Canon lens shootout!

[Tinker Toy]

Hello all,

After 6 years of using my Sigma 150-500 (Canon Mount) I am looking to upgrade in the next few months. The obvious choice would be the Canon 100-400 mk2, but I don't really have the funds to get one. Is there any lenses that are going to be notably sharper and have more contrast than my Sigma sub £800. I am looking for used gear mainly with that budget.

I quite like the 400 5.6 but am wary of the lack of IS as I love slow shutter speeds with Warbirds. I am also interested in the 300mm f4 IS with a 1.4 converter combo or a Canon 100-400 mk1.

As I see a lot of fantastic photographs on here using the mentioned equipment and I would appreciate any advice. Is it worth upgrading or just stick with the Sigma as it is by no means bad, I just want a little more quality.

The lens would be mounted on a 7D mk1. Thank you in advance!

Regards,

Ben.

[xkekeith]

Don't have experience of the Sigma but have both the Canon 300mm f4 IS / 1.4 extender combo and a Canon 100-400mm mk1. The 300mm is pin sharp and works well with the extender, bought the 100-400mm secondhand and had it serviced by Canon. Post service the 100-400mm is pretty good and was impressed on a recent trip in the rainforest, light levels forced me to use higher IOS settings and slower speeds than I would use on aviation subjects but ended up with some excellent shots. However this lens just work better in good light levels. I tend to use the zoom more because of the flexibility but the prime is sharper as long as you don't lose the shot due to the wrong focal length. If you do go for the 100-400mm make sure it's a decent example. Alternatively save your pennies for a bit longer and get the mk2 which by all accounts is the dogs jewels.

[Richard B]

Tamron 150-600 mm is very good, look at some of the reviews.
With the display distances being further away then the 150-600mm as some benifits.

[deerhunter]

To be honest I would save up and get the 100 400 mk2 it's by far one of the best lenses going, mind you I'm biased, I traded up from the mk 1 to the mk 2 and am pleased.

[Supra]

Never owned an EF 100-400 Mk1 Lens because every one I ever borrowed to try was quite frankly very poor image-wise. Decided I wouldn't use that Lens for free!
Currently I use an EF 70-200, EF 300/ 2.8, EF 500 & EF 600 prime & a MK 2 1.4x as required. I recently ordered a new EF 100-400 Mk2 for a colleague....& used it myself for a few weeks. Couldn't fault it, easily on a par with the primes, better than the EF 70-200/1.4x combo', but having the familiar advantage of the rotating zoom, as per the EF 70-200. Also performs well on lower budget Canon bodies.
I was so impressed in fact, I bought my own copy. Definitely another vote for the EF 100-400 Mk II, anything else would be a massive compromise!

[Phil Standfield]

I also had the mk1 100-400. Never completely happy with the images although maybe because i needed to MA. Bought the mk2 last year really impressed. Would rather have a zoom than prime purely because it gives more flexibility when sometimes you are using a prime you just cant move even a few feet. My advice would be what do you use it for and is the 400 end long enough or do you want more reach. If 400 is enough keep using what you have and save for the mk2 100-400.
Phil

[Tinker Toy]

Thank you all for the replies!

I think that the 100-400 mk2 is looking to be the best now, bad for my bank account but good for my photography! If any one has examples from anyone of those lens I'd love to see them.

[deerhunter]

Have a look at my post "Out on the marshes" the three pics were all taken with the 100 400 mk2

[bigrich110]

just to throw another option in is the sigma 150-600mm sport its an amazing lens and well worth it and not a massive difference from the 150-500mm lens