Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

There are many reminders, here, of how good the Canon EOS 100-400 II is … but, there are not many mentions of other lenses which achieve similar (or better) zoom ratios. The ones which come immediately to mind are the Tamron 150-600 G2, and the Nikkor 200-500, and the Sigma 50-500 - all quite capable lenses.

Is there a clear winner in this category considering all of the factors which go into making a great tele-zoom?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Generally speaking, 3X and 4X zooms are optically better than others that "try harder", that cover a greater range.

But there's a lot more to it. For example, you mention the Canon 100-400 II and part of what makes that lens so special is that it uses a fluorite element (which Canon does with many of their telephotos). This adds some cost, but also is an excellent material to counteract chromatic aberrations.

You can see for yourself. Compare magnified test shots from the Canon 100-400 II with many of the other lenses you mentioned, at Bryan Carnathan's web site:

Canon 100-400 II on 5DS-R versus Nikkor 200-500mm on D850:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=1210&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Canon 100-400 II on 5DS-R versus Tamron 150-600mm G2 on 5DS-R:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Canon 100-400 II on 1Ds III versus Sigma 150-600mm "Contemporary" on 1Ds III:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Canon 100-400mm II on 1Ds III versus Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm VR on D3x:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=915&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Canon 100-400 II on 1Ds III versus Sigma 50-500mm OS (an old lens now) on 1Ds III:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=939&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

Or Canon 100-400 II on 1Ds III versus Canon 100-400 II with 1.4X III teleconverter, on 1Ds III:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

There you can switch to quite a few different lenses, zoom to different focal lengths, check out different apertures and in some cases see how the lenses perform on different cameras.

Note: It's not always possible to use the exact same camera. Nikon lenses only fit Nikon cameras, Canon lenses on Canon cameras, etc. I try to use the most similar camera possible, such as the 50MP Canon 5DS-R and 46MP Nikon D850.... very high resolution cameras such as those are very "demanding" of lenses, though. Also, the test shots shown are significantly magnified sections of a standardized ISO 12233 target, which is described and can be seen more fully here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well, thanks, Alan … that's quite a compilation of comparisons of all the lenses I mentioned, plus one or two more. Since you added the Nikkor 80-400, what about the Tokina 80-400 (another OLD lens) ???
You indicated the Sigma 50-500 being an old lens. Has it been dropped, or updated, or what?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't own a D850 but I do own a D500 and a D7200 and a 5D mk IV and a 5DSr so I have 20, 24, 30 and 50 megapixels covered. I own 2 Sigma 150-600 lenses, one with Canon EF mount, a Sport model, and the other with Nikon F mount, a Contemporary model. I own a Nikkor 200-500 with Nikon 1.4 teleconverter. I own matching Sigma 1.4 teleconverters for the 150-600 lenses and a Sigma 2X for Nikon. I own a Canon 100-400L II with a 1.4X III teleconverter. My every day utility lens is a Canon 28-300L and a Nikkor 28-300. My best shooting buddy has a Tamron 18-400 and a Tamron 150-600 G2. He shoots with a Canon 80D. I too own a Canon 80D and a small boat load of other Canon, Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron lenses.

