Canon 100-400 IS L MII or sigma 100-400 or Tamron 100-400 ?

I don't have direct experience with any of the lenses you mention apart from the 100-400 ii which is one of my favourite lenses if not the favourite.

I do have experience with other non canon (sigma) longer zooms.

I would argue for the canon all day and every day. The AF speed, accuracy and consistency as well as the image quality is just up there with the best. My experience with Sigma has been that while IQ can be amazing (I used to own the 120-300 f2.8 OS) and the AF can also be great it is the consistent accuracy with fast moving subjects that for me was the end of the road. And to be honest this has been the same with every sigma I have and still own.

I have no problem with say my sigma 2mm f1.4 as the use case is totally different, but for wildlife I just trust the canon.

I forgot to mention that I have zero issues with sharpness at any focal length with the canon. I tested extensively a sigma 150-600 and cannot comment on the sharpness other than to say it was VERY demanding on technique and support and gave me fairly inconsistent sharpness and focus results.

At times I use the canon for landscapes and even portraits as well as wildlife and really I cannot praise this lens enough. Only the tripod collar/foot seemed to have been designed on a Friday afternoon... otherwise it is pretty much faultless.

The only one I have is the recent Sigma 100-400, and my main complaints would be that the switches move to easily, so you need to periodically check them, and the IS in default mode is a bit twitchy for video, and you need to use the dock and make a custom IS setting to get relatively still IS for video. The lens is very sharp at 400/6.3, mostly diffraction with little aberration. AF ability drops off in OVF mode, though, on both the 7D2 and 90D with a 1.4x TC at 560/9. It's an alternative to the Canon 100-400 II if you want a smaller, lighter, less visible, and less expensive lens, but the Canon handles AF speed and AF with a 1.4x much better, and focuses closer, and has state-of-the-art IS, from the reports of users.

The 600/6.3 options will get you less noise than a 400/5.6 + 1.4x, though, and blur the background more, when shot wide open.

I’ve had very good luck with the Canon 100-400 mk2, the Sigma 100-400C and the Sigma 150-600C. I don’t think you would go wrong with any of those options. I tend to like more FL so probably would go with the 150-600C if I had to pick just one.

IMO it is a no-brainer - the Canon 100-400L ii will consistently out-perform any of the others for IQ & AF, and will hold value far better, and be more robust as well.

It really comes down to budget - if you can afford the Canon, buy it. If not, choose one of the others.

Colin

if I could get a Canon 100-400 II for $1050 that I knew came from a reputable source that was in at least 95-98% condition I would be all over that without question. No way I would touch a used Sigma or Tamron without THOROUGHLY checking it out first no matter what the condition is listed as. You could very well be ending up with an under performing lens that someone is just wanting to be rid of.

I have the Tamron 100-400 on an 80D and get great results, and focus seems pretty fast to me. I mainly shoot birds in flight single point af. With that being said I still long for the L glass but at the time of buying mine I didn't want to spend the money. Now I am at the point of trying to decide rather to buy the 100-400 L glass, or move my 80d to backup (Getting high on shutter count) and buying 90D knowing it will be another year before I can save enough to buy whichever I don't buy this year,

I guess my point is if you are lucky like me and get a good copy you can achieve quality shots with either off brand from what I seen posted, but if you can afford the L I would go for it so you are not like me wondering what if.

Forgot to post examples, first up a Red tail hawk that jumped out of a tree, light was bad I believe spitting snow but shot wasnt horrible. Second a Junco sitting still in good light.

jvc1 said:

You can compare image quality here The Digital Picture , change lenses and focal lengths in the drop down tabs. Keep in mind that he tests one copy of each lens so copy variation could impact the results.

I doubt any of the lenses you list will match the Canon for AF speed and accuracy though.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much sir. The link really answers all my doubts. I can see Canon has an edge over the other lenses. Though there is slight difference in sharpness at 400mm between Canon and Tamron, Canon wins the race.

(By the way, your pic are awesome. Just loved it!!!)

VikasKulkarni said:

(By the way, your pic are awesome. Just loved it!!!)

Click to expand...

Thanks.