Discuss our review of the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Contemporary here.
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.
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.
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 . 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 )
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
d said:Hi Dustin,
Really appreciate your thoughtful and insightful reviews, but please o' please could you stop split toning your product shots - camera gear just looks wrong with a greenish tint!
Otherwise, keep up the good work
d.
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