Scott Book | Equipment

Below is a list of the camera equipment I use, and a little reason why I chose it:

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: I upgraded from the 6D to the 5D Mark IV for quite a few reasons. The sensor is considerably better, allowing shadows to be lifted 3 to 4 stops in post-processing with no noise (6D showed lots of noise at just 2 stops). The dynamic range is better. The autofocus system is vastly improved. The 30 megapixels is a nice improvement. In low-light conditions, there is considerably less noise. It's a great all-around camera body, and for me, was worth the cost of the upgrade.

  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM: I love taking pictures of landscapes and the night sky, and used to have the Mark II version of this lens. However, I wast not all that impressed and often found myself reluctant to use it because of the really soft corners and chromatic aberration. When the Mark III came out and the initial reviews came in, I knew it was going to be a significant upgrade from the Mark II. It's a stunning lens and worth the price paid for the upgrade. The only drawback that I can see is that it's got some pretty heavy vignetting. It's not 4-Stops worth that you see on quite a few websites that like to repeat what others have said. But it is about 2.5 to 3 stops and quite noticeable. However, it's easily correctable in post-processing. Especially when paired with the 5D Mark IV.

  • Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro: I bought this years ago, and use it on occasion when doing stuff other than landscapes. While I do enjoy macro photography, my heart is much more set on landscapes.

  • Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM: I bought this lens about 15 years ago with my first Canon Elan film body when I first got semi serious about photography. A the time, it was a good point-and-shoot lens that covered many of the more common focal lengths. I rarely use it anymore.

  • Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM: This is my newest purchase. I spent many nights comparing this lens to the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport and I made up my mind only after writing down the pros and the cons for the type of photography I'm interested in. But right from the start, let me say both lenses are great and will produce very good results. I wrote my reasons below based on the research I performed (others may be interested):


  1. The Canon is more than a couple pounds lighter. This will make a big difference when hiking and packing for trips.
  2. The Canon is shorter in length and won't be as out-of-balance when fully zoomed (extended).
  3. The Canon will fit in my existing camera travel bag. The sigma would have to be packed in its own additional bag (for hikes).
  4. The Canon's Image Stabilization gets up to 4 stops as opposed to the Sigma's 2 stops. This will make a big difference when hand-holding.
  5. The Canon will be much easier to hand-hold than the sigma. The Sigma is a huge beast and will require a mono-pod or tripod, especially with smaller apertures.
  6. The Canon slightly edges out the Sigma on sharpness.
  7. The Canon is much better with distortion and vignetting (light falloff in the corners). The Sigma needs to go to f/11 before it gets better.
  8. The Canon is f/4.5 and holds that aperture over a larger focal length than the Sigma. The Sigma is f/5.0.
  9. I could always get a 1.4x Teleconverter and increase the focal length to 560mm, almost matching that of the Sigma. Could also get a 2.0x teleconverter for an effective 800mm focal length (would sacrafice image quality, though).
  10. The minimum focus distance is much shorter on the Canon (3.2 feet) than the Sigma (8.5 feet).


  1. The Canon is slightly more expensive.
  2. The Canon is 400mm rather than the Sigma's 600mm.
  3. If using a teleconverter to increase the focal length to match the Sigma, the autofocus on the Canon 6D won't work anymore.
  4. If using a teleconverter, the Canon will lose some of its sharpness and IQ, but it should still be really close to the Sigma.