Sigma 150-600 Sport image quality on TDP

[AlanF]

Bryan has posted the image quality shots on TDP. Where it overlaps with the 100-400mm II, the Canon wins up to 400mm, usually with a wider aperture as well, eg

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1\\

The 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC at 560 mm is very similar to the 150-600mm at 600mm. The difference in weight is colossal, the difference in operational weights is 2.65 lb (1.2 kg) with the extender attached to the Canon or 3.2 lb (1.46 kg) without.

 

[docsmith]

True...but I'd put the Sigma a bit better in the center comparing 600 mm f/8 to 560 mm f/8 and better across the frame at 500 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8.

No doubt about the size weight advantages. If the AF and other factors are comparable with the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC, then I can see that being a very desirable option.

But, honestly, I think too much is made about the size/weight of the sigma. I've gone through thousands of shots all hand held. I've hiked with it. I've sat holding it on target. It took some getting used too, but it is manageable.

Seems as if we have two very good options. I may swap someday if I am willing to give up the extra mm and center IQ for size/weight. But for now, I am keeping the Sigma. But I certainly can see those that have the 100-400 II also being happy with these results as well. One of those situations, close enough optically that I would be happy to own either.

BTW...I thought this was interesting as well:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=978&LensComp=972&Units=E

Specifically, the distance to target at the bottom. More evidence of focus breathing on the 100-400L II at those distances (may not be as much at infinity). But I shoot birds at 30 ft, so it is relevant.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks for the post Alan.

I see the Canon being much better at 400mm, but the Sigma is usable. At 600mm f/8, The Sigma has the advantage in center and mid IQ by a small amount, but loses at the edges. At higher focal lengths, the Sigma wins by a noticeable amount, but I wouldn't want to use either at a small enough aperture to get sharp images.

As far as IQ goes, the Sigma is obviously a good buy, but its also a concern that the first lens had major issues and the second lens also showed some decentering. What are the chances of getting one that is not damaged, and of it staying that way? Shipping is very hard on a lens, Canon has taken a lot of care to safely package the 100-400mm L, and then Adorama put a full 3 inches of air bags around mine.

The weight of 7.15 pounds for the Sigma versus The 3.75 lb weight of the 100-400mm MK II + the 0.5 lb weight of the Canon 1.4X III extender gives the Canon a huge handholding advantage. The price per pound for Sigma glass is very low



+ Attachments and other options
The link to TDP does not work for me, here is one that is less direct.



The link to TDP does not work for me, here is one that is less direct.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2\

 

[Random Orbits]

Glad to see that the 100-400 II holds up so well. Hoping to upgrade the version I to the version II soon.

 

[AlanF]

True...but I'd put the Sigma a bit better in the center comparing 600 mm f/8 to 560 mm f/8 and better across the frame at 500 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8.

No doubt about the size weight advantages. If the AF and other factors are comparable with the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC, then I can see that being a very desirable option.

But, honestly, I think too much is made about the size/weight of the sigma. I've gone through thousands of shots all hand held. I've hiked with it. I've sat holding it on target. It took some getting used too, but it is manageable.

Seems as if we have two very good options. I may swap someday if I am willing to give up the extra mm and center IQ for size/weight. But for now, I am keeping the Sigma. But I certainly can see those that have the 100-400 II also being happy with these results as well. One of those situations, close enough optically that I would be happy to own either.

BTW...I thought this was interesting as well:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=978&LensComp=972&Units=E

Specifically, the distance to target at the bottom. More evidence of focus breathing on the 100-400L II at those distances (may not be as much at infinity). But I shoot birds at 30 ft, so it is relevant.

The 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC is smaller and lighter than the Sigma, doesn't focus breathe and is significantly sharper at its f/5.6 vs f/6.3, and f/8 vs f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

If the difference in sharpness really matters to you, then take the Canon prime plus extenders. Sharpness does matter to me. Nevertheless, I like taking the 100-400mm II with me, even on the 7DII, because it is good enough in most cases. So much so, I have just bought a second copy as my wife has snaffled my first copy and I want to leave the 300 at home on many occasions.

 

[ahsanford]

Long zooms: Canon 100-400 II vs. Sigma 150-600 Sports vs. Tamron 150-600

The good Mr. Carnathan has a fresh batch of IQ comparisons for us:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=14971

From a really quick viewing, on the wide open end, it appears:

Canon 100-400 II > Sigma 150-600 sports > Tamron 150-600 >>> the original Sigma 150-500.

I'm a little surprised. LensTip's 150-600 Sigma Sports review implied we'd see the Sigma outperform even the 100-400 II.

