at all. :)

da_nige said:
Dale,

Where in Scotland are you based? I'm in South Lanarkshire and have the 500 f4 (Mark 1) and 100-400mm II if you want to try either.

Neil
Click to expand...

That's a very kind offer Neil, thank you. I am over in Ayrshire. Leave it with me and we can maybe arrange something.


Mick616 said:
Have you thought about the rf 100 to 500 for the R7? I am thinking about trading my sigma 150 to 600 for one.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I've thought about that one many times. I see it in my future but not until I'm fully commited to the RF mount.

hamster100 said:
I have the 100-400mk II and it is a cracking lens, my favourite lens and just love using it. Very sharp and i have taken in my opinion some of my best work with it. I can't comment on the Sigma or any of the prime etc as ive never used them, but a big thumbs up for the mkii
Click to expand...

Cheers Doug.

Seems that lens is the clear winner.
 
Dale. said:
It seems we're leaning towards the Mk2 and that's cool. I think I knew all along it is the better lens of the 3. My problem is the cost and do I want to be spending £2k on an EF lens, which will depreciate badly in the not too distant future. Or will it?

There's always used but I've never had much luck buying used glass from used dealers.

My 150-600 is sharp, as sharp if not sharper than the Mk1 100-400 I have, which is no dog of a lens, it is sharp too, I just think that at f8, the Sigma is sharper. As I have the 150-600, I'm wondering do I actually need a 100-400 of any kind.




That makes a lot of sense, I've had a hankering for the 500 f4 for a number of years. it's the ensuing divorce settlement that could make the cost of that lens sky rocket.

That said, they are not too scary used. There's a motorbike in my workshop that sometimes looks like a 5 or 600 f4. ;)

I considered the 400 f4DO MK2 but I would need a TC as well to get me to the focal length I like to work at.

The wider aperture would help too, especially here in Scotland.


Too many choices but I am in no rush.
Click to expand...
Buddy read through whole thread one question...................what focal lengths do you normally shoot at?
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Buddy read through whole thread one question...................what focal lengths do you normally shoot at?
Click to expand...


400-600 seems to be my realm with birds Stu.

Depends on the camera though, obviously with the crop factor on the R7. I've been using the Sigma on my 5D and the 100-400 on the R7, so roughly the same.

I sometimes can't resist though and put the Sigma on the R7, gives me 960mm equivalent in FF terms. Always nice to have that extra bit, effectively 360mm more. That said, I'm usually turning things down from there.
 
No question the 100-400ii is a quality lens. I've had 2 and they were both incredibly sharp. Where the real question lies is do you need it with the R7? I've had no experience of the R7 but if it can handle higher ISOs well Id sell the mark one and the sigma and get the mark2 with a 1.4tc

If you still need to reach for the 5div in lower light then I'd stick with the Sigma and when the time is right get some fast glass. Canon 300mm f2.8ii and a mk3 converter would probably outperfom all the zooms - just a tad over 3k for the lens used now at MPB

Mike
 
Then with 400-600 mm as your go to............ go f4 prime buddy . I agree with Gav . Mike's words make loadsa sense Dale but you adore kingfisher and they are teeny tiny.so reach is so much more needed to you ........several reasons. look bud I know you can wack perches up and get close but you being sched 1 an all will allow you to be quiet an descrete around nest sites keep way back and potentially give you a greater window of behaviours. a 600 f4 is going to be mainly used of tripod...I guess?............ so weight might not be such a burden........... couple in an ext 1.4 or 2 and then potentially 1.6 of the R7 sure at f8 you would have a lot of mm's .

Buddy the above is me brainstorming something I know nowt about............but very simply if your sweet spot is 400-600 then maybe scarifice the 100-400 for reach and save for a tool you would get the highest grade images from IE a big prime.to use on the subject you adore making images of so so much

Matey I love my DO ii but we shoot different niches so as much as it's a cracking lens I honestly think you need a different tool

Some thought buddy

THANK GOD IT'S FRIDAY :banana:

take care

stu
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Then with 400-600 mm as your go to............ go f4 prime buddy . I agree with Gav . Mike's words make loadsa sense Dale but you adore kingfisher and they are teeny tiny.so reach is so much more needed to you ........several reasons. look bud I know you can wack perches up and get close but you being sched 1 an all will allow you to be quiet an descrete around nest sites keep way back and potentially give you a greater window of behaviours. a 600 f4 is going to be mainly used of tripod...I guess?............ so weight might not be such a burden........... couple in an ext 1.4 or 2 and then potentially 1.6 of the R7 sure at f8 you would have a lot of mm's .

