Watch the whole video for the photo's hahaha

I second your thought, bright colors are way too loud while out photographing wildlife. And any third party lens can never out do either Nikon or Canon when it comes to tack sharp stellar image quality.

"Deer are essentially red-green color blind like some humans. Their color vision is limited to the short [blue] and middle [green] wavelength colors. As a result, deer likely can distinguish blue from red, but not green from red, or orange from red."

Hai Steve i also have the big Sig but the 150-600mm Sport they are roughly equal Optical but compared to primes like 500mmf4 or 600mmf5.6 in my eyes and tests or comparisons the primes are about 5-10% sharper that is if i adjusting the lens in sigmas docking station to Perfect focus sorrey for my bad inglish

ted tedsen It's okay I can understand what you are saying-I guess prime lenses usually just have the edge on sharpness.

Just ordered the same kit this morning, fingers crossed.

Amateur rubbish video

Mark Harris I’m thinking of getting the 7D II, how did you rate it alongside the Sigma 150-600

I’m hoping to pair the Sigma with my old 7d as well for bird photos.

You have to put things into context really. "600mm is not sharp" is just a relative statement as compared to the primes which doesn't exactly mean it is totally rubbish. The truth is you have to factor in the absolutely massive price difference. I can get the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary version over here in Hong Kong for just over 600 pounds. Say if I were to get the Canon 600mm f/4, that would be over 10,000 pounds. That is almost 17 times the price of the Sigma for cry out loud!! LOL. Seriously? If you are talking about recommendation, there is just no way I can recommend the Canon 600mm f/4 in good conscience unless that is if you are a pro or you have just struck the lottery or Bill Gates is your dad. The truth is most of us are not pros, may be enthusiasts at the most, the Sigma is already plenty good enough.

sigma is way better and sharper

I have not seen a Sigma lens that is sharper than either a Nikon or a Canon prime lens at F/2.8 or for that matter anything smaller with a large aperture faster than f/2.8. Sigma is definitely cheaper however. On that point there is no debate..

One problem with the big primes is weight (and cost). They are fine for out of car use but walking any distance or climbing up hills is a real chore, especially for those of us not as young as we once were! For hiking I use the new Nikon PF 300MM f4 prime with a Nikon x1.4 mark 3 teleconverter. It produces great images, but still not as good as the 500MM f4 prime. The total weight of the D500+ 300 PF + converter is 1.9KG while with the 500 f4 it’s 4.8 KG. That is a big difference. It’s all about making compromises.

Fisher I understand the weight issue for sure. I own 1.7X teleconverter, a Nikon 300mm and 400mm which are both @ F/2.8 and while the 300 is hand holdable over long periods. My 400 certainly is not. My advantage is that I shoot sports, and not so much wildlife. As a result the 400 is always on a monopod. although swapping between lenses can sometimes be a bit of a pain since I have 2 bodies fitted to shoot. But I agree with you that lugging around a Super Tele prime might be a chore.

Dario, I'm sorry but the Sigmas are not better lenses. They are just a better prices for something that is kind of sort of like a canon or nikon's fast lenses series. I ran a comparison of a sigma and a nikon 70-200. Just looking as what I shot back then I was not impressed with the Sigma over the Nikon. If they were as good Sigma would have already jacked up their pricing points to make more money. At the end of the day just remember photographers just want the best images they can have, and if Sigma were doing that we all would be complaining that they cost too dang much...lol!!..ijs

i would also like to ask the same question about the sigma 150-600 c version against the nikon 200-500 f5.6 which one is better for wildlife ?

I am no means pro, but have Sigma 150-600 c(canon version) .. mainly used for birding .. slow focus, missed fast moving subject may be because of decade old canon 40d

+1980subhas I have the Canon sports version and have never had any problems with focusing even with 2 X or 1.4 X teleconverters on. I've only heard of the built quality being better on the sport and nothing different about the AF, so it may be the camera.