- A

 

[docsmith]

Hi ahsanford....I do not believe lenstip has reviewed the 100-400 II. The Sigma 150-600S was a tick better than the 100-400 Mk I in the lenstip review. Ephotozine has reviewed both, but, as Alan has pointed out in another thread, their results with the 100-400II are inconsistent with other reviews.

Bryan is the next to have reviewed both, to the best of my knowledge.

If the difference in sharpness really matters to you, then take the Canon prime plus extenders. Sharpness does matter to me. Nevertheless, I like taking the 100-400mm II with me, even on the 7DII, because it is good enough in most cases. So much so, I have just bought a second copy as my wife has snaffled my first copy and I want to leave the 300 at home on many occasions.

Thanks Alan. At some point, I may be talking about a big white. I have no doubt they are a step up. Like many, I am sure, I check out charts and graphs. I see the images and all I can say is that I am impressed. But, that is not in my budget for a bit longer, if ever. But, the combination you mention is one that I have considered. Right now, I think I might lean toward the 400 DO II if I was to spend that kind of money. Or I might save up for a bit more for a 500 or 600 f/4 II.

So, in the mean time I am in the ~$2k budget range for the super telephoto range and used that to get the 150-600S. And an odd thing happened as I shot the Sigma 150-600S. It did what I wanted it too.

 

[candc]

I never saw the appeal with this lens. Its a heavy pumper zoom and the iq doesn't look significantly better than the 100-400ii or even the tamron for that matter. Sigma should have just come out with the 150-600c and made a 300-600 f/5.6s with the same design as the 120-300. Even if the price was double that of this lens it would have more appeal

 

[docsmith]

I never saw the appeal with this lens. Its a heavy pumper zoom and the iq doesn't look significantly better than the 100-400ii or even the tamron for that matter. Sigma should have just come out with the 150-600c and made a 300-600 f/5.6s with the same design as the 120-300. Even if the price was double that of this lens it would have more appeal

No lens is for every person. But, if interested, check out some of the reviews:

http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/10/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-reviews-sample-images/

 

[AlanF]

docsmith, what I am really getting at is that too much is often made of relatively small differences in IQ. My 300/2.8 II with or without extenders does outperform my 100-400mm II. But, for 90% or more of the time it makes very little difference in practice - if I am close enough to the birds I photo I will get superb shots, and the better lens lets me be a bit further away. My old 100-400mm Mk 1 was not good enough, but the Tamron 150-600mm, the two Sigmas and the Mk 2 have crossed a threshold and give crisp images. So, I now go for the lightest and smallest.

 

[docsmith]

docsmith, what I am really getting at is that too much is often made of relatively small differences in IQ. My 300/2.8 II with or without extenders does outperform my 100-400mm II. But, for 90% or more of the time it makes very little difference in practice - if I am close enough to the birds I photo I will get superb shots, and the better lens lets me be a bit further away. My old 100-400mm Mk 1 was not good enough, but the Tamron 150-600mm, the two Sigmas and the Mk 2 have crossed a threshold and give crisp images. So, I now go for the lightest and smallest.

Alan...that makes a lot of sense. I can see many people picking the 100-400 II for it's size and weight. I also agree that small differences in IQ that can only be discerned under controlled conditions and test charts shouldn't be deciding factors (unless the goal is to shoot---test charts ???).

For me, since I added the 70-200 II (plus TCs) to my kit a while ago, my 100-400 Mk I has only seen very limited use. But, since I picked up the Sigma 150-600S, I use it any time I want lots of reach (i.e. 400-600 mm). So, what has impressed me about the 100-400 II is that it seems to take the 1.4xTC very well. But, as you say, if IQ is essentially a push, other factors are used to make the decision. In my instance, since I want the 400-600 mm range, those other factors are not size/weight, but rather AF points, an extra 40 mm of reach, and f/6.3 vs f/8. With the Sigma I can use all my AF points and options rather than just the center point I would be limited to with the 100-400 II plus 1.4xTC on my 5DIII. Now, if somehow I am wrong and I wouldn't be limited to the center AF point or if the 5DIV has a nice spread of f/8 AF points, that might change things for me. But, right now, I enjoy shooting with the 150-600S enough, it certainly wouldn't change right away. Sometimes it isn't about "the best" but what works for you and the 5DIII plus the 150-600S has worked so far.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I check at the TDP and notice the below:
1) Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm is F6.3 and not F5.6??
2) Tamron 150-600mm @ 400mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm
3) Tamron 150-600mm @ 500mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 500mm at the centre and Sigma is better at the mid-frame and edge.
4) At 600mm, Sigma 150-600mm Sport is better than the Tamron 150-600mm
5) There are 2 copies for the Sigma 150-600mm Sport and the 2nd copy look quite bad compare to the 1st copy...

