Not enough reach. Love my Sigma 150-600mm, it was sharp right out of the box. Just don't use any TC with it.

Yea me too. I upgraded from 400 5.6 to 100-400 II and it's so awesome!

After I added the tap in console to adjust both back and front focusing issues at different focal lengths and did a firmware update, my G2 150-600 really preforms well. I do not think many reviewers spent the time doing this. I also needed the weather seals of the G2.

Yep, the Tamron 150-600mm g2 is a great lens for this price ! sharp and fast and more versatile....

@@jacobl6572 I think all lens reviewers on youtube fail to use the tap-in console to fine tune the lens to the camera being used. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens on a Nikon D3400 (cheap body) and can clearly see blades of grass at 400 metres away.

It's more expensive and not as sharp as the 200-600 at 600. We did side by side testing.

@@TonyAndChelsea 200-600 with A9 is a killer combo, prefer it over the 100-400 + TC. It's not that heavy for it's reach.

Guess its due to the price difference.. that is enormous.

Is 200mm shorter and is twice the price of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary. You can't compare a Canon L lens to a non-native lens, you get what you pay for. I have the Sigma and I am very happy with it. I am sure the Canon 100-400mm would be faster and sharper, but as mentioned before you have to account for the cons too. If you are talking about birding, as far as I am concerned, reach is king, if you can't even get there, is pointless to talk about sharpness. To be honest, the problem lies in Canon because they have left a huge gap in their lens line-up and that being they simply don't have a super zoom. What they really need is a 200-600m L lens much like Sony's 200-600mm G lens. If it happens to be much faster and sharper, I would pay for one. I think a lot of people would be happy to pay for quality L zooms, they just don't want to drop US$13K on a 600mm f/4 that's all.

They seemed to summarize around 6:00 that zooms are for the budget conscious. If you're always shooting the 100-400 at 400mm, how does it compare to the old 400mm f5.6 prime?

@@grahamfloyd3451 Hi I did use the old 400mm F5.6 L lens with the 7D2 ( not my lens a friends ). I still think the 100-400mm is better iq personally than the prime even at 400mm. Also the image stabilisation is of course a huge advantage in the zoom lens compared to the prime. Optic technology has of course improved a lot since the release of the prime as well. I think Canon should look at a replacement for the prime especially in the RF mount with the advantage now of ibis in there R6 and R5 cams I think it would sell very well.

@@johnwhiteaway2795 do you recommend 100-400 with 1.4x teleconverter?

Biggest issue is the lack of a tripod collar, that is why I tried the Tamron - that was a disaster though so the Cannon 400 is what I ended up with and Im chuffed!

Cracking lens doing a review on my channel soon

What you mean 1 in 5? Got mine in beginning of July you mean only 4 have been delivered since? It has been a lot of fun, works great with the 1.4TC.

It’s an amazing lens I don’t know why no mention of it & it can use a 1.4 teleconverter!.

I use it as well. Every time I start drooling over one of the big primes, I remember all the near macro shots that I've gotten with the 100-400 which focuses down to close to 3 feet. Great for flowers, butterflies, and dragonflies. None of the big primes will do that. With the 1.4 X extender, I'm shooting at 560 mm, and get good quality images with that set-up.

@@quietsolopursuits1414 It is a great lens, but is terrible at macro at or near MFD.

An awesome lens. Love it. I am embarrassed to say I only recently started using it for some macro shots. Surprisingly great. I think if I was making oodles of cash to justify the cost of the long Primes, perhaps I would make that a go-to - or could spare leaving a body permanently attached to go through the schlep of swapping out. 100-400mm is lovely (I am guessing this lens was not pushed was because its been specifically covered years back - Chelsea nailing shots out of a moving car window) - see 'Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 Sport & Tamron 150-600, Canon 400 f5.6 +Wildlife Photography Tips '

@@Trigger-xw9gq Maybe it depends on which body you use it on. I've noticed there seems to be a difference in lens performance with Canon bodies. I use the 100-400 mm on a 5D Mk IV now, it didn't do as good on the 7D Mk II, even though the crop sensor got me closer.

That Sigma 150-500 sounds like a lens i could also use for shooting sports with my D7200. Can I ask you for a link to that lens, please?

@@Jensrnsholt It is a older one I got it used the 150-600 is the one that replaced it

@Greg Yes, the D700 is alive and kickin' (cf. recent Matt Granger vid). I wouldn't give mine up.

@@joanarling Yes I just saw that Video

Why was Sigma not included the 100-500 or 600 are good lenses and in several mounts with contemporary and sport models to choose from

300 or 400 is a little short for wildlife, more of a sports lens. I think they were not considering them unless they were 500mm. I have Canon 400mm f4 DO II, for sports and both Canon extenders giving me 560 and 800 when I shoot wildlife. At 4lbs it replace my 12lb f2.8 400 that was amazing but a pain. All that said a buddy loaned me his sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens and for the cost, that thing is amazing.

@@DeputyNordburg Fair enough. I wouldn't say 450mm equivalent reach is necessarily too short for wildlife though. It's certainly not ideal for small birds, but shooting larger mammals is pretty good. My main point though was that I think the lens doesn't get enough credit for its portability. Often when traveling there won't be enough space to fit a 600 f/4, so often the decision is between not taking long glass at all or throwing the 24-70 sized 300 pf in my bag. For what it is, I think it does an amazing job.

