Sigma 150-600 Sport

[HDNitehawk]

I suppose it depends on what you are considering a keeper. 30% sounds low but each of us have our own idea.
I go with John, maybe send the 400mm for service.

I am not impressed with the Sigma shots you posted. Sure they get you to 600mm but is it a good enough for what you want?
Then I was never impressed with the 100-400mm I had.

On your other thread you mentioned waiting on the new 100-400mm II. I think that is the best idea in this price range.
From Canon's past releases and MTF charts I would speculate that you will be far better off with the extenders on it.

[Kayaker72]

A keeper rate of ~30% with the 100-400L? Honestly, I'd send the lens to Canon. My experience with the lens across three bodies (7D, 5DII, 1D X), the keeper rates were >90%. The only time it struggled was with small birds in thickets (the 600 II locks onto them, but with the 2xIII it behaves like the 100-400 in those situations).

Much better performance with my 100-400L is my general experience as well. Considering it was a very brief shoot, and more of a pulling the Sigma out of the box and shooting the first things I see kind of test, I am impressed with the Sigma AF as same conditions, same settings it performed well where the 100-400L did not. But, the vast majority of the time, my 100-400L does very well. And while I still need to try tracking and a few other conditions, I would expect the same from the Sigma based on what I saw yesterday.

I suppose it depends on what you are considering a keeper. 30% sounds low but each of us have our own idea.
I go with John, maybe send the 400mm for service.

I am not impressed with the Sigma shots you posted. Sure they get you to 600mm but is it a good enough for what you want?
Then I was never impressed with the 100-400mm I had.

On your other thread you mentioned waiting on the new 100-400mm II. I think that is the best idea in this price range.
From Canon's past releases and MTF charts I would speculate that you will be far better off with the extenders on it.

Yep, 30% isn't typical. I think the 100-400L had issues hitting the small birds on a slanted roof at distance. Also, I was using 9 pt AF expansion, so I could have gone to single point AF mode to help. Admittedly, much of the issue could have been the "test" and is not meant to be a negative about the 100-400L, but a positive about the Sigma AF, which was one of my concerns.

Of course, the 100% crops weren't necessarily intended to be impressive. More to show how it was doing against the 100-400L. While I still need to do more tests, such as shooting at f/8-f/11 instead of "wide open" (which seems like a bit of a misnomer ), what I saw yesterday definitely has me thinking:

• As you point out, would I be better off with superior optics at 400 mm? Both with and without extenders (i.e. would I be better off cropping an extremely sharp 400 mm image?).
• While I am not sure what I expected, I can already seen the need to crop even with a 600 mm lens. If that is the case, maybe I am better off with a more portable 400 mm lens and working on closing the distance with the subjects.
• I am also wondering if one of the benefits about "reach" isn't just pixels on target, but also AF. There is no doubt that another reason that the 100-400L may not have done as well yesterday is because each AF point was covering a larger area.

Anyway, my initial impressions are good. I will continue to test. As I don't think a 600 mm f/6.3 lens is necessarily my best option for indoor shots of a turkey, I doubt I'll have much more to post for awhile.

Happy Holidays everyone.....