My Field Review of the Big Zoom (and one Telephoto Prime) Lenses. This is a repost with corrected audio. Take a moment to watch and hit that thumbs up. I am happy to answer any questions.
I was very happy with the shots out of the Tamron - not noticeably soft. When compared with the Canon 100-400 which is 2x the cost you do see sharper images but it doesn't mean the Tamron feels soft.
PhotoRec Toby The first shareholder of Tamron is Sony. Perhaps for this reason Tamron is so good. I really like the Sigma Sport 150-600. I am torn between Tamron and Sigma.
Hi, what would you recommend for a ~$2000 canon kit for wildlife and birds? I use a Pentax system (K-3) and I am wondering whether something like an older camera, e.g. 1D mk iii , 5D Mk II, original 7D, perhaps a 70D with Tamron 150-600 would be a significant improvement in autofocus.
I ask me if I should have the Sigma 150-600 or the canon 100-400 for bird photography. Whant do you think? Does the 200mm than the sigma will be okay? I agree that the wieght is very heavy for the sigma. Thank you!
The hardest part of a prime is with birds in a forest. Go from eye view to 400mm and try to find a bird on a branch in thousands of leaves and branches is hard...extremely hard.
I would really love an updated video with the Tamron 150-600 G1 and Tamron 150-600 G2, and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and the Sigma 150-600 Sports, and then of course including the Canon 100-400 I and II as well as some primes. I know it's not really a huge bit of difference in the lenses today, but it would make it a complete comparison of the available Telephotos in a very inclusive budget range. Great video! It helped a lot!
I use a Tamron 150 - 600mm I use it hand held on a Canon 7D taken some brilliant shots. I normally shoot on the fly with no tripod whilst walking. I normally use the lens with apeture fully open or one stop down. In tough conditions I step up the ISO hope that helps.
Thanks! It is very true and they are getting better by the day. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is now released and looks to be another excellent option.
I have Tamron 150-600mm, bought it in 2015.It’s an amazing light weight lens, I use it hand held, carry it everywhere in my back pack in flights. Pretty decent images when edited well.
Great review. Very professionally edited, clearly you put extra time into it and we appreciate that! As a supporter of Toby and Christina its well worth it, just FYI. You should contribute if they help you as well!
What I find unique about your reviews is that you respond to almost every single (valid) comment or question. You got a sub out of me just for that alone. Thanks from Chicago
By far the best review of these lenses I've seen to date. Great job Toby! I've been using the 400 prime for a while now and just recently purchased a 2x extender for my 70-200 for the times I need IS. Eventually will consider replacing my 400 prime with the new 100-400 to obtain better minimum focus distance. This review has certainly helped answer many of the questions I had about these zoom lenses. Thanks again!
thanks for the amazing review. you just cleared all the doubts in my mind just like that with in this video covering each and every aspect including the comparision at the end too. all the very best for your upcoming content. kudos to your work.
Remember that B&H will fully refund within 30 days, no questions asked if you follow the return rules. I tried all three lenses that way and ended up with the Canon 100-400 L IS II as it was the sharpest without micro-adjustment. I am spoiled on sharpness as I usually handhold an old 500 f4L IS with 1.4 extender. I felt that the 100-400 was lighter, faster, and much sharper than the others. I always crop for composition and the crops are usually very sharp. I feel that a Canon lens on a Canon will always be superior than an off brand as it is designed for it, like a NIkon on a Nikon.
@PhotoRec TV Nice review. I had the 400mm, now I have the 70-200mm and I'm currently photographing with the 100-400mm and just bought the Tamrom 150-600mm. One consideration I had, was using the lenses with gloves in cold weather. I really like the big buttons on the Tamron, compared to the tiny buttons on the Canon lenses. Cheers from Denmark 🇩🇰📷🐺
I shoot wildlife with a 400 prime and love it. The sharpest lens does make a difference when we have to crop 95% of our shots. I shoot at least 4 times a week and never had a time I wished I could zoom back out. It does need a high shutter speed when hand held.
It was a good review, but I have to wonder why you chose to compare the inexpensive Tamron 150-600 with the much more expensive Sigma Sport (rather than comparing to the more similarly-priced Sigma Contemporary)? Also, one of the features I did not hear you mention that might be important to some folks, is the much closer minimum focus distance of the Canon 100-400 (3.2ft vs almost 9ft for the Tamron, 8.5 ft for the Sig and 11.5 ft for the Canon 400 prime). That fact certainly adds to the overall versatility of the 100-400 Canon.
Shouldn't compare with the Canon 100-400mm neither, not only its focal length is much shorter, it is also a L lens which is why it is twice the price of the others. If you want to compare 100-400mm, doesn't Sigma have one? To me, the 100-400mm is nice to have, but each of these lenses have its own place. So, most people might have a 70-200mm, then of course comes the 100-400mm, then the 150-600mm.
I have the Canon 100-400 version 1. It is very sharp, but shooting birds against the sky I have to stop it down to F8 to stop the CA. Same with shooting in the snow. That said, I am seriously considering the Tamron, just for more reach. I shoot almost exclusively wildlife, and when caught in the open sagebrush, the reach would make shots possible, I just can not get with the Canon. The weight factor does not bother me, as I carry a 9.5 lb. rifle during hunting season... I just consider it practice, lol. Great review. Thank you.
Great review. Telephotos are mostly used for sports or wildlife where focus speed is critical. Your review however is focused on sharpness which at F8 most of these lenses are about the same. Focus speed however is more important than sharpness. I understand most reviewers tend to be neutral in order to please the audience as they may already have purchased the lens. The truth to the matter is you get what you paid for. If you want to save money, it is the Tamron but you are going to loose that auto focus speed which is critical. Pick a lens that has the fastest focus if you can afford it. Also think about how often you are going to use the lens, I know many folks spend a lot of money and end up using it for only a couple of times. Buy the Tamron if that is the case unless money is of no concern to you.
How about a review/shootout between the Tamron 150-600mm vs the Sigma 150-600mm C version!? Thats what I'm sure a lot of people would like to see. Like myself there's plenty of people out there wanting to buy one of these lenses but sitting on the fence waiting until they see a shootout.
Victor Zubakin Have you seen the two very good reviews on YT for the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sport versions of this lens? I have the Sport lens. It is heavy but that just gives your arms a workout whilst you are shooting some great photos! Resolution is terrific and I am very pleased with the lens; Nikon body. One extra tip on the Sigma: the tripod mount rotates and locks on the barrel so that you can use it as a carrying handle, when walking. There is a great soft lens cover too, that fits over the hard end protector and adds extra security to the glass whilst in transit or storage.
Thank you Toby This was really helpful. Tried the Sigma NON Sport 150-600 a year or two ago and wound up taking it back. Got a Coolpix P-600 for birding which has been fun but of course am back to the above due to quality. Will try out the Tamron 150-600 or the Canon 400L Prime and let you know. Thanks again.
I own the canon 100-400. bought with discount, it's been over one year now and i never reget i bought it. Its auto focus is the best, very sharp and fast. most importantly, This lens can be used for landscape photography and did very good job.
