My wife and I have an upcoming trip to South Africa for a safari. I'd like to rent a lens for the trip and am considering either the Canon 100-400II with 1.4 extender or the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 without an extender. I've read a lot of comments and seen examples of shots with all three and would be interested in comments from any hoggers who have actually had experience that allowed them to compare the results. I should emphasize that I would be using the lens hand-held as opposed to on a tripod and under varying light conditions, including low light early morning and evening. I'm using a Canon 5DII. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

When we went to South Africa 99% of our shooting was from a vehicle. Only used a bean bag. My choice would be a 100-400 and a crop sensor. I wish I could do a do-over with the the gear I have now. I would take a full frame and a crop sensor/24-105/70-200/100-400 and a 1.4 extender + a bridge camera. Look at the weight limitations for carry on gear. You will also need to bring binoculars. In hind site renting gear would have been the cheapest part of the trip. Maybe you have some friends that would lend you some gear. I've also heard of people renting gear in SA. Have Fun!!!

You might want to consider a second camera... a crop-sensor APS-C model... instead of a teleconverter or 600mm "super zoom". That will give your the best quality "extra reach", the most "pixels on target" without loss of one stop of light that a 1.4X teleconverter "costs".

The Canon 100-400mm has an advantage that you might not need to carry a 70-200mm or 70-300mm along with it. With the 150-600mm, I'd want the shorter tele-zoom to complement it in a lot of situations.

Canon 100-400mm "II", specifically, works pretty well with a quality 1.4X, too (Canon 1.4X II or III, Kenko MC-4 on crop cameras or Pro 300 1.4X on full frame). The effective f8 combo will not autofocus on your 5DII (which is "f5.6 limited"), but can autofocus on a 7D Mark II or 80D (both of which are "f8 capable"... though they will be limited to one or a few AF points).

windshoppe:

Yes, I like my SX50 a lot, but I don't think I have the skill to get the quality of photos you got. If I did, that would be the ideal camera for the trip.

For what it is worth, when we went on a similar safari a couple years ago, I left all the big guys home and took my Canon SX50 and a monopod. In the jeep, I placed the monopod between my legs and with the SX50's length and sharpness, I got a bunch of great pics. There was a person on the trip that brought a backpack full of camera bodies and lens and I felt sorry for her. I could tell the weight was weighing (!) on her and I had several shots off before she took her first one. The quality of our pics was the same.

I've owned every one of the named lenses, and feel strongly that the Canon with or without the 1.4 extender is the slightly better choice than the Sigma Sport - emphasis on SLIGHTLY, and solely because of weight. The optics and construction of the Sport are excellent!

Neither the Sigma Contemporary nor the Tamron are even close, either optically nor construction-wise.

I've also traveled on Safari in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, though before any of the mentioned lenses were available. The longest lens I carried on that trip was a 500mm prime. I used a monopod without a problem much of the time, though if I was in a vehicle with the engine running in areas frequented by dangerous animals, the vibration caused me to abandon the 'pod. I also occasionally used a beanbag (carried empty, filled locally with small gravel and zippered closed. There was no opportunity to shop for beans, and considering the diet we were offered, I'd have eaten the beans if we could have gotten them in Uganda and Tanzania. Kenya wasn't too bad.)