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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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 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 own the tamron i also tested the Sigma, but the sigma is sharper at 600mm but hurray for the small difference in image quallity tamron is lighter and has faster AF speed and cost less but they have the same problem in AF servo tracking mode focusing from closest to infinety 400-600mm the focus is stalling or hunts and stops and needs manual focus kick to geth going stupid if you ask me
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
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.
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!
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 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
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 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 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.
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"
@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 🇩🇰📷🐺
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.
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.
Folks are spoiled by IS. I shoot a lot with the 400 prime, but I do it outdoors in sunlight. It is not s problem. I mainly stay above 1/500 on the shutter and get excellent results. When I want to shoot in the shadows in the woods, I grab them Tamron and set the aperture to f8. I used to go with with the 400 on my crop body and the Tamron on my full frame body on a double strap system. After about three hours I'm dead. ;)
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
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 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.
I don't know why most people use the ring to zoom with the Sigma 150-600. I also have the Sport version and according to Sigma, you can also move the hood in and out to zoom, which makes everything more easier, due to its weight etc.
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
you say the 400mm canon is the sharpest of the bunch. i figured the newer lense 100-400 2 would have been better overall since its new. i have used the older 100-400 and hated the mechanism, i then tried the 400 5.6 with a 1.4x tele and really enjoyed using it. i actually borrowed it twice and decided when i have the cash i would pick it up. with the new 100-400 and tamron 100-600 in the mix i wasn't sure what to do.
Very interesting comparison, but I wonder why you left out the combination of the Canon 100-400 and the 1.4x extender, which would make a 140 - 560 lens, which is about the same range as the Tamron and Sigma. That combination would keep a very fast autofocus, supersharpness (not as the 400 but...), easy to hand hold and keep the minimum aperture to f8, which keep the autofocus with the camerabodies you used. A really good combination with the price as the main problem, even though not disastrous.
Thanks for the great review, Toby. I found this a really useful overview of a bunch of lenses that are highly relevant to me. I've been using the 400mm f5.6 on a 7D for years, but recently switched to Nikon, and so am looking hard at the Tamron and Sigma lenses. My main concern is that, having been used to the incredible sharpness of the 400mm f5.6 for so long, I might be disappointed with the sharpness of either the Tamron or Sigma. Based on your comments, it sounds like the difference is not all that significant. Is that a fair statement? I do appreciate that the T and S lenses are much heavier (especially the S lens) than the 400mm f5.6, but even with the 400mm, I was almost always shooting with a tripod... so not such a big deal for me, I don't think (although hiking with the T or S lenses would be interesting).
I have seen some test results that showed noticeable but not significant differences in sharpness. In the field I was very pleased with all the lenses and saw no real differences. Hiking with the Sigma is something to consider but it does offer that weather sealing and several levels of customization both with IS and using the USB dock.
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.
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.
Here you see the charging tiger perfect sharp in focus, and even when the tiger is shewing on the camera the lens won't scratch... That's the mark of a great lens..;-)
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 !
The text statement that the Sigma Contemporary is weather sealed is slightly misleading. It has a weather seal at the rear element but not at the front element. The Sigma Sport is professionally weather sealed but much more expensive. The Contemporary is a heavy lens and cannot really be handheld for extended periods and is more suited to a gimbal head. The autofocus is quick and accurate and overall the lens is very good value for money.
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.
nniteesh20 I shot more than I shared and give a slight edge to the Canon Prime, next the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma- but honestly they are were so close so often that I don't think you should buy one over the other just for image quality. Buy from the length you want and the feature set you need.
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.
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
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 .
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?
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.
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?
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.
Dear Toby, does the canon 100-400 AF is significant faster then Sigma 150-600? How about the Sigma 150-600 AF speed vs Tamron 150-600 AF? Finally I would like to say this review is very detail, professional, and awesome which I find out very helpful. Thank you.
Lay Khoon Chew Thanks Lay! Canon 100-400 AF was blazingly fast. Sigma was fast but not as fast. Tamron was right there with the Sigma maybe a little slower.
I only buy Canon L lens, I just don't trust third party lens. I have been looking at the Canon 2x extender for my Canon 70-200 F2.8 lens, but I need to do some more research.
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)
I always set my IOS setting on AUTO when ever I use my canon 80D and if you are going to use the canon 400mm F5.6L lens then remember to set IOS on AUTO
Good review. Even a Nikon man can like this. With Nikon, old telephoto manual fokus can be used on modern cameras. So I have 85/1.4, 105/2.5, 135/3.5, 180/2.8 (autofocus) 200/4, 300/4.5, 400/5.6 and 500/8 (mirror reflex) I like lenses :-) But I consider buying either the Tamron or one of the two Sigmas 150-600. I think Sigma has made great progress with their lenses that last years, not only these zooms, but also the ART-series.