Very nice and informative review, Toby. I just want to add that another shortcoming of the 400mm 5.6 lens is that the minimum focus distance is 11 feet (!). This can be quite intrusive sometimes, for example when taking pics of tame small birds like sparrows and chickadees. I have actually had to back up to get a shot, and then, of course, the bird no longer fills the frame. You can add an extension tube to get closer, but this is a real bother and you cannot then focus far away. The new 100-400 has an MFD of a little over 3 ft, which is much more usable. Which is not to say I'm going to sell my 400. I still really like it, and can't really justify switching to the 100-400. I usually use a tripod anyway, so there isn't much that the new lens would give me that I need.
Thanks for the informative review! I just bought the Canon 7D Mark II this last fall and now look for an all round sports and wildlife lens. The main question I have about all these lenses is how well they do in challenging light conditions. That said, out of all the lenses in this review, I would have to go with the Canon 100-400mm (160-640mm on my camera) for it's wide focal length range, WS, and portability! I just wish it was at least a content f\4 but, I'd need much deeper pockets for that kind of lens! :'(
I found the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 150-600 to produce very good contrast and colors in a variety of challenging light situations. The Tamron seemed a little more prone to chromatic aberration but honestly it wasn't a huge difference.
I've been lucky to use both the sigma sport and canon mk2, and I have to admit the canon is a fantastic lens, but the price is crazy, the sigma isn't cheap but at 1k cheaper that's a lot. I did find the focus at 600 didn't always focus and had to be pulled back to 400 to focus then back out to 600. But the canon was fast focused and a whole lot lighter. Just wish it was a lot cheaper
Great review Tony...i appreciate your honesty...I have the Tamron 150-600 and it is a fantastic lens for the money, it can't be beat, I do love the sharpness of my 400 prime...just did a field test comparison and with patience, without IS, my prime is a tad sharper than the 150-600...but i was hand holding and perhaps the cold weather and weight coupled with the layers I was wearing had something to do with that also..I am enjoying both as well as my travel Canon 70-300. Great job...Thank again!
Sherman Wright It's toby :) But I do appreciate you taking a minute to share your results. Glad you are happy with that Tamron, it really is a great value.
Got my answer RE Sigma Sport vs. Tamron from this review. I have 3 of the 5 combinations you reviewed, and from what I have I can't agree with you more. Love love love my Canon 100-400. Sigma Sport was easy to use on bean bags but otherwise a little cumbersome (and I'm a big guy). Love my 70-200 f2.8, but not as crazy about any lens with the 2X teleconverter without really good stabilization (i.e. Tripod). George Lepp's doing fantastic work with bald eagles stacking 2 2X teleconverters on his 500 f4 with the 7D MkII but on a solid tripod (for both videos and stills) just to make the point. I prefer the 1.4X teleconverter on my 100-400 or my 500 f4, though I think the 2X in good light on the 70-200 works well... Just my experiences. Still all in all if I had to pick just one lens, it would be the 100-400 with or without the 1.4X... Please don't freeze up in Alaska, and bring back some great Aurora images pal
Wildlife mostly.I want to capture images of a mountain lion,Im shooting with a canon 70d.I will only have a few days to track it.I will most likely only get a glimpse if anything.I am leaning more towards the canon 100-400mm because of the quick auto focus.Any advise is appreciated.
I have the Canon 5d mkiii and was wondering about the Sigma or the 100-400 Canon mkii. I bought the 100-400 and I'm very happy with it. This was before seeing your review I should add. The review is very interesting, thanks.
Thanks for review. I used 70-200/2.8 IS II with tc 2x II on my 1dx and I wasn't happy with the results. I think that tc 2x III is also not a good option (maybe with 300/2.8 IS II and with longer focal lenght lenses ;)). You forgot about distortion and I think that CA could be a problem with any extenders. Shame that Tamron is not weather sealed. I have 24-70/2.8 VC and after shooting with this lens just few times (concerts in the clubs) I noticed that I have "something" inside this lens (I am carefully with my rig). My questions: 1. Which lens is faster on ai servo - tamron or sigma? 2. Difference between 600/6.3 on both lenses? As I know Tamron needs to be stopped down to 8.0 for nice picture resolution. 3. These lenses are good enough on 400/5.6 or 300/5.0(?) for soccer or football in good light conditions in your opinion? 4. No bf or ff with both lenses? Thanks in advance.
1. I didn't see a real difference. Maybe Sigma but honestly the Sigma in the way I was using it, hand held, just felt difficult to work with. 2. in my testing I saw little difference between the two at 600, Other reviews I have read/watched give the Sigma a slightly lead in sharpness. 3. In good light conditions - sure. 4. No but see another recent comment from mLichy911 stating that they have some inconsistencies with the Tamron.
love love love LOVE the tamron! Just be aware that the DOF is extreeemely shallow at 600mm f6.3. So stop down the aperture to at least f/8 before you chalk up that lens as being "soft"
Thank you. Really good review. I like both Sigma 150mm-600mm sports lens and Canon 100mm-400mm lenses and notice the sharpness is better with the Canon lens on a 5D Mark3, handheld even with the 1.4X teleconverter (which makes the Canon lens up to a 560mm lens and takes it to a f5.6. I first used the Sigma without a monopod and gave myself a tennis elbow that has just healed after 5 months!! May sell the Sigma but plan to use that on a 5D Mark2 on a Gitzo monopod for now. It is a beautifully made lens and exudes quality craftsmanship. Well done Sigma. But the Canon 100-400 (II) is just a superb piece of kit.
At 15:50 you say that losing two stops of light is equivalent to cut the light in half: maybe I'm getting it wrong, but shouldn't it be equivalet to 1/4 of the amount of light?
hi I decided to go with the canon 300mm F4 and 70-200 2.8 mark 1 lenses. I also have the normal kits lenses such as 24-105 ef 55-250 efs 18-55 efs and also have a sigma 1.4ex and canon mark 1's 1.4 and 2x extenders do you feel I need to buy the tamron 150-600mm I am using the 600d so is a 1.6 crop lens but still wondering if it is some thing I should buy or is what I have more than good enough. any opinion would be nice thanks.
Loved the review..quick question. I am shooting with a cannon 60D. Will the Cannon 100-400 L IS II have reduced performance / quality / AF properties due to NOT being on a FULL Image body? Should I consider the older 100-400 Cannon Lens...This is my first Telephoto upgrade with quality glass. I think the Tamaron for the buck is awesome, but too big starting at 150mm for my interests. Mostly shooting wildlife from a kayak....I have the Cannon 75-300 IS now.
Gregory Everson No - the new version will be better than the older version on your 60D. The compact size of the 100-400 will suit you will on the kayak.
Thanks for a very thorough in depth review process ,which zoom for Bird Photography would you recommend I recently bought a Canon D200 .Thank you for any help .
I am getting soon Sigma sport with lens polarizer and 1,4x converter which i might use more on my canon 70-200mm f2,8 is usm II when shooting sport. 1300e for all and my bag ready to carry this big boi to field. If you just wait you might find really good deals.
Hi PhotoRec TV, Thank you so much for clearing some of the "myths and cobwebs" about the main 3 lenses. It is a very informative and a succinct video, with attributes, I value rather than someone rambling on insignificant factors. Love the close-ups and explanations. More technical data is the better. Bit of dilemma between Tamron or Sigma and it is not the cost, but the sharpness. One reviewer said Tamron has tiny dist particles trapped inside the barrel during its manufacture. Can you please verify this? Thanks Sir.