Buddy the above is me brainstorming something I know nowt about............but very simply if your sweet spot is 400-600 then maybe scarifice the 100-400 for reach and save for a tool you would get the highest grade images from IE a big prime.to use on the subject you adore making images of so so much

Matey I love my DO ii but we shoot different niches so as much as it's a cracking lens I honestly think you need a different tool

Some thought buddy

THANK GOD IT'S FRIDAY :banana:

take care

stu
Click to expand...


appreciate that Stu, thanks Bud.
 
Why does anyone really care about the crop factor. They both are different but work with what camera you have! I have no idea what the crop factor is on my camera and don't actually think it matter's. Both factors yield a useable photo don't they?
 
I have the Sigma 100-400. I bought it because it’s much cheaper, sharp enough but the main reason is that it’s light in terms of weight. The Canon is going to be sharper but realistically thats better if you are going to crop a lot or use a teleconverter. The other advantages is that that the AF motor will be faster though the Sigma isn’t too bad. My main point though is the weight, this combo means you are more likely to take the Sigma 100-400 and spend hours walking around unless you don’t mind lugging heaving gear around.
 
pooley said:
No question the 100-400ii is a quality lens. I've had 2 and they were both incredibly sharp. Where the real question lies is do you need it with the R7? I've had no experience of the R7 but if it can handle higher ISOs well Id sell the mark one and the sigma and get the mark2 with a 1.4tc

If you still need to reach for the 5div in lower light then I'd stick with the Sigma and when the time is right get some fast glass. Canon 300mm f2.8ii and a mk3 converter would probably outperfom all the zooms - just a tad over 3k for the lens used now at MPB

Mike
Click to expand...


The 300 2.8, a lens I often considered not long ago. I have an f4, lovely lens. I would need the TC too.


I need a word with myself, to figure things out. I see an R full frame body in my future, which begs the question, do I just buy RF glass from this point forward, or do I buy used EF, as I'm still using a 5D and will be for some time yet. I do need to replace my 24-105 EF though.

I think since starting this thread out of curiosity mainly to begin with, it's become clear that the Mk2 is my best option. I could jiggle and trade some of my glass to get it. I would probably buy used.

I think though, I should also at some point in my life own a 'big white', so we'll see.

I am happy with the glass I have, it's just the Mk1 is a bit long in the tooth now, (a bit like me), I'd say it is also a minter. I was wondering if the Sigma was an option. Nice lens I'm sure the Sigma is but I think if I do change up a bit, it will be the Mk2 Canon.
 
I just don't get on with my R7, thinking of selling it and all my EF glass and going 100% Sony (although Nikon has got me thinking with the 180-600mm)

Anyway I have the 100-400mm MKII and it is streets ahead of the MKI and while the Sigma may be cheaper the Canon does take the 1.4x MKIII very well and gives excellent results wide open at 560mm which saves carrying my Sigma 150-600mm Sport.
 
When I first read this post my thought was you just have GAS; let it pass.

I'm in a similar boat with Nikon. I bought the Z9 when it first came out, but I am heavily invested in F mount lenses and keeping my D850. At this point my approach is to not buy ANYTHING that I do not genuinely need or will not provide some very significant improvements that allow me to justify it to myself. To that point, I have not bought a single Z lens; although I have just pre-ordered the 180-600. And that may be the only Z lens I ever buy.

Anymore, I usually find myself taking pictures in a way that doesn't achieve the highest levels of resolution possible (e.g. atmosphere, loose compositions) or editing in a way that gives up resolution (downsampling, heavy noise reduction, etc); so the concerns over maximum possible IQ are lower. So there's not much that I would *need* any new lens for, or makes it easily justifiable.
 
Mike.P said:
I just don't get on with my R7, thinking of selling it and all my EF glass and going 100% Sony (although Nikon has got me thinking with the 180-600mm)

Anyway I have the 100-400mm MKII and it is streets ahead of the MKI and while the Sigma may be cheaper the Canon does take the 1.4x MKIII very well and gives excellent results wide open at 560mm which saves carrying my Sigma 150-600mm Sport.
Click to expand...


I had a feeling a while ago you weren't keen on the R7 Mike. I enjoy mine but it's certainly not perfect, I hear you.

sk66 said:
When I first read this post my thought was you just have GAS; let it pass.

I'm in a similar boat with Nikon. I bought the Z9 when it first came out, but I am heavily invested in F mount lenses and keeping my D850. At this point my approach is to not buy ANYTHING that I do not genuinely need or will not provide some very significant improvements that allow me to justify it to myself. To that point, I have not bought a single Z lens; although I have just pre-ordered the 180-600. And that may be the only Z lens I ever buy.

Anymore, I usually find myself taking pictures in a way that doesn't achieve the highest levels of resolution possible (e.g. atmosphere, loose compositions) or editing in a way that gives up resolution (downsampling, heavy noise reduction, etc); so the concerns over maximum possible IQ are lower. So there's not much that I would *need* any new lens for, or makes it easily justifiable.
Click to expand...


