Went spotting for a bit when my sister flew in for thanksgiving and got some decent shots but I’m too lazy and bad at editing to do more for now but yeah
Also got a question for anyone who might be able to help bc yeah
""
So currently I use a canon rod rebel T6. It’s not very up to todays quality but it’s good and I like it a lot. I was planning on upgrading but a family friend who’s a photographer is sending me his old cannon eos 7D mark II. I’m not sure if this is a upgrade that will last me for a long time. I’m planing on getting a used sigma 150-600 for Christmas idk if that matters tho. So would the cam be a good enough upgrade to last me another year or two?
A 7d Mk II is a good camera even for 2024/2025 and it will certainly be an upgrade over a T6. However, if you get a 150-600C you’ll have to contend with 2 problems.
I don’t know where you’re from but having 150mm at the short end on a crop sensor is extremely overkill for commercial aircraft. There are like 5 large American airports I can think of where this wouldn’t severely restrict your shooting options. @Altaria55 ran this on a crop sensor at one point and I don’t think it was very fun. Unless you’re a dedicated military spotter I would maybe consider a used 100-400 from Sigma or Tamron. More flexibility. If you decide to go full frame later you might find yourself wanting more reach with a 100-400 though, so weigh your options.
If you upgrade in like 2027 you’re likely going to be going mirrorless at which point you will need to adapt that DSLR lens. While these adaptors are pretty good and only $150 ish, who knows what a used 150-600 or 100-400 will be worth as the world progresses towards mirrorless. You may or may not get the money you want selling it or you’ll be forced to use your mirrorless adapted. I don’t think this comes with any major drawbacks beyond maybe some IBIS quirks but they’re probably not as well optimized for the mirrorless cameras as the dedicated lenses would be.
So basically, take the 7Dii. Then, consider if you want to save money and just use the 75-300 until you’re ready for mirrorless (I would usually say this is a horrendous choice bc the 75-300 cannot stand up to the 7D’s requirements but in your specific case it’s an option), or decide between a 100-400 and a 150-600.
Edit: I realized I just assumed you had a 75-300. If you don’t please let me know.
Oh the Sigma 150-600 F5-6.3 DG OS HSM. On the surface, an absolute godsend of a lens. Finally, a lens with which I can take pictures of planes without worrying about being too far to nail the shot! Finally, a lens so versatile that I can flood the JetPhotos homepage with my big pictures of planes! Look at this super zoomed in shot, no crop!
But no. I have a lot of beef with this lens. Like, a lot. And it’s very well-founded beef, cooked to a perfect medium rare as @LordWizrak would say. And I would implore anyone considering to get one of these to look at themselves in the mirror, question what on God’s green Earth led them to make such an unwise decision, and really think hard if this rabbit hole is one that should be traversed down any further. Because trust me, it ain’t.
My friend has this lens. It’s paired with a Canon EOS 80D. It should be good on paper, right? RIGHT? No. It’s not.
Weight: This lens is so, darn, heavy. It’s a dumbbell wearing a camera lens Halloween costume. Except this lens thinks it’s Halloween all-year-round. It’s an absolute pain to lug around, whether it’s in your bag detached or on your camera. Being a pain to carry around is one thing. If you’re a scrawny person who would on occasion struggle to carry even a bag of chips from the snack cabinet to the couch, you would HATE to take photos with this lens, especially in low-light conditions. Why? Because your arms will be shaking uncontrollably like a person with little to no clothes on in the middle of an Alaskan winter. And that crisp, pan shot you’re hoping to get of that special livery you’ve been dying to catch will actually be about as ruined as the Greek economy.