I own the canon 70-200mm and 100 -400 both great lenses I own the extender as well but do not use it much( just slows down the autofocus to Much). The interesting lens in the Bunch is the Sigma 150 - 600 contemporary not the sports model( to Heavy) -itis light enough to use handheld - plus it gives you that extra 200mm that comes in useful. Have been very pleased with the Quality of the photos that come from it-check it out
Thank-you for such great information about these lenses. I would like to upgrade to a longer focal length telephoto in a few years (when I can afford it), so it's nice to know so much information about these lenses. I had been thinking of buying the Sigma 100-600mm lens (because of the price), but I have wrist issues and am not a fan of tripods, so it seems like the Canon 100-400mm with an extender would maybe be a much better idea. Thanks so much..
I like your comment about being torn between Sigma and the Tamron. I'm in the same position only I'm torn between the Sigma Contemporary and the Tamron. The reason I am considering the Contemporary is because I do wildlife photography as a hobby not as a professional. Have you ever used the contemporary? Because of the mixed reviews on the Tamron and Sigma I have been considering in going with a Tamron SP AF300 IF f2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter and not messing with a zoom. You did a great job in producing this video. Regards, Duane
Thanks. Exactly what i was looking for!.... (still watching it...especially curios about the VC/IS for video.... hopefully you cover that.) (i already own the 70-200 2.8ii and the 2x.... wondering if i should get the tamron 100-600 for better long option)
From this review , i have decided to settle with CN 100-400 than SGM 150-600 C. Am ready to compromise that extra distance. But probably 1.4X would help me knocking that distance away. :) Fantastic detailed review !
Toby I am using Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 DI VC USD lens with Tamron 1.4x SP AF Teleconverter. With my Canon 70D, with its crop factor of 1.6x, I have a focal length of 320mm at long end, without attaching the converter. If I attach it, then it gives me a focal length of 448mm at long end. Superb combination, fast AF and sharp pictures. So why do you need an extra tele-lens?
very good review .i am having canon ef 100-400mm.is it sensible to upgrade to 150-600mm for extra reach.my interest is in bird photography.i am having 80d and 6d mark2.your valuable opinion please
Is that the mark I or Mark II canon 100-400? If you want more reach I think I would just add the 1.4x extender. That's a cheaper way to get more reach without sacrificing quality.
Have you any thoughts on the canon 200 to 400 x1.4 F/4 against the 500mm f/4. For the price of the Canon 200 - 400 f/4 with built in 1.4 extender one can get the 500mm f/4 and the Canon100-400 mark ii. Want to use the lens for wildlife in Africa and am having a hard time making a choice. Or is the 200-400 the better lens all round. Most shot will be from vehicle window or hide. Your comments please Sir
I thought your review on these lenses was right on the money. I own two of them and rented the 100-400 mk 2. I do wish you had said more about the 3ft minimum focus distance on the 100-400 mk 2, though. That is going to be a fun lens in summer for those who like to shoot bugs, butterflies, at close range with 400 mm zoom!
Another awesome review. Thank you. Not sure if this is a good place to pose this question but... What are your thoughts regarding the improved sensors in the newer cameras specifically regarding the quality when using higher iso's? Effectively how much have the sensors been improved by, is an iso 400 of todays sensor as good as iso of 100 in a five year old camera? e.g. In an qual light situation, would a f 5.6 lens on a 7D Mk II produce an image as clean as an older camera with a f 2.8 lens?
Brian Holder Thanks Brian - good question - let's start with the first part are today's cameras at ISO 400 producing images as clean as ISO in 5 year old cameras? Some are! Some are not :) You can go to Dxo and check low light ISO ratings between the 7D (5 year old camera) and the 7D mark II, released recently. ISO difference is about 200, not the same as ISO 100-400. Switch brands though and you can find some producing significantly cleaner files, especially at the very high ISOs. The lens question is answered by the ISO - f/5.6 is 2 stops from f/2.8 so you would need to go from ISO 100 to 400 and in the case of the 7D Mark II you would be better off with the older camera and faster lens. More variables though make it not always a clear answer.
PhotoRec Toby After much head scratching and digging deep into my pockets I purchased the Canon 100-400 II. I love this lens and am glad that I spent the extra money. I was initially concerned about the weight but am quite used to it now. Now I'm thinking about putting a 1.4 tele-converter between the lens and camera body. Have you played with that combination? Do you have any words of wisdom to share?
Brian Holder sweet! I have not used the 1.4x but have used the 2x extender and while you lose AF at the longer reaches quality is awesome and live view AF still works.I also hear you can tape a few of the pins and still get great results.
I am torn, I am mainly going to be shooting birds and wildlife. Would you recommend the canon 400 prime or the canon 100-400? Which one would you grab if you were going to go out on a nature walk?
Hi, great review I bought myself a Canon 1Dx MkII. Now i'm not sure which lens to buy for my hobby, which is military aircraft spotting and off course airshows. Since the 1Dx MkII is a full frame camera, i loose my crop and thus mm's which are sometimes hard needed during airshows. So, which one should i buy? The Canon 100-400 MkII with 1,4 or 2,0 extender or the Sigma 150-600 sports version. I have enough bodies to set up my Canon 100-400 MkI as a backup if necessary Thanks for your advice and time Greetz Michael
Hi , this review was awsom .i think sigma is the 1 i will by , what is ur thought about it for wild life photography,am willing to by tamron 70-300 mm f 4 .saw maney review about that lense and they all were teling me that it is fast in focous ,very very sharp and its vc was jst fantastick , what is ur thought about it. I hope u will ans
I am wanting a lens that can give me greater zoom than the canon EF 75-300. Currently looking at the Tamron 150 -600 In your review you said that you can get the 600 range with the canon 100-400 and that the quality of the pictures are better. Can you help me understand this better as I am currently shooting wildlife (cranes and eagles on the river where I live) Some pics are excellent and others are not as crisp. I am using a tripod and remote trigger to take pictures. I would like to get closer to the subject through zoom but in the end the quality of the picture is important.
Is the sigma 150-600, the art lens? i see the white dot on the lens . just asking. i have the Tamron 150-600 on a Sony SLT A99 im happy with it. The sigma 150-600 is not out for Sony yet
The sigma I tested was the Sport version. They have now released the Contemporary version and I have updated my written review on this page in the Sigma section photorec.tv/2015/01/big-zoom-field-review/
I have the Canon M50. I love photographing wildlife and saving money to get a zoom lens.. which one do you recommend between Tamron 150-600mm and Canon 100-400mm? Thank you
Hi Ali, With the M50 you will need to use an adapter. That adapter is going to work best with the Canon 100-400. I don't have enough direct experience to know how well it would work with the 150-600.
Hi, nice review!. Are you planning on making a review of the Nikkor 200-500 f5.6? I really can't decide between the Sigma 150-600 Sport and the Nikkor 200-500. Thanks!
Thank you for your review Toby (By far the best one I have watched for these lenses!). Im going to be considering one of the two 150-600mm zooms as I don't think I could stretch to the 100-400 L mk2. I I'm probably going to rent both and decide that way... Actually ill rent the 100-400 as well. We can all dream right?