If you shoot birds, stepping back to find a composition is not an issue. So, that's why the 400, 500, 600, and 800 mm primes exist! And their sharpness cannot be matched! Of course, most won't want these (and most can't afford the last three).
Very true about birds. But now my question is - does the 400mm feel close enough for birds in flight? I don't do much of that shooting but know it almost always feels like I want more reach - I do agree that the longer primes are VERY pricey.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
That pine marten is so adorable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Fantastic in depth easy to follow review comparison. I'm now trying to decide between these lenses and Sigma's 60-600mm
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.
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?
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
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.
One of the best reviews i ever watch👍🏻
Awesome review of wildlife, birding telephoto lenses!
Excellent review. Professional and so clear to understand. Thanks for putting this together!
Great review. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is $750-$900; would’ve like to see that one in the lineup. I own it.
i own the tamron i also tested the Sigma, but the sigma is sharper at 600mm but hurray for the small difference in image quallity tamron is lighter and has faster AF speed and cost less but they have the same problem in AF servo tracking mode focusing from closest to infinety 400-600mm the focus is stalling or hunts and stops and needs manual focus kick to geth going stupid if you ask me
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.
Thanks for the thorough review. I would have liked to see the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS included. Maybe next time!
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.
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!
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.
Great review,. Thanks. I am propbably going to buy the Tamron 150-600. (Birds)
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!
Your flickr images are unreal nice work
He should have compared the Sigma contemporary lens with the Sport lens, which is 2 lbs lighter and easier to handle
And cheaper.
Brilliant review, honest and easy to understand. Thank you for such a good review.
Kind regards Rob, from the UK England.
Great review. You covered many scenarios and real world concerns. This helped my decision process!
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 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!
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.
Great review! Exactly the info I was searching for!
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?
@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 🇩🇰📷🐺
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.
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.
Folks are spoiled by IS. I shoot a lot with the 400 prime, but I do it outdoors in sunlight. It is not s problem. I mainly stay above 1/500 on the shutter and get excellent results. When I want to shoot in the shadows in the woods, I grab them Tamron and set the aperture to f8. I used to go with with the 400 on my crop body and the Tamron on my full frame body on a double strap system. After about three hours I'm dead. ;)
Folks are just plain spoiled these days :)
I ran into this blog. I have the Sigma 150-600 . It is sharp for me. I got mine for $899.00
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
Nicely done, Toby!
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.
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.
I don't know why most people use the ring to zoom with the Sigma 150-600. I also have the Sport version and according to Sigma, you can also move the hood in and out to zoom, which makes everything more easier, due to its weight etc.
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
you say the 400mm canon is the sharpest of the bunch. i figured the newer lense 100-400 2 would have been better overall since its new. i have used the older 100-400 and hated the mechanism, i then tried the 400 5.6 with a 1.4x tele and really enjoyed using it. i actually borrowed it twice and decided when i have the cash i would pick it up. with the new 100-400 and tamron 100-600 in the mix i wasn't sure what to do.
Very interesting comparison, but I wonder why you left out the combination of the Canon 100-400 and the 1.4x extender, which would make a 140 - 560 lens, which is about the same range as the Tamron and Sigma. That combination would keep a very fast autofocus, supersharpness (not as the 400 but...), easy to hand hold and keep the minimum aperture to f8, which keep the autofocus with the camerabodies you used. A really good combination with the price as the main problem, even though not disastrous.
What a great review, congratulations ! I appreciate it !
Thanks Jorge!
Thanks for the great review, Toby. I found this a really useful overview of a bunch of lenses that are highly relevant to me.
I've been using the 400mm f5.6 on a 7D for years, but recently switched to Nikon, and so am looking hard at the Tamron and Sigma lenses. My main concern is that, having been used to the incredible sharpness of the 400mm f5.6 for so long, I might be disappointed with the sharpness of either the Tamron or Sigma. Based on your comments, it sounds like the difference is not all that significant. Is that a fair statement?
I do appreciate that the T and S lenses are much heavier (especially the S lens) than the 400mm f5.6, but even with the 400mm, I was almost always shooting with a tripod... so not such a big deal for me, I don't think (although hiking with the T or S lenses would be interesting).
I have seen some test results that showed noticeable but not significant differences in sharpness. In the field I was very pleased with all the lenses and saw no real differences. Hiking with the Sigma is something to consider but it does offer that weather sealing and several levels of customization both with IS and using the USB dock.
