Review: Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Contemporary

dufflover

OH YEAH!
Nov 10, 2013
258
0
Australia
I'm confused ... is the Sport still meant to be the best of the bunch then?
Given these are all still "consumer" priced lenses I think there'd be a market for a "consumer" price 600mm f/6.3 prime which bests them all (obviously) - I know f/5.6 is more normal and preferable, but I guess then that would give a reason to class it in the "super tele" category with that extra bit of required glass.
 
Upvote 0
slclick said:
Damn, I was really hoping for a standout between the two lower priced models. Especially since my wife told me to buy some glass for Yellowstone, lol.

I thought there might be more separation between these three models, but really the biggest difference between any of them is the superior build (and resulting weight!!) of the Sigma Sport.

The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.
 
Upvote 0
Interesting that the reviewer thought the Tamron AF was better. I'd heard a lot of so-so comments about the AF on the Tamron which is why I went for the sigma. AF on is was about what I expected for a 600mm f6.3 lens, and not like those older sigma primes with random focus issues or massive AMFA variations with subject distance.

Also the zoom ring turns the 'right' way.

I like the manual focus ring. It is not to be used if you do a lot of MF, it is completely out of the way for normal use, but there if you really need it.
 
Upvote 0

dufflover

OH YEAH!
Nov 10, 2013
258
0
Australia
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.

That's a useful comment, thanks!
Indeed even when these were first announced, knowing they're target price points I knew not to realistically judge them/use them at 600mm f/6.3, but more likely f/7.1 or f/8 - where if they did really well at f/6.3 all the better :D . But then, aside from "auto AF" it puts the 400 II with 1.4x into the mix which is definitely a lot lighter. I mean my 120-300mm OS is quite hefty (relatively) but probably bested by all 4 of those options with the 2x on it (my copy anyway). It's almost a small pity the Sport version isn't noticeably better at the IQ end?
(to clarify, like most internet users I haven't used any of the 150-600s :( )
 
Upvote 0
dufflover said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.

That's a useful comment, thanks!
Indeed even when these were first announced, knowing they're target price points I knew not to realistically judge them/use them at 600mm f/6.3, but more likely f/7.1 or f/8 - where if they did really well at f/6.3 all the better :D . But then, aside from "auto AF" it puts the 400 II with 1.4x into the mix which is definitely a lot lighter. I mean my 120-300mm OS is quite hefty (relatively) but probably bested by all 4 of those options with the 2x on it (my copy anyway). It's almost a small pity the Sport version isn't noticeably better at the IQ end?
(to clarify, like most internet users I haven't used any of the 150-600s :( )

There are definitely lots of options out there in that range. I haven't seen comparisons, but I do think it puts the 400II very solidly in the mix from an IQ perspective. I did not really like the sig IQ at f6.3, I am shooting it at f8 and upping ISO if I have to.

So I'm actually going to be upgrading to the 400 DO II and using that with a 1.4 when necessary. Piint being I theing a 400mm max with 1.4TC is a viable alternative to the 150-600s - at leat from my experience now of having that FL range available to me. So I think if the 100-400 suits your needs better overall and you can put a 1.4 on it when needed, it could very well be a better option than these lenses - although more than 2x the cost of the aig C and Tam - but also lighter and shorter. The 150-600s will fo BIF at 600mm and you can use more AF points and potentially crop less, not sure how good the 100-400+TC is for BIF.

In any case I don't think any of the options in this range from 400 f5.6 through to the 150-600s is an obvious choice over another. I think all seem good value for money, but in all cases you also get what you pay for - there are definitely weak points with the cheaper lenses.
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
slclick said:
Damn, I was really hoping for a standout between the two lower priced models. Especially since my wife told me to buy some glass for Yellowstone, lol.

I thought there might be more separation between these three models, but really the biggest difference between any of them is the superior build (and resulting weight!!) of the Sigma Sport.

The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.