Great review as always. My question is about the extra 200 mm reach with the Tamron or Sigma -- how important (or not) did you find that in shooting wildlife? Or, put another way, does 400 mm get you close enough?
CEH It's a tough question to answer. I almost always want more zoom when photographing wildlife but if it means carrying around a really big lens, I would stick with a more portable 400mm and crop. Especially if you are on a crop sensor camera. If you are full frame, 400 at times, especially with shy wildlife can feel limited.
I am a high-level Quadriplegic in a wheelchair, I have found getting close to things and accessing some areas is pretty possible especially when it comes to photography. So I am looking at one of the Sigma 150-600m lenses to give the reach. My aim is to do nature photography & taking photos of my brother surfing at some of the local beaches. My equipmentMy camera I currently have is a Canon 700D a.k.a. T5i I know it's only entry-level, but from everything I have been reading online online indicates that a good lens can overcome some of the shortcomings of the camera. So my question to you is will the Sigma Sports & Contemporary perform okay on my APS-C crop sensor camera, I know it would turn the 150-600mm to approximately 240mm - 960mm equivalent. My remote-controlled tripod head can handle up to 21lbs so weight is not an issue These are my current lens's that I own. Sigma 35mm F/1.4 Art Canon 300mm EF f/4L IS USM Canon EF-S 10-18mm STM Canon EF-S 18-135 mm STM Canon EF-S 55- 250mm STM I was considering the Tamron 150-600mm but after lots of research found they have dust issues & is something that I would rather avoid. Any help greatly appreciated Cheers Richard
I am strongly considering the 300 f4 canon - but you make such a good argument for the need for variable focal length at long working distances that I want to be sure the 100-400 isn't going to be a better choice. I am a prime type - paranoid about distortion and love bokeh. any ideas there?
DCUPtoejuice The 100-400 mark II is a freaking beautiful lens. I too love primes for shorter distance and am picky about the quality, I have no problems recommending the 100-400 if your budget can handle it.
Great review Toby! Thanks. Have been looking at replacing my V1 100-400 with the new version or going to one of the other brands, I love that lens for travelling with, One minor clarification though. On bodies that support f8 center point focusing (7D MKII, 5D MKIII and 1DX) you can still shoot at higher apertures than f8 and have auto focus because all the focusing is done with the lens wide open.So you should be able to use a 1.4 converter and the 100-400 on one of these bodies and still have auto focus.The 2X wouldn't work on the 100-400. I was even able to achieve auto focus with my 100 - 400 V1 and a 1.4X converter on a 7D using live view although it was painfully slow/
Hi Stephen, Thanks for sharing that - Others have chimed in and I have heard that the new 100-400 with 1.4x still offers speedy AF. I did confirm that live view worked with the 7D mark II as well, some of this I have covered on the accompanying blog post. Thanks!
@@photorectoby On my M5, the autofocus is very fast bare, and fast with the 1.4x, The autofocus actually works with the 2.0x on a tripod. I did a test comparing the M5 with all my telephoto setups on a household electric meter about 130 feet away (plus some elevation difference). If you match the image sizes of the 100-400 bare with the 1.4x and with the 2.0x Canon telex tenders, the 2.0x is the clear winner, because the image gets down to the pixels on the bare and 1.4x. The comparison is at the total effective f11 in all cases. Would the 1.4x overtake the 2.0x with an M6 Mk II? Dunno. Somebody send me one and I will retest! www.flickr.com/photos/pethier/49914982136/in/album-72157714332567882/
I'm going back & forth between the Tamron 150-600 & Canon 100-400 for my 60D. I like the sharpness of the Canon but price + range says Tamron. What about Canon 100-400 + 1.4 teleconverter vs the Sigma? On an unrelated note, anything on the not-yet-available Sigma 150-600 Contemporary?
I have a Nikon d5500 (crop sensor) what would be your recommendation for a big zoom? The tamron 160-600 or the sigma contemporary 160-600? Or any prime for Nikon? (I own the tamron 16-300 but it does not seem enough for wild life). I would like e good balance between sharpness:weight: priceThanks and great reviews
Thanks for the review. The wheat on the sigma is not so massiv if you think of what the nikon/canon 400f4 or 600F4 wait. And than you got a zoom instead of a prime.
Had the Sigma, handheld it was a disaster. Your arm is quickly tired which makes it even harder. So replaced it with the Canon 100-400mk2 with the 1.4x mk3 extender. So I get 560mm f8. It's a great combo, and very sharp. It outperform the Sigma even if it is used on a tripod. I'm still everytime impressed from the quality and sharpness of this combo on my 5D mk4.
In the last week I have used my Canon 100-400 mk II with the 1.4x mk III extender to shoot woodpeckers at their nest with tripod, and then a robin with the same 560mm combination. Very good results. I used an M5 body. For high magnification tripod work, I think the best presently-available body would be the M6 Nk II.
My Field Review of the Big Zoom (and one Telephoto Prime) Lenses. This is a repost with corrected audio. Take a moment to watch and hit that thumbs up. I am happy to answer any questions.
I was very happy with the shots out of the Tamron - not noticeably soft. When compared with the Canon 100-400 which is 2x the cost you do see sharper images but it doesn't mean the Tamron feels soft.
PhotoRec Toby The first shareholder of Tamron is Sony. Perhaps for this reason Tamron is so good. I really like the Sigma Sport 150-600. I am torn between Tamron and Sigma.
Hi, what would you recommend for a ~$2000 canon kit for wildlife and birds? I use a Pentax system (K-3) and I am wondering whether something like an older camera, e.g. 1D mk iii , 5D Mk II, original 7D, perhaps a 70D with Tamron 150-600 would be a significant improvement in autofocus.
PhotoRec TV what camera are you using in this video ?
I ask me if I should have the Sigma 150-600 or the canon 100-400 for bird photography. Whant do you think? Does the 200mm than the sigma will be okay? I agree that the wieght is very heavy for the sigma. Thank you!
The hardest part of a prime is with birds in a forest. Go from eye view to 400mm and try to find a bird on a branch in thousands of leaves and branches is hard...extremely hard.
@Geoff Longford Do you use back button focus? I find that helps a lot
I would really love an updated video with the Tamron 150-600 G1 and Tamron 150-600 G2, and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and the Sigma 150-600 Sports, and then of course including the Canon 100-400 I and II as well as some primes. I know it's not really a huge bit of difference in the lenses today, but it would make it a complete comparison of the available Telephotos in a very inclusive budget range. Great video! It helped a lot!
I use a Tamron 150 - 600mm I use it hand held on a Canon 7D taken some brilliant shots. I normally shoot on the fly with no tripod whilst walking. I normally use the lens with apeture fully open or one stop down. In tough conditions I step up the ISO hope that helps.
Nice review with good balanced reporting. The options available in 2015 are far better than the options in 2013 were!
Thanks! It is very true and they are getting better by the day. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is now released and looks to be another excellent option.
I have Tamron 150-600mm, bought it in 2015.It’s an amazing light weight lens, I use it hand held, carry it everywhere in my back pack in flights. Pretty decent images when edited well.
Great review. Very professionally edited, clearly you put extra time into it and we appreciate that! As a supporter of Toby and Christina its well worth it, just FYI. You should contribute if they help you as well!