Horrible Autofocus: The worst. Just, plain, bad. Whoever designed the autofocus on this thing deserves to be banned from touching cameras ever again. Sigma isn’t known to have great autofocus, but this thing took that stereotype and ran away with it like a madman. I’ve attached two sample photos below showcasing the differences between the Sigma 150-600 and my Canon 100-500. The Sigma isn’t even at full zoom before the autofocus throws out an image that’s softer than an IKEA Feather Pillow. And no, it’s not because the connection points between the lens and the camera is dirty or bad. The autofocus just sucks. My friend gets so many of his photos rejected from JetPhotos because his Sigma throws out way undersharpened and softly focused images. All he talks about now is his JetPhotos approval rate absolutely drowning because he’s using his Sigma 150-600 more.
Practicality: Why do you need so much zoom anyway? Are you trying to become the next CIA field agent having a stakeout? The only time my friend uses this lens is when taking photos of stuff pushing a mile away from his location. And in most conditions, the photos will be unusable because heat haze or some other nonsensical nature-related phenomenon impacts things. The amount of times he would rock other lenses or have to swap out for other lenses because his Sigma is way too zoomed in is beyond countable. His 70-300mm is one of his most used and preferred ones, and on a crop sensor, provides more than enough coverage for 97% of situations. With the Sigma, you have too much zoom that you will pretty much never need.
HUMONGOUS Thread Size: 105mm of a lens thread size is just diabolical. Even Canon’s $20,000 RF1200 telescope of a lens doesn’t have that big of a thread size, nor does their RF200-800mm have a thread size that big. I don’t think any of Canon’s own stuff does. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I despise it.
Cost: Rather than blow all your money on a big do-it-all lens that, in my personal experience, absolutely sucks in more ways than four, buy two lenses that cover all ends of the spectrum. Does changing lenses get annoying sometimes? Sure. But you gain more flexibility, you don’t really lose photo quality from excessive zoom, and, best of all, you’re not carrying a dumbbell with you everywhere you go. Why go for a jack of many trades, master of absolutely zero when you can go for two masters of a specific trade that, when used in their appropriate situations, will knock the Sigma out harder than Ali did to Foreman. I’d do a 24-105 (or somewhere in the low-mid 100s) paired with a 100-400mm or a 70-300mm.
Long story short, don’t buy this lens. It’s pretty poor in my experience, you really won’t need the amount of zoom it has, and with the allocated budget you’re getting, you’re better off buying two lenses that will serve your needs well. Comparison photos below.
This is valid for the most part but comparing an 80D + 150-600C to a 100-500L mounted on literally anything is complete apples and oranges, that’s like saying don’t buy a 600cc bike because it won’t keep up with a liter. The 100-500 itself without a body is more than twice the price of that entire setup, and you wouldn’t cross shop those at all. Additionally the conditions are way worse on the 150-600C shot than on the 100-500. I think the filter size on the Sigma is 95mm, but unless you filter your lenses or shoot through fences consistently it doesn’t matter.
Third party comes with more QC variation, that’s the price you pay for getting a deal.
At the end of the day OP, the base thought is clear. If you can’t find a legitimate reason to NEED the 150-600 over its peers (mainly the Sigma/Tamron 100-400 and the Canon 70-300 II), then don’t buy it.
if you want flexibility, get the 70-300. MAKE SURE it is the 70-300 IS USM II, not the 70-300 IS USM or the 70-300 f4-5.6L. And make especially sure it doesn’t have a 75 on it anywhere. 70-300 on a crop sensor is good enough to cover basically every spot except for the ones where you’re really close.
If you’re more into close-ups or you live somewhere like JFK, LAX, or any other airport with high distances, get one of the two 100-400s. I don’t think there’s a general consensus on which one is better but I think the idea is that the Sigma is sharper on the long end and the Tamron has tripod collar availability and a bit better autofocus (although, as a former Tamron 100-400 owner, it was pretty iffy at 400). I believe there are now mirrorless-mount 100-400s now so make sure you’re buying the one for EF mount.
If you want military and military only, the 150-600 will do great. Maybe consider the Tamron G2 version which is generally considered to be superior than the Sigma and these days does not come with a price premium.