Thanks Dustin. I've been struggling with this decision too and your decision to go with the 100-400 II is what I needed to put me over the fence. Your having the opportunity to put them through their paces personally and your decision to go with the Canon lens is the final piece of evidence I needed.
 
Upvote 0
Dustin, I preordered the Sigma Sport when it was first announced and have found it to have very good IQ up through about 450mm, above that it's not great. I then ordered a Canon 100-400 II when it was announced thinking I would return it but the Canon is an awesome lens and I had to keep it. The Canon works very well with a 1.4x in fact I find the IQ of the Canon with the 1.4x (560mm) superior to the bare Sigma at that focal length. AF speed and accuracy does take a hit using the 1.4x and my experience is the bare Sigma is better at 560mm in that regard. Is that what your testing shows?

Anyone interested in a slightly used Sigma 150-600 sport?
 
Upvote 0
Hello all
Imho the sigmas have one real advantage over the tamron and it has nothing to do with build quality or sharpness. I do believe Dustin is right when he says the differences in sharpnes ar minor. What I mean is the ability to connect the sigma lenses to a computer via usb dock. I don't own one, but I imagine this option can be really handy. For firmware updates and AF adjustments this is so much more better than having to send a lens in to the manufacturer.

Of cours one could say (an I've heard it before) that if they would do their lenses right in the first place, one wouldn't need that usb dock, but I think for the varieties of bodys and AF systems (even within a brand like canon) it should be expected that AF is not perfect for everybody when such lenses come out.

Dustin, I like your work on reviewing gear, keep on doing that. Have you considered to review the Canon 400mm DO II ?
 
Upvote 0
In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
GMCPhotographics said:
In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.

His tripod technique might not be the best, it is more hand-some like - "handsome" is used 10x in the full review. Never mind the poor AF, the lens is handsome, handsome and handsome. Though, hand full would be a good description of the S lens.
 
Upvote 0
geonix said:
Hello all
Imho the sigmas have one real advantage over the tamron and it has nothing to do with build quality or sharpness. I do believe Dustin is right when he says the differences in sharpnes ar minor. What I mean is the ability to connect the sigma lenses to a computer via usb dock. I don't own one, but I imagine this option can be really handy. For firmware updates and AF adjustments this is so much more better than having to send a lens in to the manufacturer.

Of cours one could say (an I've heard it before) that if they would do their lenses right in the first place, one wouldn't need that usb dock, but I think for the varieties of bodys and AF systems (even within a brand like canon) it should be expected that AF is not perfect for everybody when such lenses come out.

Dustin, I like your work on reviewing gear, keep on doing that. Have you considered to review the Canon 400mm DO II ?

I've got a request in for it, but, as you can imagine, my supplier parts with the super-teles a little slower than other lenses :)
 
Upvote 0
AlanF said:
GMCPhotographics said:
In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.

His tripod technique might not be the best, it is more hand-some like - "handsome" is used 10x in the full review. Never mind the poor AF, the lens is handsome, handsome and handsome. Though, hand full would be a good description of the S lens.

That's beautiful feedback... ;D
 
Upvote 0
GMCPhotographics said:
In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.

All the images were reviewed and commented on more thoroughly in the full text review. The point you make here is one of the conclusions elaborated in the full written review (hosted on my own site). Video reviews require a fine balance (that I've not perfected) of getting as much information in them without making them too long (where no one will watch them).

Using a remote shutter release for this kind of test would defeat the point - viewers need to see the interaction between what happens once you've pressed the shutter - that's the way the lens will be used in reality. As for my tripod - it is rated for more about three times as much weight as is presented by this camera/lens combo. Do you think that most potential users of this lens will have an $800-$1000 tripod for their $1100 lens?

Still, I appreciate the feedback. I always want to improve my technique and process by which I review.
 
Upvote 0
A big thank you to Dustin - very thoughtful review and I think you always leave space for potential users to draw their own conclusions based on their specific needs. You are right, in terms of optical performance, it is a minor miracle that we can buy a very accomplished 600mm lens for around £850-£900 and you make an excellent point that none of the three latest non-CanoNikon is a "loser".