What I find unique about your reviews is that you respond to almost every single (valid) comment or question. You got a sub out of me just for that alone.
Thanks from Chicago
Thanks Man! I don't get them all but I try.
By far the best review of these lenses I've seen to date. Great job Toby! I've been using the 400 prime for a while now and just recently purchased a 2x extender for my 70-200 for the times I need IS. Eventually will consider replacing my 400 prime with the new 100-400 to obtain better minimum focus distance. This review has certainly helped answer many of the questions I had about these zoom lenses. Thanks again!
Glad to hear, I think you will love the new 100-400.
What is your opinion on image quality on the 70-200 compared to the 400 prime?
Fantastic in depth easy to follow review comparison. I'm now trying to decide between these lenses and Sigma's 60-600mm
thanks for the amazing review. you just cleared all the doubts in my mind just like that with in this video covering each and every aspect including the comparision at the end too. all the very best for your upcoming content. kudos to your work.
One of the best reviews i ever watch👍🏻
Remember that B&H will fully refund within 30 days, no questions asked if you follow the return rules. I tried all three lenses that way and ended up with the Canon 100-400 L IS II as it was the sharpest without micro-adjustment. I am spoiled on sharpness as I usually handhold an old 500 f4L IS with 1.4 extender. I felt that the 100-400 was lighter, faster, and much sharper than the others. I always crop for composition and the crops are usually very sharp. I feel that a Canon lens on a Canon will always be superior than an off brand as it is designed for it, like a NIkon on a Nikon.
+Will Rountree Good suggestion or you could rent from somebody. That 100-400 is fantastic.
Great review. You covered many scenarios and real world concerns. This helped my decision process!
Excellent review. Professional and so clear to understand. Thanks for putting this together!
@PhotoRec TV
Nice review.
I had the 400mm, now I have the 70-200mm and I'm currently photographing with the 100-400mm and just bought the Tamrom 150-600mm.
One consideration I had, was using the lenses with gloves in cold weather.
I really like the big buttons on the Tamron, compared to the tiny buttons on the Canon lenses.
Cheers from Denmark 🇩🇰📷🐺
I shoot wildlife with a 400 prime and love it. The sharpest lens does make a difference when we have to crop 95% of our shots. I shoot at least 4 times a week and never had a time I wished I could zoom back out. It does need a high shutter speed when hand held.
The canon 100-400 just blows my mind. I’ve used the sigma too, and it was good, but man, the canon just never leaves my camera and is tack sharp!
Thats the thing about Canon vs 3rd Party. 3rd Party always feels like a deal, Canon feels like you got something amazing.
Nicely done, Toby!
It was a good review, but I have to wonder why you chose to compare the inexpensive Tamron 150-600 with the much more expensive Sigma Sport (rather than comparing to the more similarly-priced Sigma Contemporary)? Also, one of the features I did not hear you mention that might be important to some folks, is the much closer minimum focus distance of the Canon 100-400 (3.2ft vs almost 9ft for the Tamron, 8.5 ft for the Sig and 11.5 ft for the Canon 400 prime). That fact certainly adds to the overall versatility of the 100-400 Canon.
bcfbasil the IS is 4 stops also....
Shouldn't compare with the Canon 100-400mm neither, not only its focal length is much shorter, it is also a L lens which is why it is twice the price of the others. If you want to compare 100-400mm, doesn't Sigma have one? To me, the 100-400mm is nice to have, but each of these lenses have its own place. So, most people might have a 70-200mm, then of course comes the 100-400mm, then the 150-600mm.
That pine marten is so adorable.
Brilliant review, honest and easy to understand. Thank you for such a good review.
Kind regards Rob, from the UK England.
I have the Canon 100-400 version 1. It is very sharp, but shooting birds against the sky I have to stop it down to F8 to stop the CA. Same with shooting in the snow. That said, I am seriously considering the Tamron, just for more reach. I shoot almost exclusively wildlife, and when caught in the open sagebrush, the reach would make shots possible, I just can not get with the Canon. The weight factor does not bother me, as I carry a 9.5 lb. rifle during hunting season... I just consider it practice, lol. Great review. Thank you.
Great review. Telephotos are mostly used for sports or wildlife where focus speed is critical. Your review however is focused on sharpness which at F8 most of these lenses are about the same. Focus speed however is more important than sharpness. I understand most reviewers tend to be neutral in order to please the audience as they may already have purchased the lens. The truth to the matter is you get what you paid for. If you want to save money, it is the Tamron but you are going to loose that auto focus speed which is critical. Pick a lens that has the fastest focus if you can afford it. Also think about how often you are going to use the lens, I know many folks spend a lot of money and end up using it for only a couple of times. Buy the Tamron if that is the case unless money is of no concern to you.
Your flickr images are unreal nice work
How about a review/shootout between the Tamron 150-600mm vs the Sigma 150-600mm C version!? Thats what I'm sure a lot of people would like to see. Like myself there's plenty of people out there wanting to buy one of these lenses but sitting on the fence waiting until they see a shootout.
Hi said ; G2 th3 b3tt3r by Sigma ,bit 7m from this vid3o i savv sigma 600mm C is sharp3r by tamronG2!!! I bouth SIGMA 600mm C is fantastic1
Victor Zubakin Have you seen the two very good reviews on YT for the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sport versions of this lens? I have the Sport lens. It is heavy but that just gives your arms a workout whilst you are shooting some great photos! Resolution is terrific and I am very pleased with the lens; Nikon body. One extra tip on the Sigma: the tripod mount rotates and locks on the barrel so that you can use it as a carrying handle, when walking. There is a great soft lens cover too, that fits over the hard end protector and adds extra security to the glass whilst in transit or storage.
Thank you Toby This was really helpful. Tried the Sigma NON Sport 150-600 a year or two ago and wound up taking it back. Got a Coolpix P-600 for birding which has been fun but of course am back to the above due to quality. Will try out the Tamron 150-600 or the Canon 400L Prime and let you know. Thanks again.
Great review! Exactly the info I was searching for!
I own the canon 100-400. bought with discount, it's been over one year now and i never reget i bought it. Its auto focus is the best, very sharp and fast. most importantly, This lens can be used for landscape photography and did very good job.
Awesome review of wildlife, birding telephoto lenses!
Very nice and informative review, Toby. I just want to add that another shortcoming of the 400mm 5.6 lens is that the minimum focus distance is 11 feet (!). This can be quite intrusive sometimes, for example when taking pics of tame small birds like sparrows and chickadees. I have actually had to back up to get a shot, and then, of course, the bird no longer fills the frame.
You can add an extension tube to get closer, but this is a real bother and you cannot then focus far away.
The new 100-400 has an MFD of a little over 3 ft, which is much more usable.
Which is not to say I'm going to sell my 400. I still really like it, and can't really justify switching to the 100-400. I usually use a tripod anyway, so there isn't much that the new lens would give me that I need.
***** I hand't noticed that with the prime, that is a far minimum. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the thorough review. I would have liked to see the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS included. Maybe next time!
