APS-C Canon 100-400 v1 or Sigma 150-600 C (7D mki then R7)

[Zorg]

Hi

All is in the title, both are in the same budget ... it is for my son who is beginning photography, took my old 7D v1, and plan to buy R7 next year ... and it would be a lens mostly for wildlife, mainly on-hand photography.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM v1 is old but has L quality, versatility, durability, "only" f/5.6 at 400mm.

Weight 1380g / Filter 77mm (cheaper) / Year 1998

The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary is newer, more versatility?

Weight 1930g / Filter 95mm (expensive) / Year 2015

On paper, the 150-600 "should" be more versatile, why I hesitating and make comparison with a 17 years older lens ? Because we are talking about a Canon "L" lens.

I still have 20 years later my old 70-200 f/4 L USM v1 lens, and even after all this years ... he is still in my bag.

What would be your advice?

A the new Sigma or the old Canon ?
(we allready have the EF/RF ring)

Thanks

 

[RedCobra]

You won't be happy with the sigma on the R7. AF issues.

 

[NorthernGal]

Hi

All is in the title, both are in the same budget ... it is for my son who is beginning photography, took my old 7D v1, and plan to buy R7 next year ... and it would be a lens mostly for wildlife, mainly on-hand photography.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM v1 is old but has L quality, versatility, durability, "only" f/5.6 at 400mm.

Weight 1380g / Filter 77mm (cheaper) / Year 1998

The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary is newer, more versatility?

Weight 1930g / Filter 95mm (expensive) / Year 2015

On paper, the 150-600 "should" be more versatile, why I hesitating and make comparison with a 17 years older lens ? Because we are talking about a Canon "L" lens.

I still have 20 years later my old 70-200 f/4 L USM v1 lens, and even after all this years ... he is still in my bag.

What would be your advice?

A the new Sigma or the old Canon ?
(we allready have the EF/RF ring)

Thanks

I have had the Canon EF 100-400 L IS USM version 1 for 20 years. I absolutely loved it. I used it more than any other lens. I started out with it on a 20d, then a 5d mk2, then a 5d mk4. However, when I got my R7, it just didn't work so well. It just seemed to be slow to do everything. My friend has a 100-400 version 2, and it worked MUCH better than my ver 1. But, we both finally gave up and bought the RF 100-500. I am really glad I did.

I agree, it's a quandary. I still have my 5d mk2 and my 5d mk4, and I still use them. I generally have the EF 24-105 L on my mk4 in the summertime (in the wintertime, I have a Sigma 14 mm lens for photographing the aurora). Yes, those L lenses are fantastic. I figure I"ll probably keep mine forever.

 

[Grahamk]

If you were to opt for the Sigma, will the significant difference in weight be an issue as you say your son is beginning photography and may not be used to big lenses yet?