Have a nice day.

 

[Plainsman]

Hi,

5) There are 2 copies for the Sigma 150-600mm Sport and the 2nd copy look quite bad compare to the 1st copy...

Have a nice day.

QC is the big issue (which you can't quantify) with either Sigma and Tamron.
Their QC never seems to gets much better! Indeed you really don't know what you're going to get. That's why they are cheaper because they let lenses pass thru to the unsuspecting customer - which Canon would not allow.
If you want a zoom up to 400mm pay more and get the 100-400 but don't ruin it with Canon converter that is not specifically designed for it!!

 

[AlanF]

Hi,
I check at the TDP and notice the below:
1) Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm is F6.3 and not F5.6??
2) Tamron 150-600mm @ 400mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm
3) Tamron 150-600mm @ 500mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 500mm at the centre and Sigma is better at the mid-frame and edge.
4) At 600mm, Sigma 150-600mm Sport is better than the Tamron 150-600mm
5) There are 2 copies for the Sigma 150-600mm Sport and the 2nd copy look quite bad compare to the 1st copy...

Have a nice day.

You are right about the second copy. It is far inferior to the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC. I have two copies of the 100-400 II now, and both are of identical high quaility.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[Aichbus]

QC is the big issue (which you can't quantify) with either Sigma and Tamron.

QC is not only an issue with Sigma and Tamron, but also with Canon. My three most recently acquired lenses are:

Sigma 50 Art
Canon 4/16-35 L IS
Canon 100-400 L II

The Sigma was perfect, but both Canon lenses were significantly decentered. I had to send them back and only the replacements were good.

 

[HarryWintergreen]

The 100-400 II is extremely useable, not too heavy, lighting-fast AF. The Sigma is really heavy and simply not a joy to use. IQ of 100-400 II is on the highest standards of a zoom lens. Walking miles along a coast line with the Canon and being quickly in a position to shoot seabirds is not a problem at all. To me, you cannot ask for more.

 

[ahsanford]

The 100-400 II is extremely useable, not too heavy, lighting-fast AF. The Sigma is really heavy and simply not a joy to use. IQ of 100-400 II is on the highest standards of a zoom lens. Walking miles along a coast line with the Canon and being quickly in a position to shoot seabirds is not a problem at all. To me, you cannot ask for more.

Actually, you could ask for 200mm more length.

The Sigma will always have that in its favor -- Canon won't let you get to 600 without a teleconverter or a loan from the bank. Give them some credit for delivering a solid product that doesn't cost a mint.

- A

 

[Aichbus]

...
QC is not only an issue with Sigma and Tamron, but also with Canon. My three most recently acquired lenses are:

Sigma 50 Art
Canon 4/16-35 L IS
Canon 100-400 L II

The Sigma was perfect, but both Canon lenses were significantly decentered. I had to send them back and only the replacements were good.

What do you use to check for a lens that is decentered?

In both Canon lenses, the decentering was very obvious in real world photos already, but I have a lens check resolution test poster hanging in my office which I can use to get repeatable results. With that I can see even minor differences in sharpness across the frame. (This one, in case your are interested: http://www.fotokoch.de/allzub/56256.shtml)

 

[AlanF]

These lenses are sorted out on the 7DII. The 100-400mm II is great at 400mm and really good at 560mm with the 1.4xTC. The Sigma falls apart at longer focal lengths - see http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/&prev=search

"With APS-C:
With the APS-C format provides good lens sharpness 150-200 mm and pass 300-400 mm. But a high-resolution APS-C sensor is less forgiving than a full-frame sensor and photos taken at 500 and 600 mm may not be particularly good drawing in small and fine details. As the plumage of birds or the fur of mammals."

The MTF charts are terrible. Its the same with the Tamron on APS-C.

 

[docsmith]

Issues with APS-C? "Falls apart" at long focal lengths? Maybe it is just on Canon bodies.... : : :

http://nikonites.com/blogs/rob-bye/907-shooting-sports-sigma-150-600mm.html#axzz3O7hgJHxL

https://photographylife.com/sigma-150-600mm-sport-goes-on-a-safari

Oh....maybe it is just the 7DII : :

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/review-sigma-150-600mm-sports-650d

I am curious to see what Bryan/TDP comes up with. But I would not expect the Sigma to "fall apart" at longer focal lengths. It could be that the 100-400II is a better combination? Sure. If for no other reason, hand holding a 960 mm equivalent lens would be a challenge. But I fully expect to see someone use the 7DII and 150-600S combination and get some great images.