Thanks for the informative review! I just bought the Canon 7D Mark II this last fall and now look for an all round sports and wildlife lens. The main question I have about all these lenses is how well they do in challenging light conditions. That said, out of all the lenses in this review, I would have to go with the Canon 100-400mm (160-640mm on my camera) for it's wide focal length range, WS, and portability! I just wish it was at least a content f\4 but, I'd need much deeper pockets for that kind of lens! :'(
I found the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 150-600 to produce very good contrast and colors in a variety of challenging light situations. The Tamron seemed a little more prone to chromatic aberration but honestly it wasn't a huge difference.
I would like to see picture comparisons between these lenses. The technical data doesn't mean anything until the pictures are shown.
I've been lucky to use both the sigma sport and canon mk2, and I have to admit the canon is a fantastic lens, but the price is crazy, the sigma isn't cheap but at 1k cheaper that's a lot. I did find the focus at 600 didn't always focus and had to be pulled back to 400 to focus then back out to 600. But the canon was fast focused and a whole lot lighter. Just wish it was a lot cheaper
Great review Tony...i appreciate your honesty...I have the Tamron 150-600 and it is a fantastic lens for the money, it can't be beat, I do love the sharpness of my 400 prime...just did a field test comparison and with patience, without IS, my prime is a tad sharper than the 150-600...but i was hand holding and perhaps the cold weather and weight coupled with the layers I was wearing had something to do with that also..I am enjoying both as well as my travel Canon 70-300. Great job...Thank again!
Sherman Wright It's toby :) But I do appreciate you taking a minute to share your results. Glad you are happy with that Tamron, it really is a great value.
Best review yet! Would you compare this against the sigma 60-600?
Got my answer RE Sigma Sport vs. Tamron from this review. I have 3 of the 5 combinations you reviewed, and from what I have I can't agree with you more. Love love love my Canon 100-400. Sigma Sport was easy to use on bean bags but otherwise a little cumbersome (and I'm a big guy). Love my 70-200 f2.8, but not as crazy about any lens with the 2X teleconverter without really good stabilization (i.e. Tripod). George Lepp's doing fantastic work with bald eagles stacking 2 2X teleconverters on his 500 f4 with the 7D MkII but on a solid tripod (for both videos and stills) just to make the point. I prefer the 1.4X teleconverter on my 100-400 or my 500 f4, though I think the 2X in good light on the 70-200 works well... Just my experiences. Still all in all if I had to pick just one lens, it would be the 100-400 with or without the 1.4X... Please don't freeze up in Alaska, and bring back some great Aurora images pal
What a great review, congratulations ! I appreciate it !
Thanks Jorge!
incredibly helpful video.I was engaged the whole time.I have been debating in my mind which of these I should purchase,its a very tough decision.
Mobster Miramontes what will you be shooting?
Wildlife mostly.I want to capture images of a mountain lion,Im shooting with a canon 70d.I will only have a few days to track it.I will most likely only get a glimpse if anything.I am leaning more towards the canon 100-400mm because of the quick auto focus.Any advise is appreciated.
awesome video Toby loved it 👍👍
Thanks for the nice review - well paced and explained. The choice continues...
A very fair and helpful reviews. Thank you.
Great review and your ability to communicate is awesome thank you!
Thanks!
I have the Canon 5d mkiii and was wondering about the Sigma or the 100-400 Canon mkii. I bought the 100-400 and I'm very happy with it. This was before seeing your review I should add. The review is very interesting, thanks.
Thanks for review.
I used 70-200/2.8 IS II with tc 2x II on my 1dx and I wasn't happy with the results. I think that tc 2x III is also not a good option (maybe with 300/2.8 IS II and with longer focal lenght lenses ;)). You forgot about distortion and I think that CA could be a problem with any extenders.
Shame that Tamron is not weather sealed. I have 24-70/2.8 VC and after shooting with this lens just few times (concerts in the clubs) I noticed that I have "something" inside this lens (I am carefully with my rig).
My questions:
1. Which lens is faster on ai servo - tamron or sigma?
2. Difference between 600/6.3 on both lenses? As I know Tamron needs to be stopped down to 8.0 for nice picture resolution.
3. These lenses are good enough on 400/5.6 or 300/5.0(?) for soccer or football in good light conditions in your opinion?
4. No bf or ff with both lenses?
Thanks in advance.
1. I didn't see a real difference. Maybe Sigma but honestly the Sigma in the way I was using it, hand held, just felt difficult to work with.
2. in my testing I saw little difference between the two at 600, Other reviews I have read/watched give the Sigma a slightly lead in sharpness.
3. In good light conditions - sure.
4. No but see another recent comment from mLichy911 stating that they have some inconsistencies with the Tamron.
Thank you a lot! and about the old 100 400? What do you think about? it's a good lens?
love love love LOVE the tamron! Just be aware that the DOF is extreeemely shallow at 600mm f6.3. So stop down the aperture to at least f/8 before you chalk up that lens as being "soft"
Would you say that at f8 you still get decent out of focus backgrounds?
Great review. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is $750-$900; would’ve like to see that one in the lineup. I own it.
Excellent roundup! Thanks
Thank you. Really good review. I like both Sigma 150mm-600mm sports lens and Canon 100mm-400mm lenses and notice the sharpness is better with the Canon lens on a 5D Mark3, handheld even with the 1.4X teleconverter (which makes the Canon lens up to a 560mm lens and takes it to a f5.6. I first used the Sigma without a monopod and gave myself a tennis elbow that has just healed after 5 months!! May sell the Sigma but plan to use that on a 5D Mark2 on a Gitzo monopod for now. It is a beautifully made lens and exudes quality craftsmanship. Well done Sigma. But the Canon 100-400 (II) is just a superb piece of kit.
Using an aps-C with a 70-200mm with a 1,4 extender is a good option the same is the aps-c and 100-400mm
sincere thanks for this detailed review
At 15:50 you say that losing two stops of light is equivalent to cut the light in half: maybe I'm getting it wrong, but shouldn't it be equivalet to 1/4 of the amount of light?
No, you are right - I misspoke.
hi I decided to go with the canon 300mm F4 and 70-200 2.8 mark 1 lenses. I also have the normal kits lenses such as 24-105 ef 55-250 efs 18-55 efs and also have a sigma 1.4ex and canon mark 1's 1.4 and 2x extenders do you feel I need to buy the tamron 150-600mm I am using the 600d so is a 1.6 crop lens but still wondering if it is some thing I should buy or is what I have more than good enough. any opinion would be nice thanks.
Loved the review..quick question. I am shooting with a cannon 60D. Will the Cannon 100-400 L IS II have reduced performance / quality / AF properties due to NOT being on a FULL Image body? Should I consider the older 100-400 Cannon Lens...This is my first Telephoto upgrade with quality glass. I think the Tamaron for the buck is awesome, but too big starting at 150mm for my interests. Mostly shooting wildlife from a kayak....I have the Cannon 75-300 IS now.
Gregory Everson No - the new version will be better than the older version on your 60D. The compact size of the 100-400 will suit you will on the kayak.
Thanks for a very thorough in depth review process ,which zoom for Bird Photography would you recommend I recently bought a Canon D200 .Thank you for any help .
I am in the same boat..probably I might go with 400 mm
@@AKHILESHVANAM 600mm would be best you would have to lug its weight around ? I have Tamron 100-400 good results hand held .
