Which would you choose?

[Zach]

I’ve been wanting to upgrade to a better telephoto lens, my current one is the canon 55-250 usm.

I feel it’s just a tad short for birding. So if you pick had one of the following lenses which would you pick?

Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Contemporary DG OS HSM Lens for Canon

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon

[Kayaker72]

Hi Zach,

Is that the Mk 1 or Mk 2 of the Canon EF 100-400?

I've owned both along with the Sigma 150-600 Sport. I recall a few forum members owning the "C" version. All three very good lenses. If possible, I would get the EF 100-400 II. It is optically better than the Mk 1 version. If you are looking at used copies of the 100-400 M1 and the 150-600C, if both were new, I'd recommend the Sigma, for greater reach and good optics. However, I would worry a bit about construction and wear/tear of the Sigma. Both Canon lenses were built like tanks.

My thoughts are a bit complex. Sight unseen, I would favor either Canon over the Sigma due to overall stellar reputation for construction of those lenses. If you can assess the Sigma and it is both a good deal and in pristine condition, I would likely opt for the Sigma for reach as you always need reach with birds. If you can get the EF 100-400 II, I'd take it over either.

The 150-600C vs the 100-400 Mk 1 on APC-C at 400 mm. 150-600C vs 100-400 Mk 2. And then 100-400 M1 vs 100-400 M2

[DavidEccleston]

What I usually do when considering lenses is to find the Flickr pool for the lens and see what others are able to get out of each lens.

Sigma 150-600C: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2807866@N20/pool/

Canon 100-400: https://www.flickr.com/groups/81265875@N00/pool/

[Zach]

Hey brant, it’s the mk1 canon, and I just wanna say until a few days ago I didn’t even consider this as an option but I just noticed the price had dropped off a good bit and is now about the same as the sigma (non sport) sadly the 100-400 mk2 is just too much at this time.

Thanks for the comparison links on the lenses! And yes it looks like the mk2 beats both.

The main reason I was going for the sigma was for the little bit extra reach, more because I’m a big guy and I have some physical issues that make it hard to sneak up closer to subjects which a shorter lens, but noticing the 100-400 drop within reach made me curious, i know how good the L series lenses are and I’ve wanted one for some time, but I wanted to ask the pros here there thoughts first and whatnot

And based on what you said I’ll put a vote down for then sigma.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I would echo what Brant said. I used to have the version II of the 100-400 and it was super sharp. Apparently it was a big improvement over the version I. The Sigma is going to be heavier, which is a consideration for hand holding. But when it comes to birding there's no such thing as too much focal length.

[Jayson]

I have used and have friends that use the Tamron 150-600 G2. Not sure your price range, but it is a pretty good lens as well. Are you shooting with a full frame or an aps-c. Looks like an APS-C from your signature, so the sharpest point of the 100-400 is in the middle, so the fall off at the corners won't be as visible using your camera. Keep that in mind as well.

[Busted Knuckles]

I have the Tamzooka and it is really sharp to 400 and then gets fuzzy. usable to usable the 100-400 would be better. the Sigma is a Tank but better than the Tamron. I