We compared them and the 600 outperforms it for wildlife, especially for tracking AF (since you can use a lesser TC).

I have also Leica with my GH4. Absolutely high quality lens and one of the best for MFT bodies!

I've had the same experience with them. Another good used photo gear site I've used is in Indiana. (usedphotopro.com)

Yeah we only took them as a sponsor because they're just universally loved.

Tony & Chelsea Northrup universally loved 🤔 They're not puppy dogs 😂

Agree! And don't take my word for it...read Roger Cicala's Lens Rentals blog and you'll know that Canon 100-400 II is the sharpest of all the zooms at 400mm. Stick a 1.4x converter on it and it is still sharper than the big Tamron and Sigma 600mm zooms, although you need a body that can autofocus at f/8 and... you're at f/8 😒... hence, the primes win!

Also worth mentioning that Canon lens can shoot a very sharp f/5 at 300mm. Most zooms shoot a crappy f/5.6 at that focal length and need to be stopped down to f/8 to look good!

I got mine for $1200 used mint. Amazing lens and stopped using my Sigma 150-600 C.

me too i have that lens

@@clundberg30 " .. very 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐩 𝐟/𝟓 at 300mm. Most zooms shoot a 𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒚 𝒇 𝟓.𝟔.. " bwahahahahahaha

I will definitely buy the Sigma 150-600mm C over the Canon 100-400mm. At the end of the day, it is all about price point and budget. The Canon is almost 3 times the price of the Sigma over here in Asia. And that is before you take into account of the Canon's inferior focal length. If we are talking about bird photography, focal length/reach is king. Losing out 200mm is a lot!!

@@Rascallucci The Canon is way sharper at 400mm and cropped in than the Sigma and Tamron's at 600mm. It is as sharp as the prime 400mm, especially for the Mark II version.

I would always go with the Canon. I've tried the Tamron 100-400 and the focus accuracy just wasn't there. Don't get me wrong, I love Tamron lenses. For most glass I believe the huge cost savings are with the trade-off that they miss focus sometimes, and the build quality of their new G2 line is amazing (got the 24-70, 70-200, 35 and 85). For telephoto action shooting though, their only options are consumer grade lenses and they have really, really not been up to par for me. Even in a controlled studio test setting and after adjusting with their tap in console, they wouldn't consistently nail focus but miss like one out of three times. That's too unreliable for wildlife.

@ThePointblank That may be, but ultimately we are talking about 2 different things here. You are talking about the increased relative sharpness and I am looking at max focal length/reach. Seriously? If I was just shooting my dogs like I used to before they passed away, then sure the Canon 100-400mm would be perfect. But, I am trying to shoot birds now. What I have learnt is reach is king because birds are tiny and more than often you need to shoot from afar to avoid spooking the bird plus you need to crop super tight with birds which ultimately leaves you with no choice but to go for max focal length. While the Sigma 150-600mm might not be as sharp, it is still sharper than the Tamron and the end result is not that bad. Or if you wish, you could still have the option to pull back a little to only shoot at 500mm for sharper results, it is still farther than the Canon can reach. I think to me what it boils down to is a matter of priority. If sharpness is No.1 to you even if it means you will need to cut back on focal length, then naturally you would go for the Canon. But, if you want to make shots that weren't possible before with the luxury of increased focal length, then the Sigma will be the way to go. Just think about this for a moment, with a 1.6x crop factor body, you can shoot at 960mm with the Sigma while the Canon will only be able to give you 640mm. That is a massive difference of 320mm!!

@@Rascallucci I've shot with all three lenses before, and I can tell you that the Canon is tack sharp at 400mm. Even when cropped down to 600mm FoV, it's still very sharp with excellent rendition and detail. The Sigma and the Tamron lenses become very soft past 400mm, and up at 600mm, it's noticeably soft. Not to mention that you loose a half stop of light with the Sigma and Tamron, which means you have to increase the ISO, which increases the grain in your pictures. And don't forget that the Canon will AF much more reliably, quickly and accurately than the Sigma and Tamron lenses; I've found that both the Sigma and Tamron lenses will hunt or will mis-focus far more often than the Canon lens. There's something to be said about getting the shot but be forced to crop in, versus missing the shot entirely because your AF is acting up.

Who did you kill to get that lens? It's still on backorder where I live.

​@@youknowwho9247 It's also in backorder where I live. I found a store from the UK that had three in stock. Placed an order immediately, and 4-5 days later, I got the lens

@@Ohjoo I'd love to get used one at a good price. Maybe in 2025 or something...

It's still on Back order EVERYWHERE... the D850 and the Q2 were easier to get! But there's plenty in Japan...

@@gewglesux The store I ordered from has in stock again

The Nikkor 80-400 works splendidly with the 1.4 teleconverter. Do not go for an older generation lens - I have read that they are dogs. The newer 80-400 is much improved and I recommend it highly - maybe it's the older ones that won't take the teleconverter.

and the 400mm 2.8.

Agree with both comments there is also 1.4 and 2 x converters to extend the length. But these lenses are relatively new compared to the Nikon and Canon mentioned so the chances of getting second hand through the video sponsors or anyone else is limited

It's good but not as sharp as the 200-600 for wildlife

@@TonyAndChelsea Good to know, thanks - I'll have to check it out!