I am getting soon Sigma sport with lens polarizer and 1,4x converter which i might use more on my canon 70-200mm f2,8 is usm II when shooting sport. 1300e for all and my bag ready to carry this big boi to field. If you just wait you might find really good deals.
Really good review. It is helping me decide what to do.
Hi PhotoRec TV, Thank you so much for clearing some of the "myths and cobwebs" about the main 3 lenses. It is a very informative and a succinct video, with attributes, I value rather than someone rambling on insignificant factors. Love the close-ups and explanations. More technical data is the better. Bit of dilemma between Tamron or Sigma and it is not the cost, but the sharpness. One reviewer said Tamron has tiny dist particles trapped inside the barrel during its manufacture. Can you please verify this? Thanks Sir.
I own the canon 70-200mm and 100 -400 both great lenses I own the extender as well but do not use it much( just slows down the autofocus to Much). The interesting lens in the Bunch is the Sigma 150 - 600 contemporary not the sports model( to Heavy) -itis light enough to use handheld - plus it gives you that extra 200mm that comes in useful. Have been very pleased with the Quality of the photos that come from it-check it out
I do think the Sigma lens is excellent!
Thank-you for such great information about these lenses. I would like to upgrade to a longer focal length telephoto in a few years (when I can afford it), so it's nice to know so much information about these lenses. I had been thinking of buying the Sigma 100-600mm lens (because of the price), but I have wrist issues and am not a fan of tripods, so it seems like the Canon 100-400mm with an extender would maybe be a much better idea. Thanks so much..
That would be a great way to go. Glad I could help.
You ever review the SIGMA 150-600mm Contemporary lens as well as the sport??
I like your comment about being torn between Sigma and the Tamron. I'm in the same position only I'm torn between the Sigma Contemporary and the Tamron. The reason I am considering the Contemporary is because I do wildlife photography as a hobby not as a professional. Have you ever used the contemporary? Because of the mixed reviews on the Tamron and Sigma I have been considering in going with a Tamron SP AF300 IF f2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter and not messing with a zoom.
You did a great job in producing this video.
Regards,
Duane
Thanks. Exactly what i was looking for!.... (still watching it...especially curios about the VC/IS for video.... hopefully you cover that.)
(i already own the 70-200 2.8ii and the 2x.... wondering if i should get the tamron 100-600 for better long option)
Very good review, thank you, keep up the great reviews
From this review , i have decided to settle with CN 100-400 than SGM 150-600 C. Am ready to compromise that extra distance. But probably 1.4X would help me knocking that distance away. :) Fantastic detailed review !
Toby I am using Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 DI VC USD lens with Tamron 1.4x SP AF Teleconverter. With my Canon 70D, with its crop factor of 1.6x, I have a focal length of 320mm at long end, without attaching the converter. If I attach it, then it gives me a focal length of 448mm at long end. Superb combination, fast AF and sharp pictures. So why do you need an extra tele-lens?
very good review .i am having canon ef 100-400mm.is it sensible to upgrade to 150-600mm for extra reach.my interest is in bird photography.i am having 80d and 6d mark2.your valuable opinion please
Is that the mark I or Mark II canon 100-400? If you want more reach I think I would just add the 1.4x extender. That's a cheaper way to get more reach without sacrificing quality.
@@photorectoby Mark 2.
Have you any thoughts on the canon 200 to 400 x1.4 F/4 against the 500mm f/4. For the price of the Canon 200 - 400 f/4 with built in 1.4 extender one can get the 500mm f/4 and the Canon100-400 mark ii.
Want to use the lens for wildlife in Africa and am having a hard time making a choice. Or is the 200-400 the better lens all round. Most shot will be from vehicle window or hide.
Your comments please Sir
I thought your review on these lenses was right on the money. I own two of them and rented the 100-400 mk 2. I do wish you had said more about the 3ft minimum focus distance on the 100-400 mk 2, though. That is going to be a fun lens in summer for those who like to shoot bugs, butterflies, at close range with 400 mm zoom!
I should add a little note about that. Thanks!
Another awesome review. Thank you. Not sure if this is a good place to pose this question but... What are your thoughts regarding the improved sensors in the newer cameras specifically regarding the quality when using higher iso's? Effectively how much have the sensors been improved by, is an iso 400 of todays sensor as good as iso of 100 in a five year old camera? e.g. In an qual light situation, would a f 5.6 lens on a 7D Mk II produce an image as clean as an older camera with a f 2.8 lens?
Brian Holder Thanks Brian - good question - let's start with the first part are today's cameras at ISO 400 producing images as clean as ISO in 5 year old cameras? Some are! Some are not :) You can go to Dxo and check low light ISO ratings between the 7D (5 year old camera) and the 7D mark II, released recently. ISO difference is about 200, not the same as ISO 100-400. Switch brands though and you can find some producing significantly cleaner files, especially at the very high ISOs. The lens question is answered by the ISO - f/5.6 is 2 stops from f/2.8 so you would need to go from ISO 100 to 400 and in the case of the 7D Mark II you would be better off with the older camera and faster lens. More variables though make it not always a clear answer.
Thank you.
PhotoRec Toby After much head scratching and digging deep into my pockets I purchased the Canon 100-400 II. I love this lens and am glad that I spent the extra money. I was initially concerned about the weight but am quite used to it now. Now I'm thinking about putting a 1.4 tele-converter between the lens and camera body. Have you played with that combination? Do you have any words of wisdom to share?
Brian Holder sweet! I have not used the 1.4x but have used the 2x extender and while you lose AF at the longer reaches quality is awesome and live view AF still works.I also hear you can tape a few of the pins and still get great results.
PhotoRec Toby Thank you.
I am torn, I am mainly going to be shooting birds and wildlife. Would you recommend the canon 400 prime or the canon 100-400? Which one would you grab if you were going to go out on a nature walk?
Scot Sample I am one who wants to get the best possible quality image also.
Scot Sample I would grab the 100-400, I saw negligible difference and the added versatility of the 100-400 makes it a fantastic lens.
Excellent review, thank you for sharing.
Thanks for the video. What about sigma 150-6-0mm contemporary versus sport (price wise is cheaper that the sport. Any advice
The Contemporary is quite good and I can happily recoomend.
Hi, great review
I bought myself a Canon 1Dx MkII.
Now i'm not sure which lens to buy for my hobby, which is military aircraft spotting and off course airshows.
Since the 1Dx MkII is a full frame camera, i loose my crop and thus mm's which are sometimes hard needed during airshows.
So, which one should i buy?
The Canon 100-400 MkII with 1,4 or 2,0 extender or the Sigma 150-600 sports version.
I have enough bodies to set up my Canon 100-400 MkI as a backup if necessary
Thanks for your advice and time
Greetz
Michael
Awesome review toby!!!
Hi , this review was awsom .i think sigma is the 1 i will by , what is ur thought about it for wild life photography,am willing to by tamron 70-300 mm f 4 .saw maney review about that lense and they all were teling me that it is fast in focous ,very very sharp and its vc was jst fantastick , what is ur thought about it. I hope u will ans
I give my thoughts in the video :) It is a great lens, Get the Sigma if you will have monopod or tripods available.
I am wanting a lens that can give me greater zoom than the canon EF 75-300.
Currently looking at the Tamron 150 -600
In your review you said that you can get the 600 range with the canon 100-400 and that the quality of the pictures are better.