200-500 all day every day. Do not buy the sigma; it is a shitty lens optically 200-500 with D500 is currently best wildlife setup for the price! Period!

200-500. period! dont buy the sigma!

AF-S requires a lot of practice for wildlife...Only use AF-S if you really want a shot or not at all IMO... :)

Can you explain?

I reviewed all the long zooms I found the canon focus to be much slower than the sigma 150-600mm. I get it with the quality of the 100-400. But I feel the extra 200mm makes a difference.

Hello, I just watched your video, you don't state what camera you are using for those tests, but all I can say is you have some serious issues, I just done the same test as you and my 100-400 MKII just snaps into focus instantly really don't know why yours is so slow, I am using the 1DX MKII but it was the same on my 5D MK3 in fact the first thing I noticed was how much faster the 100-400 focuses compared to the Sigma 150-600, even with my 1.4 extender my lens focuses faster than it does in your video, so you need to address this. There are many videos on KZfaq praising the 100-400 MKII for it's image quality and speed, with some Pro's using it instead of the 300mm 2.8 in situation when they need to go light. On Friday my friend, was using his Sigma sport on his 7D2 for birding, and he was saying just wished it would focus faster he also thinks it's slow, but he has the 300mm F2.8. I appreciate you say it's your personal opinion but I am afraid it's way off the mark compared to what most people are saying.

Yes many people have said the canon 100-400II is almost instant but my tests showed this not to be the case. When I tested the canon vs the sigma and tamron all the big zooms were a lot faster than the canon. Even when I used the 2.5 meter limiter it made no difference. I originally bought a gray import from Australia so maybe thought I had a bad copy so I tested one in a camera store to double check this and it made no difference. As for what cameras I tested it on I am sure in my videos I do tell but its both a 7D and a 600D. I wished the canon lens was quicker even in the field the focus was so slow. When I got the sigma lens and tamron the focus was twise as fast. Know I do appreciate the focus has more room to move because the canon can focus to 98cm but even so it was still very slow. When I was photographing gulls in a national park a few times it went out of focus a sign of the slow focus. I can not see it being an issue with the camera the 7D is a very good semi pro camera.I use my 300 f4 with a 1.4x teleconverter and that combo focus was a lot faster. It is possible I guess if the focus was good on the lens I would have kept it as the optics are very good.I did not own a d1 body as I can not afford one but recently got a 1dIII but I sent back the 100-400 pitty because I liked the feel and weight of the lens. But 400mm is a bit short compared to 600mm. I think you will find if you use the sigma lens at 500mm it will produce sharp results. at 600mm I do think it struggles. But their is an old rule get closer to your subject and even the worst lens becomes the best. Thank you for your input I would appreciate a video from you to show how your lens performs. If it is the camera causing the slow focus but the focus on both 600d and 7d was the same.

I think if you have the money for a 1d body the focus speed on the 100-400II will be faster

Hi I did think of doing a video to show you, but I would have to use my phone as I have no other means,but A I don't know how I would go about doing this and upload it on here for you and B I really don't have time, I really am not out to call you a liar believe me, but you have to take my word for it too, and mine focuses so much faster, yes the 1DX2 will out perform focus on the 2 cameras you stated but my lens was also very fast on my 5D3, I have never owned the 600D but had the 7D MK1 on release, I hated mine and got rid after just 10 months I think mine was one of the early ones with focus issues, swapped it for the 5D3 which I had for 4 years, last year I took the Sigma to the USA visiting the national parks of Utah and Arizona, when I got back I was so deflated with my results, wished I kept the 100-400 MK1, I really don't know what people see in this lens, it needs a lot of light and really needs to be on a tripod it's not a carry about lens, most of my wildlife photos I took with this lens went into the bin as they were not up to the standard I wanted, hence I swapped it for the 100-400 MKII, the only gain the Sigma has is the 600mm and this is why I purchased it, for my travels this would have been so useful, but what is the point of great reach with poor quality? I think Canon will do a better job with their 200-600 and I may give that a go for travels, but to be honest I love this 100-400 that I can't see me parting with it, I have just come back from 2 weeks in Finland and the images were fantastic, if you still think the 100-400 is slow, watch Andy Rouse youtube video using this lens to photograph otters running towards him.