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.
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.
Here you see the charging tiger perfect sharp in focus, and even when the tiger is shewing on the camera the lens won't scratch...
That's the mark of a great lens..;-)
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??
Great review and your ability to communicate is awesome thank you!
Thanks!
Thanks for the nice review - well paced and explained. The choice continues...
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 !
Want to see a comparison between Sigma Contemporary as well as Tamron G2 in 150-600mm category.
I didn't know that the Canon 2x extender will fit a Tamron 150-600
great review. only downside is we need more campereson picture...
Best review yet! Would you compare this against the sigma 60-600?
A very fair and helpful reviews. Thank you.
The text statement that the Sigma Contemporary is weather sealed is slightly misleading. It has a weather seal at the rear element but not at the front element. The Sigma Sport is professionally weather sealed but much more expensive. The Contemporary is a heavy lens and cannot really be handheld for extended periods and is more suited to a gimbal head. The autofocus is quick and accurate and overall the lens is very good value for money.
he never mentions Contemporary in this review- its all about Sport
that is true, but if this a sport version, the price is wrong!
Hi Toby, really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my question......
sincere thanks for this detailed review
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.
Excellent roundup! Thanks
Excellent review, thank you for sharing.
From the image samples from the website I would say Sigma is the sharpest next 400mm prime > canon 100 - 400 > Tamron > 70 - 200 with 2x.
nniteesh20 I shot more than I shared and give a slight edge to the Canon Prime, next the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma- but honestly they are were so close so often that I don't think you should buy one over the other just for image quality. Buy from the length you want and the feature set you need.
Awesome, thanks for the review
Both Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 is usm and Canon 70-200 f2.8 is ii sum are NOW $1,899 so it a little bit cheaper
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.
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
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 .
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.
Really good review. It is helping me decide what to do.
Thank you a lot! and about the old 100 400? What do you think about? it's a good lens?
Thanks very useful review
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.
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?
nice! plus, very nice background of a place where you're sitting to share your views about all these lenses
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.
Canon 400 has higher resolution, so you can crop instead of zooming with your feet. :)
Me Johan Eriksson resolution comes from the sensor when it comes to cropping.
Great review! I'm still torn...but at least I have this useful information to help me decide.
awesome video Toby loved it 👍👍
Dear Toby,
does the canon 100-400 AF is significant faster then Sigma 150-600?
How about the Sigma 150-600 AF speed vs Tamron 150-600 AF?
Finally I would like to say this review is very detail, professional, and awesome which I find out very helpful. Thank you.
Lay Khoon Chew Thanks Lay! Canon 100-400 AF was blazingly fast. Sigma was fast but not as fast. Tamron was right there with the Sigma maybe a little slower.
Thanks again Toby.
I only buy Canon L lens, I just don't trust third party lens. I have been looking at the Canon 2x extender for my Canon 70-200 F2.8 lens, but I need to do some more research.
+Freddie Slaughter Use the Canon 1.4x III much sharper!
Excellent advice!!
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)
Nice review Tody !!! Any thoughts on the Sigma 150-500 which costs around $850 ?
I am less impressed with that lens. The Tamron 150-600 is a better, sharper lens offering a better value.
I always set my IOS setting on AUTO when ever I use my canon 80D and if you are going to use the canon 400mm F5.6L lens then remember to set IOS on AUTO
Good review. Even a Nikon man can like this. With Nikon, old telephoto manual fokus can be used on modern cameras. So I have 85/1.4, 105/2.5, 135/3.5, 180/2.8 (autofocus) 200/4, 300/4.5, 400/5.6 and 500/8 (mirror reflex) I like lenses :-)
But I consider buying either the Tamron or one of the two Sigmas 150-600. I think Sigma has made great progress with their lenses that last years, not only these zooms, but also the ART-series.
+sallhame You also have the Nikon 200-500 which is excellent. Thanks!
I had a look at the 200-500 Nikon yesterday. I think I have to change my plans now, as I find this lens more tempting than the others mentioned here.
If you shoot birds, stepping back to find a composition is not an issue. So, that's why the 400, 500, 600, and 800 mm primes exist! And their sharpness cannot be matched! Of course, most won't want these (and most can't afford the last three).
Very true about birds. But now my question is - does the 400mm feel close enough for birds in flight? I don't do much of that shooting but know it almost always feels like I want more reach - I do agree that the longer primes are VERY pricey.
Please add hand on experience side by side physically the comparison between Sigma 60-600 mm & Sigma 150-600 mm lense.