Sigma 150-600 vs RF 100-500 vs 200-800: Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon shooters probably already know the specs), if you have or had the Sigma 150-600 with an R5 or...

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon shooters probably already know the specs), if you have or had the Sigma 150-600 with an R5 or R6, which of these three options would you choose, if you wanted to keep expenditures under $2k) and why?

1. Keep the Sigma and use the money to buy a R7 as a second body
2. Sell the Sigma and put the money towards the RF100-500
3. Keep the Sigma, don't buy a second body, but instead buy the RF 200-800

Which would you choose and why? Curious.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Basil wrote:

Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon ... (show quote)

Well, I don't have the Sigma 150-600, I have the Tamron second generation(had the first before that) and kept it, I do have an RP* & R7 and the 100-500L, it is a great lens. Plus I still have some EF bodies and the 100-400L with RF adapter. My 150-600 spends most of its life mounted on a tripod for shots out the back door of birds at the feeders in my yard.

I haven't considered the RF 200-800 since I have the 1.4x extender in RF and 1.4x & 2x in EF.

*I don't do a lot of FF work and the RP is small, light and takes excellent images. It is enough for me now. If I really feel like I need an advanced FF I still have my 5DIV.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

I shot 580 shots of surfers yesterday. R5 with 150-600 and 1.4 sigma extender. On my quick review via the iPad I’m finding them a bit soft. Much of the problem seems to be that they were so far off shore that an individual only occupied about 15 or 20% of the frame. The camera liked focusing on the wave more than the face and as is always the case faces were in shaded side, away from the sun. I used burst mode and iso of 2000. I’m leaving Kauai on Thursday so probably won’t make it back to the north shore and the big waves are over right now. That’s my story and I’m stick in’ to it.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

clint f. wrote:

I shot 580 shots of surfers yesterday. R5 with 150... (show quote)

From time at the beach and 4 seeks on a troop transport crossing the Pacific I will bet a part of the softness was haze and extreme humidity that you don't notice because is very faint at times.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

robertjerl wrote:

From time at the beach and 4 seeks on a troop transport crossing the Pacific I will bet a part of the softness was haze and extreme humidity that you don't notice because is very faint at times.

That may be.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

Basil wrote:

Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon ... (show quote)

===========================================

Dear Curious..

I own both. Go for opt 2.
... Canon is the better lens

When I go out, I have not taken the Sigma in 2 years

Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
###

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Basil wrote:

Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon ... (show quote)

If your shooting primarily wildlife, sale the Sigma and purchase the 200-800. And make sure you shoot in lots of light.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Basil wrote:

Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon ... (show quote)

Under $2k, 100-500rf, =USED? I haven't seen it sell for that price, even on sale.

Canisdirus

I'm sure Canon limits third party lenses performance in their top tier cameras.

Native will almost always bring out the best in a lens.

They restrict them...on purpose...so does Sony...and Nikon...it's their sandbox after all.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I've had the Sigma in the past, but sold it because it was slow and clumsy to use, though certainly a sharp lens when used on a tripod. I have the Canon RF 100-500 now, and overall it's a great lens, though the f7.1 is sometimes a handicap.
If I were to make the choice today, I'd buy the Canon 200-800. I'm well covered in the shorter focal lengths, and don't feel strongly enough to make the change.
Still, it boils down to what your usual targets are, and how quickly you can change gears between manufacturers when working quickly in the field.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Basil wrote:

Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon ... (show quote)

From experience, I can only address my Canon R5 and the Canon RF 100-500, I have not used the other combinations referenced.
I am very happy with this combination handheld. Handheld it will focus sharply on a groundhog's eye at 100-150 yards w/o any problems or a tripod.
Since I am 77 y.o. I usually shoot at higher shutter speeds.
If routinely, further reach is required, I would consider the Canon Extender RF 1.4 or 2X: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=canon+extender+rf+2x+teleconverter
We do have a UHH member who uses a Canon Extender RF 2X with great success.
Personally, I crop and process using Topaz Phot AI "Upscale" as required, since I rarely shoot birds.
The 100-500 OR Can TELECONVERTERS Make The DIFFERENCE? Canon RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500 Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSnE1qAxI0&t=637s
Best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends

Basil Loc: New Mexico

tcthome wrote:

Under $2k, 100-500rf, =USED? I haven't seen it sell for that price, even on sale.

I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'm talking about under $2k "additional" out of pocket. So, if I sold the Sigma for, say $700, then my "additional out of pocket" would be around $1900 (or maybe less if I went with a Canon refurbished).

Basil Loc: New Mexico

robertjerl wrote:

Well, I don't have the Sigma 150-600, I have the Tamron second generation(had the first before that) and kept it, I do have an RP* & R7 and the 100-500L, it is a great lens. Plus I still have some EF bodies and the 100-400L with RF adapter. My 150-600 spends most of its life mounted on a tripod for shots out the back door of birds at the feeders in my yard.

So, if you were in m y shoes, given you have a "similar" Tamron, and you have the RF100-500L, if you were in my shoes, which of the three options would you choose? (Assuming you had to give up the Tamron to get the RF100-500)

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Canisdirus wrote:

I'm sure Canon limits third party lenses performance in their top tier cameras.

Native will almost always bring out the best in a lens.

They restrict them...on purpose...so does Sony...and Nikon...it's their sandbox after all.

That's likely true. My Sigma does pretty well on the R5, but I'm sure there would be a higher keeper rate with a native RF lens.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

goldstar46 wrote:

===========================================

Dear Curious..

I own both. Go for opt 2.
... Canon is the better lens

When I go out, I have not taken the Sigma in 2 years

Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
###

Thanks! That's a valuable data point.