Not so in many cases. You can’t “crop” a head shot of a deer using a prime into a full-body shot. That’s why I finally gave up my lovely Olympus 300mm f4 prime with it’s claimed “ Sharpest Olympus lens ever made” for the Sigma 150-600 Contemp. The ability to use the versatility of the zoom finally got me. I just returned from a 7-week getting married and also doing wildlife filming trip to finally getting around to editing the video and stills. I was able to use that Sigma 150-600 with Metabones speedbooster to get gorgeous video and still shots, many of which I could’ve never gotten with a long prime. It’s so good for getting the narrative much broader. Go Sigma!

So the birds that come and feed in my garden are no longer classed as wildlife then?

It´s a thin line ;) It looks like the deers are park of an enclosure, oder "wildlife"-park. An animal that is that much use to humans and/or is tamed, dosen´t count as wildlife. Other might see that differently and it is sometimes really hard to tell what still "counts" as wildlife". For a wildlife photographer, this will alway fell like cheating. The behaviour of animals that live and the deepest forest in the middle of e.g. Norway will be much different compared to those living in close proximity of humans. Are the pictures less good, because it´s not necessary wildlife? No, they are good. And I don´t blame people for taking those pictures. I only think it is not ok to label them as wildlife.

Additionally: Differnt species will behave diffenrtly. Birds will not get used to people that easily as e.g. deer. Birds are smaller and therefore more vulnerable and this will eventually lead them to be more carefull towards humans. Also their lifespan is shorter and therefore they don´t have as much time as deer to get adapted to people.

It's clearly a park, but in the wild, if you don't have a hide, the best way is to let them come close by themselves, as described in the video - maybe just don't stand up without cover in red clothes. I never wear real camo, only green or sand/earth colors. I had wild deer come closer than that, head nearly filling the 400mm + crop sensor frame. Of course they stop when they hear the camera shooting, see me, and run away before I can shoot a second time... About birds, some of them live longer than deer, some sea bird species can live more than 50 years. And some species are quite at ease with people in some places

Sounds great. I should be more patient then. You are right, some birds, especially larger ones, can get quite old. I was referring to small songbirds that are more likely to be seen in urban environments.

That's the best place to hang it. It was designed to take the weight of the lens. Deffo not the camera mounts where the strain and n the lens mount is dangerous. Just needs a secure and quality sling I have been doing this for years

Lau Bjerno and im watching In 360p....Poor me

didn't know birds wore shirts?

If it's a robin you're ok they tend to follow people in red clothing

One other reason people complain is most people handhold this lens at 600. This results in shaky images even with VR ON. 500 f4 is almost always on tripod.

Carlos Thomas we don’t have elk in the UK

Your last sentence is entirely false. Total nonsense.

Do they have to put their camera down to eat?

there are some right at the end dude.

You didn't watch it all

FFS!

Phil call me dumb as a box of rocks on this, but what the hell is "FFS"?

🙈🙈

Absolutely. And the thing is that lens even comes with a carry strap. I have the same lens and I always use the carry strap which attaches to the tripod mount on the lens. When the lens dangling from the camera like that I had the same thought, he is going to bugger up his camera.

Who needs a tripod?

720 is fine. Step your attitude the hell down.

+andrewford80 go feed your horse and oil your carriage

Ouch, burrrnnnnn!

No, please no, not yet... they can step up their game when German internet providers did step up their game.

There is a search field in the top of KZfaq. You can type in search queries to find other videos. Let me know if you need more help.

I did visit your page sir, and I do not see any photo from you that can prove this people wrong. Please prove me wrong and show some of your work.