However, I wish I had watched your review sooner. For my needs, over nearly three months of ownership, I found Sigma C's leisurely and slightly inconsistent AF (to which you hint in your review) a struggle. I have now sold it and I think it'll make a fantastic bird-spotting lens for someone (good resolution and low chromatic aberrations), but I don't see it as a "wildlife action" lens: there were far too many false-positives with fast-moving animals and -more worryingly- even if the first shot was in focus, it just couldn't follow the action accurately throughout the sequence. My 5D Mkiii and 1D Mkiii have performed better with a 100-400v1 + 1.4 extender in this respect: initial AF might have been slow, but once they locked on, I was always confident that I'd get a good percentage of in-focus shots.

I still think that it's a solid lens (in every sense of the word) and both Sigma and Tamron are to be applauded for giving Canon a kick up their back-side. I guess the just-announced Nikon 200-500 is a reaction to this and there are already rumours that Canon has got an "affordable" prime in the works. Imagine a super sharp Ef-S 500 /f5.6: my 1D will be part-exchanged for a 7D Mkii within 24 hours ;D
 
Upvote 0
crisotunity said:
A big thank you to Dustin - very thoughtful review and I think you always leave space for potential users to draw their own conclusions based on their specific needs. You are right, in terms of optical performance, it is a minor miracle that we can buy a very accomplished 600mm lens for around £850-£900 and you make an excellent point that none of the three latest non-CanoNikon is a "loser".

However, I wish I had watched your review sooner. For my needs, over nearly three months of ownership, I found Sigma C's leisurely and slightly inconsistent AF (to which you hint in your review) a struggle. I have now sold it and I think it'll make a fantastic bird-spotting lens for someone (good resolution and low chromatic aberrations), but I don't see it as a "wildlife action" lens: there were far too many false-positives with fast-moving animals and -more worryingly- even if the first shot was in focus, it just couldn't follow the action accurately throughout the sequence. My 5D Mkiii and 1D Mkiii have performed better with a 100-400v1 + 1.4 extender in this respect: initial AF might have been slow, but once they locked on, I was always confident that I'd get a good percentage of in-focus shots.

I still think that it's a solid lens (in every sense of the word) and both Sigma and Tamron are to be applauded for giving Canon a kick up their back-side. I guess the just-announced Nikon 200-500 is a reaction to this and there are already rumours that Canon has got an "affordable" prime in the works. Imagine a super sharp Ef-S 500 /f5.6: my 1D will be part-exchanged for a 7D Mkii within 24 hours ;D

Agree with the comments on AF. If AF is not consistent especially at the long end, it doesn't matter how nice it looks or feels. The video shows that the Tamron is able to AF much more consistently than this Sigma C, and that is with a center point. Never mind trying a side point; it's only going to get worse. And waiting for a firmware update to "fix" the AF is not realistic. Dustin has noted that the Sport focuses better than the Contemporary. If so, Sigma knows how to do AF but has chosen not to, which is a shame. If anything, the 150-600C should be marked a lot lower than the 150-600S and the Tamron for that alone.

I've used the 100-400L II with the 1.4x on a 5DIII and it AFs as well as a lens should. I don't worry about it failing to lock in decent light.
 
Upvote 0
Dustin, Thank you for the wonderfully presented, comprehensive review.

I have a question on the stabilization. Were you able to compare the "effective number of stops" between the Sigma C and the Tamron?

Did you get to experiment with the "panning mode"??

I have had the Tamron since the day it came out and overall pleased. I am a bit disappointed w/the VC... 2 stops seems to be the limit.

Also, lack of a panning mode switch bugs me when I do BIFS. I often forget to turn VC off during panning, ......Tamron is offering a software enhancement/fix to detect panning, but you need to send the lens back, it would be my second lens return. Am happy Tamron does this at no charge(and very promptly), but the Sigma dock really is appealing to avoid shipping lenses back and forth

Thanks again.
 
Upvote 0