Best Lenses for Aviation Photography: 100-400mm vs 150-600mm

Hey fellow spotters! I'm looking for some advice on choosing the right lens for aviation photography. I currently use a Canon EOS R5 and have been considering upgrading my lens. I'm torn between the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 and the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM. I mostly shoot at LAX and JFK, where I try to capture both takeoffs and landings, and sometimes even taxiing aircraft.

I've heard that the 100-400mm is great for its portability and sharpness, but I wonder if I'm missing out on those extra 200mm that the Sigma offers. How does the image quality compare between these two lenses, especially in terms of sharpness and autofocus speed?

Also, does anyone have any experience with how these lenses perform in varying light conditions, like low light or harsh midday sun? Would love to hear your thoughts and experiences. Thanks in advance for any input!

I've used both lenses with my Canon EOS R5, and each has its strengths. The Canon RF 100-400mm is definitely lighter and more compact, which is great for long days of spotting at LAX or JFK. It's also known for its excellent sharpness throughout its range, and the autofocus is quick and reliable, which is crucial for fast-moving aircraft.

On the other hand, the Sigma 150-600mm gives you that extra reach, which can be beneficial when you're further from the runway or want those detailed shots of aircraft at altitude. However, it's bulkier and can be a bit slower to focus, especially in low light conditions.

In terms of light performance, both do well in good lighting, but you might find the Sigma struggles more in low light compared to the Canon. Consider your shooting style and whether you prioritize reach over portability.

I've had experience with the Sigma 150-600mm, and while the extra reach is fantastic for distant shots, especially at large airports like LAX and JFK, it does come with some trade-offs. The Sigma is heavier, which can be taxing during extended spotting sessions. In terms of image quality, the Sigma is quite sharp, but the Canon RF 100-400mm might edge it out slightly in terms of sharpness and color accuracy, particularly in more challenging light conditions. The autofocus on the RF lens is also faster and more reliable in low light. If you often find yourself shooting in the early morning or late afternoon when lighting can be tricky, the Canon's advantages might be more noticeable. Have you considered adding a teleconverter to the Canon for extra reach?

I've used the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 paired with a Canon EOS R5, and I have to say, its portability is a huge advantage, especially if you're spending long days at airports like LAX or JFK. The autofocus is impressively quick and reliable, even in challenging light conditions. While the Sigma 150-600mm offers greater reach, which is perfect for distant shots, you might find it a bit cumbersome for handheld shooting due to its size and weight. In terms of sharpness, both lenses perform well, but the Canon might edge out slightly for clarity across most of the range. If you frequently shoot in low light, the slightly wider aperture on the Sigma could be beneficial. Consider your shooting style and how much you value convenience versus reach.

I've used both lenses, and here's my take: If portability is critical, the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 is a solid choice. Its lighter weight makes it easier to handle for extended periods, especially at busy airports like LAX and JFK. However, if you're looking to capture those distant takeoffs and landings, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 offers an impressive reach.

In terms of image quality, both perform well, but the Sigma does require more careful handling to achieve the same sharpness due to its size. In low light, the Sigma's slightly faster aperture at the long end can be beneficial, but it also means carrying around a heavier lens. It would be worth considering how often you find yourself wishing for that extra reach.

I've used the Sigma 150-600mm for quite a bit of plane spotting at both LAX and JFK. The extra reach is a game-changer for capturing aircraft on distant taxiways or high-altitude departures. However, be prepared for its weight; it can become cumbersome during long sessions. Regarding image quality, the Sigma performs exceptionally well, with decent sharpness across its range, though it might slightly soften at 600mm. Autofocus is generally reliable, but not as quick as some might hope in low-light conditions. If low light is a frequent challenge, you might consider a faster lens option, though that means sacrificing some reach. Have you thought about renting both lenses to test them in your typical shooting environments?

I've used the Sigma 150-600mm at both LAX and JFK, and while the reach is impressive, especially for those spotting days when you want to capture aircraft at a distance, there are some considerations. The Sigma can be heavier and more cumbersome during extended sessions, which might be a factor if you're moving around a lot. However, it does offer good sharpness throughout the range, though it may not match the Canon RF 100-400mm in terms of portability and handling. In low light, both lenses perform adequately, but the Sigma's wider aperture at the long end can be beneficial. If you often find yourself needing those extra 200mm, the Sigma might be worth the trade-off in weight and size. Have you considered trying both lenses at a store to see which feels right for your shooting style?