Optically, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is a very good lens and the Sport is even better. The problem with the sport is weight. It is built to take a licken; over 6 pounds of glass and rubber and metal. Although the Sigma Sport can be used handheld and I do use it handheld, I use it more often on a tripod. The 150-600 Contemporary is mounted to my D500 quite often along with its matching 1.4 teleconverter. My Nikkor 200-500 spends a lot of time on my D7200 when the 28-300 comes off. I currently have only two Nikon bodies as oppose to 13 Canon bodies.
I prefer the EF 100-400L II with the 1.4X III teleconverter the the Sigma Sport for two reasons, size and weight. Sure, the maximum focal length may be a bit shorter, but is it, really? Anyway, with the 30 megapixels of the 5D mk IV and the 50 megapixels of the 5DSr, a few millimeters doesn't really matter at all.
Here's how I rate them, from my own personal use. For starters, they are all good lenses capable of producing excellent images. I rate the Canon EF 100-400L II best of the bunch. The Canon 28-300L comes in second even though it is the oldest and most expensive of the lenses mentioned. The Sigma 150-600 Sport is third with the Tamron 150-600 G2 following close behind. I put the Sigma ahead of the Tamron not because I feel it's optically better but because it will take way more abuse than the Tamron. Optically I don't really see a difference and I'm not a pixel peeper. Pixel peeping serves no actual purpose as far as I'm concerned. The Tamron 200-500 is an excellent lens for the money and I rank it 5th on this list. Optically it can hold its own against the other lenses, well except for number 1, but as I only have two bodies to use it on, both excellent bodies, neither are full frame. Next is the Sigma Contemporary which is quite light for its size and does an excellent job optically. Next to last is the Nikkor 28-300. It's not in the same class as the Canon but it holds it's own for size, weight and image quality. Last but by far not least, the least expensive of them all the Tamron 18-400. It's hard to beat that lens for around $625. Although not mentioned in the list is my older Tamron SP 70-200. I bought it when they first came out to replace an old Canon 70-200L that met an untimely demise. I'd say the Tamron SP is optically almost as good as a Canon and build quality is really, really good. The Canon has better autofocus, but is it $500 better?
As I said, unless you are into pixel peeping, a total waist of time as far as I'm concerned, any one of these lenses is capable of producing excellent images.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Hard to beat the Canon 100-400 II, you can crop to a 600mm angle of view and it is my understanding the images are still better than the others. Don't shoot Nikon so I can't evaluate that lens although I have seen some great birding images created with that lens.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well, thanks, R … an interesting perspective you have here, and from one who actually HAS - most of the goods!!! … 13 Canons? … My, oh, my!!! … I agree with you - the Canon 100-400 II - seems to be - by far - the best of these lenses, with the Tamron 150-600 G2 a close second - is that how you see it? … When did Tamron release a 200-500? … I'd be most interested to have a closer look at THAT one! Whatever happened to your Canon 70-200L? … May I ask? … There's certainly something to be said for a lens which employs better AF, but you bring up an interesting point - if, optically, the two are at a par, does it make sense to go for the more expensive lens, just because its Auto-Focus capability is better … er - faster?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Yes, quicker (faster) autofocus is a necessity for shooting some subjects, like motor racing and birds in flight.
This is from personal experience.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Thanks, Blurry … good to see you actually have the best lens in this category, and therefore - you can speak from your own experience, rather than just going over lens tests, and stuff. The Nikon 200-500 is certainly a great contender in this category, even though its ratio is less than the others - but that could be a very real contributing factor to that excellence. However, in terms of abuse - which is all too likely - when using tele-zoom lenses - the Nikkor does NOT hold up so well, judging from evaluations I've read. All three of the Sigma lenses mentioned here - are far superior in that regard - especially the 150-600 Sport ….

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

The Tokina 80-400 was a good lens, however both mine failed well before they should have.
The first one at ~ 30 clicks. The second one (the first one was replaced by the importer) at ~ 15,000 clicks.
I replaced the Tokina with a Canon 100-400 which was a much better lens.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well, thereyago, Richard - straight from the horse's mouth! … So, to YOU - the extra $500 for the superior AF capability of the Canon 100-400 II - is well spent …

But, if you're NOT shooting in either of those venues, then - go for the Tamron 100-400 G2 … right?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I have never used a Tamron 100-400 G2 so I cannot comment on the lens.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

My Tokina 80-400 was okay - around 300mm - but at 400mm - it kinda fell apart … not sure how much of that was due to optics, or my apparent inability to hold it steady at the extreme length. However, even when I installed it on a tripod, my results did not seem to be much better.

Not sure I understand that, Richard - the first one failed at 30 clicks, and then, Tokina replaced it at 15K ???
It took a long time for them to get round to replacing it, or they replaced it with one which had 15K clicks?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Actually that is a really important point with the Sigma's, I am a Sigma Art Fan, own 4 of them but I have to say until recently they did have problems with focus on Canon cameras causing many unusable shots, with a super tele the ability to accurately focus and track is a big deal for birding or sports. Sigma can't fix the problems with their older lenses... it is not a matter of adjustment as some shots are well focused and others are not.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

The first one was replaced, by the importer.
The second one failed at around 15,000 clicks, well before it should have (and it was out of warrenty).

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

It would seem to be - the next best in this category - AFTER dismissing the real 2nd best - the Sigma 150-600 Sport - which, apparently - takes two guys to lift it!!!! …

It seems to be - in this order - a) Canon 100-400 II b) Sigma 150-600 Sport c) Tamron 150-600 G2 d) Nikkor 200-500 e) Sigma 150-600 Contemporary f) Tamron 150-600 g) Tamron 100-400 h) Sigma 100-400

If anyone sees this list differently - please feel encouraged to make your voice known ...