Thanks Steven.

Nope, no GAS here, I've cut back on my gear lately, although there are some bits I just can't part with. My MK1 100-400 is in that category but I would consider trading it against the Mk2.

My plan is to buy anything EF used from this point though as I think there's some heavy depreciation coming in the not to distant future.
 
The Sigma 24-105 art is a cracker of a lens, but it's heavier than the Canon 24-105L by a fair bit. Just checked the Sigmas around 30oz and the Canon 23oz
 
Last edited:
I’m not quite sure what you are trying to achieve. I have used a Canon 400l f5.6 and a Sigma 150-600 C on an R7 and the results were good. I have not used the Canon 100-400 I mark ii. The reviews suggest that the prime lens is sharper than the Canon. If you don’t always shoot at 400mm then I agree the 100-400 would be very useful, but how much better than the Sigma.

For me the next step would be one of the big whites 500 or 600mm but these are very expensive and heavy.

I am having a similar debate, but for now have decided to stick with what I’ve got, although I may hire a Canon 100-400 to see if I am missing something.
 
Any update Dale?

I have a Canon 100-400 L is ii on extended test over Christmas and the New Year but given the weather and having to fix a water leak in the house, I have not used it yet. I keep looking at the 500 L is mark 1, but as they are no longer serviced by Canon and potentially only marginally better than the Sigma, I am still not convinced. F4 would however be very useful. I could buy a used version from one of the main sellers and return it if necessary.
 
Brentor said:
Any update Dale?

I have a Canon 100-400 L is ii on extended test over Christmas and the New Year but given the weather and having to fix a water leak in the house, I have not used it yet. I keep looking at the 500 L is mark 1, but as they are no longer serviced by Canon and potentially only marginally better than the Sigma, I am still not convinced. F4 would however be very useful. I could buy a used version from one of the main sellers and return it if necessary.
Click to expand...


Sorry, my bad, I missed this. :rolleyes:

Yes, there is most definately an update. I ordered a Mk2 yesterday, from LCE. Drumming my fingers on the window sill right now waiting for the DPD van, even though it isn't due until tomorrow.

I actually still have my Mark 1 too, I didn't trade it as I felt it was worth more to me than what several companies had offered. I will attempt to sell it privately.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's here and first impressions are.............

it's stunning!


I'm not going to knock the Mark 1, it's been good to me and it is still a fantastic lens but the difference is clear with the Mark2. I love being back to the turn zoom and the AF is blisteringly fast, even adapted to an R7. Just a better feel to it all round.

Time will tell now, it's early days, I still have proper field tests and all that to do. Sharpness is the one I'm eager to test. I can't imagine how it could be sharper than the Mk1 but apparently, it is.
 
Dale. said:
Well, it's here and first impressions are.............

it's stunning!


I'm not going to knock the Mark 1, it's been good to me and it is still a fantastic lens but the difference is clear with the Mark2. I love being back to the turn zoom and the AF is blisteringly fast, even adapted to an R7. Just a better feel to it all round.

Time will tell now, it's early days, I still have proper field tests and all that to do. Sharpness is the one I'm eager to test. I can't imagine how it could be sharper than the Mk1 but apparently, it is.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you will enjoy it. I was very pleased with the test lens I had over Christmas although I did not get many opportunities to test it properly. It is now top of my less wish list.

Please let us know how you get on. Do you have a 1.4 extender as well?
 
Brentor said:
I'm sure you will enjoy it. I was very pleased with the test lens I had over Christmas although I did not get many opportunities to test it properly. It is now top of my less wish list.

Please let us know how you get on. Do you have a 1.4 extender as well?
Click to expand...


I'm looking forward to using it. It's hard to believe it could be any sharper than the Mk1 though but by all accounts, it is. I have noticed the AF is faster on the Mk2 though, after testing it on the R7. It's also stickier.

I don't have the extender. I am considering one but I also have a Sigma 150-600 and I like working at around 600mm, which the Sigma is on my 5D. The Canon is 640mm (equiv) on my R7, so roughly the same. I'm just used to working upto that focal length. I'm getting pretty close to Kingfishers now, within 15 feet and at my hide, birds are about 12 feet from the lens. I often find myself zooming out. I can though see the merits of a good teleconverter, especially in the field but for me at the moment, it might not be needed. That said, a 1.4x might be nice to have, just incase.

The new lens will also be part of my landscape bag, which is where I mainly use my 5D. I have 16 to 400mm (600 if you include the Sigma but that's a beast to lug around in a landscape scenario) covered now on full frame.
 
Last edited:
I set off to the hide today, just for testing the lens purposes. First impressions are good, it's certainly sharp.

Not an image I'd normally show off, it's for illustration and context only. The banding behind is a slatted, wooden fence.

tp.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top