Can you help me understand this better as I am currently shooting wildlife (cranes and eagles on the river where I live) Some pics are excellent and others are not as crisp. I am using a tripod and remote trigger to take pictures. I would like to get closer to the subject through zoom but in the end the quality of the picture is important.
Is the sigma 150-600, the art lens? i see the white dot on the lens . just asking. i have the Tamron 150-600 on a Sony SLT A99 im happy with it. The sigma 150-600 is not out for Sony yet
The sigma I tested was the Sport version. They have now released the Contemporary version and I have updated my written review on this page in the Sigma section photorec.tv/2015/01/big-zoom-field-review/
thanks for this very nice review.
I own the 100-400 II and with the 1.4 ext it's also blasting fast
Henk-Jan Bezemer Great to know.
Want to see a comparison between Sigma Contemporary as well as Tamron G2 in 150-600mm category.
Which one is better sigma 150-600mm or Tamron 150-600mm on mirrorless canon camera
i am also happy with my tamron 150-600 for budget,weight wise... cheers with the superb comparison
Thaibuddhas Glad to hear it and Thanks!
Bro how is the focus??
I have the Canon M50.
I love photographing wildlife and saving money to get a zoom lens.. which one do you recommend between Tamron 150-600mm and Canon 100-400mm?
Thank you
Hi Ali, With the M50 you will need to use an adapter. That adapter is going to work best with the Canon 100-400. I don't have enough direct experience to know how well it would work with the 150-600.
@@photorectoby got it..
Thank you so much for taking time to reply...
Thanks very useful review
Hi, nice review!. Are you planning on making a review of the Nikkor 200-500 f5.6?
I really can't decide between the Sigma 150-600 Sport and the Nikkor 200-500. Thanks!
I ran into this blog. I have the Sigma 150-600 . It is sharp for me. I got mine for $899.00
great review. only downside is we need more campereson picture...
Thank you for your review Toby (By far the best one I have watched for these lenses!). Im going to be considering one of the two 150-600mm zooms as I don't think I could stretch to the 100-400 L mk2. I I'm probably going to rent both and decide that way... Actually ill rent the 100-400 as well. We can all dream right?
Dreaming is good - gives us goals. Keep me updated, I always love to know what folks decide works best for them.
Great review as always. My question is about the extra 200 mm reach with the Tamron or Sigma -- how important (or not) did you find that in shooting wildlife? Or, put another way, does 400 mm get you close enough?
CEH It's a tough question to answer. I almost always want more zoom when photographing wildlife but if it means carrying around a really big lens, I would stick with a more portable 400mm and crop. Especially if you are on a crop sensor camera. If you are full frame, 400 at times, especially with shy wildlife can feel limited.
I am a high-level Quadriplegic in a wheelchair, I have found getting close to things and accessing some areas is pretty possible especially when it comes to photography. So I am looking at one of the Sigma 150-600m lenses to give the reach. My aim is to do nature photography & taking photos of my brother surfing at some of the local beaches.
My equipmentMy camera I currently have is a Canon 700D a.k.a. T5i I know it's only entry-level, but from everything I have been reading online online indicates that a good lens can overcome some of the shortcomings of the camera.
So my question to you is will the Sigma Sports & Contemporary perform okay on my APS-C crop sensor camera, I know it would turn the 150-600mm to approximately 240mm - 960mm equivalent. My remote-controlled tripod head can handle up to 21lbs so weight is not an issue
These are my current lens's that I own. Sigma 35mm F/1.4 Art
Canon 300mm EF f/4L IS USM
Canon EF-S 10-18mm STM
Canon EF-S 18-135 mm STM
Canon EF-S 55- 250mm STM
I was considering the Tamron 150-600mm but after lots of research found they have dust issues & is something that I would rather avoid.
Any help greatly appreciated
Cheers Richard
I am strongly considering the 300 f4 canon - but you make such a good argument for the need for variable focal length at long working distances that I want to be sure the 100-400 isn't going to be a better choice. I am a prime type - paranoid about distortion and love bokeh. any ideas there?
DCUPtoejuice The 100-400 mark II is a freaking beautiful lens. I too love primes for shorter distance and am picky about the quality, I have no problems recommending the 100-400 if your budget can handle it.
Great review Toby! Thanks. Have been looking at replacing my V1 100-400 with the new version or going to one of the other brands, I love that lens for travelling with, One minor clarification though. On bodies that support f8 center point focusing (7D MKII, 5D MKIII and 1DX) you can still shoot at higher apertures than f8 and have auto focus because all the focusing is done with the lens wide open.So you should be able to use a 1.4 converter and the 100-400 on one of these bodies and still have auto focus.The 2X wouldn't work on the 100-400. I was even able to achieve auto focus with my 100 - 400 V1 and a 1.4X converter on a 7D using live view although it was painfully slow/
Hi Stephen, Thanks for sharing that - Others have chimed in and I have heard that the new 100-400 with 1.4x still offers speedy AF. I did confirm that live view worked with the 7D mark II as well, some of this I have covered on the accompanying blog post. Thanks!
@@photorectoby On my M5, the autofocus is very fast bare, and fast with the 1.4x, The autofocus actually works with the 2.0x on a tripod. I did a test comparing the M5 with all my telephoto setups on a household electric meter about 130 feet away (plus some elevation difference). If you match the image sizes of the 100-400 bare with the 1.4x and with the 2.0x Canon telex tenders, the 2.0x is the clear winner, because the image gets down to the pixels on the bare and 1.4x. The comparison is at the total effective f11 in all cases. Would the 1.4x overtake the 2.0x with an M6 Mk II? Dunno. Somebody send me one and I will retest!
www.flickr.com/photos/pethier/49914982136/in/album-72157714332567882/
I'm going back & forth between the Tamron 150-600 & Canon 100-400 for my 60D. I like the sharpness of the Canon but price + range says Tamron. What about Canon 100-400 + 1.4 teleconverter vs the Sigma? On an unrelated note, anything on the not-yet-available Sigma 150-600 Contemporary?
I have a Nikon d5500 (crop sensor) what would be your recommendation for a big zoom? The tamron 160-600 or the sigma contemporary 160-600? Or any prime for Nikon? (I own the tamron 16-300 but it does not seem enough for wild life). I would like e good balance between sharpness:weight: priceThanks and great reviews
+Imma Barrera Sigma contemporary is best value in my opinion.
Thanks for the review. The wheat on the sigma is not so massiv if you think of what the nikon/canon 400f4 or 600F4 wait. And than you got a zoom instead of a prime.
Excellent review
Hi Toby, really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my question......
Had the Sigma, handheld it was a disaster. Your arm is quickly tired which makes it even harder. So replaced it with the Canon 100-400mk2 with the 1.4x mk3 extender. So I get 560mm f8. It's a great combo, and very sharp. It outperform the Sigma even if it is used on a tripod. I'm still everytime impressed from the quality and sharpness of this combo on my 5D mk4.
In the last week I have used my Canon 100-400 mk II with the 1.4x mk III extender to shoot woodpeckers at their nest with tripod, and then a robin with the same 560mm combination. Very good results. I used an M5 body. For high magnification tripod work, I think the best presently-available body would be the M6 Nk II.