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

[Canon Rumors]

The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS Sport lens.</p>
<p>From The-Digital-Picture:</p>
<blockquote><p>Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens sets the bar high for build quality, performance and for range of features among the 150-600mm lenses available at review time. With optical performance just a bit shy of the most elite zoom lenses, and with an incredible range of very long focal lengths available, sports and especially wildlife photographers along with many others will find this lens to be a very useful tool in their kits. This lens can bring home imagery that many others cannot.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082152-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS Sport at B&H Photo</a></p>

 

[lescrane]

very well put together review by Bryan Carnathan.

It looks like he is in process with the "C" version of the lens, I am curious about how that will stack up. As an owner of the Tamron 150-600, I;m looking for a little more sharpness at 600mm but am not willing to deal with the extra 1lb. I also notice that both sigmas have a panning mode IS setting whereas the Tamron does not.

Thanks again to Digital Picture for easy to follow, comprehensive review.

 

[AlanF]

And this is what Bryan says versus the 100-400mm II.

"The Canon easily bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm and the two lenses have similar image sharpness. The extended Canon lens has a narrower max aperture at 560mm (f/8.0 vs. f/6.3), but the Canon has wider native apertures than the Sigma has. The Canon has a significantly higher MM (0.31x vs. 0.20x). The two lenses are similarly priced (without an extender factored in), with the Canon having a smaller size and lighter weight."

Which says it all for me. I don't want to hump around a huge, heavy lens, with an enormous lens hood, which would occupy most of my hand luggage allowance on a flight, too heavy for extended hand holding and requiring a tripod, when for not much more money I can get (and did get) a much lighter, smaller and better Canon lens.

 

[candc]

very well put together review by Bryan Carnathan.

It looks like he is in process with the "C" version of the lens, I am curious about how that will stack up. As an owner of the Tamron 150-600, I;m looking for a little more sharpness at 600mm but am not willing to deal with the extra 1lb. I also notice that both sigmas have a panning mode IS setting whereas the Tamron does not.

Thanks again to Digital Picture for easy to follow, comprehensive review.

There is a firmware update available for the lens. Itk adds automatic panning detection and vc on the perpendicular axis. Sounds good, i will send mine in for the update.

http://www.tamron-usa.com/about/updates_canon.php

 

[dslrdummy]

...
Which says it all for me. I don't want to hump around a huge, heavy lens, with an enormous lens hood, which would occupy most of my hand luggage allowance on a flight, too heavy for extended hand holding and requiring a tripod, when for not much more money I can get (and did get) a much lighter, smaller and better Canon lens.

Indeed. This lens is targeted at sports shooters - i.e. people who will not travel very far from a car (or other vehicle) and will put the lens on a monopod or tripod.

I would see it as a sports lense for those who must have 500-600mm focal length (surfing, skiing etc) but for most other uses the Canon would be more suitable. Would be pretty difficult to track and properly frame a heavy 500 - 600mm on fast moving field sports for example, especially with a crop body. 400mm is more than enough in most situations and background distractions need more blur than 6.3 will give you. If I got this lense it would principally be for wildlife/safari use where added focal length can be paramount.

 

[dash2k8]

For birding and astronomical shots, this 600mm length would be quite handy, no? I'm curious as to how the Contemporary compares to the Sport. Why does the Sport version cost a lot more?

 

[AlanF]

For birding and astronomical shots, this 600mm length would be quite handy, no? I'm curious as to how the Contemporary compares to the Sport. Why does the Sport version cost a lot more?

www.lenstip.com has reviewed both, as well as the Tamron. The S is sharper at 600mm in particular, as well as much better built. The Tamron is significantly sharper in the centre at 600mm, but much poorer at the edges than the C. I would still go for the Tamron over the C as centre is usually what counts at 600mm when you are straining for every bit of reach. The TDP comparisons are consistent with Lenstip.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Disappointing at 600 mm.
Whereas the best resolution of this lens is placed around 150-200 mm, the sharpness at 600 mm is disappointing.
Considering the size and weight of this lens, there are better choices available if you want to cover the lower end of the 150 to 600 mm range.
Since Sigma is capable of producing excellent optics, I wish that Sigma had produced a 400-600 mm lens with optical emphasis on the upper range.
Personally I would welcome a top notch 600 mm prime lens from Sigma.

 

[dash2k8]

For birding and astronomical shots, this 600mm length would be quite handy, no? I'm curious as to how the Contemporary compares to the Sport. Why does the Sport version cost a lot more?

www.lenstip.com has reviewed both, as well as the Tamron. The S is sharper at 600mm in particular, as well as much better built. The Tamron is significantly sharper in the centre at 600mm, but much poorer at the edges than the C. I would still go for the Tamron over the C as centre is usually what counts at 600mm when you are straining for every bit of reach. The TDP comparisons are consistent with Lenstip.

Thanks for the insightful response!

 

[jmeyer]

Disappointing at 600 mm.
Whereas the best resolution of this lens is placed around 150-200 mm, the sharpness at 600 mm is disappointing.
Considering the size and weight of this lens, there are better choices available if you want to cover the lower end of the 150 to 600 mm range.
Since Sigma is capable of producing excellent optics, I wish that Sigma had produced a 400-600 mm lens with optical emphasis on the upper range.
Personally I would welcome a top notch 600 mm prime lens from Sigma.

What are you disappointed with? I rented this lens a couple weekends ago, and was quite impressed. I went in with low expectations and was hoping I didn't waste a whole day out. I shot 2500 pictures at 600mm, and the sharpness was almost as good as the EF 400mm F5.6. I will say, it definitely needs good light and carrying it with a tripod for 10 hours, makes for some sore shoulders. Here are a couple of examples at 600mm.

 

[Monchoon]

Disappointing at 600 mm.
Whereas the best resolution of this lens is placed around 150-200 mm, the sharpness at 600 mm is disappointing.
Considering the size and weight of this lens, there are better choices available if you want to cover the lower end of the 150 to 600 mm range.
Since Sigma is capable of producing excellent optics, I wish that Sigma had produced a 400-600 mm lens with optical emphasis on the upper range.
Personally I would welcome a top notch 600 mm prime lens from Sigma.

What are you disappointed with? I rented this lens a couple weekends ago, and was quite impressed. I went in with low expectations and was hoping I didn't waste a whole day out. I shot 2500 pictures at 600mm, and the sharpness was almost as good as the EF 400mm F5.6. I will say, it definitely needs good light and carrying it with a tripod for 10 hours, makes for some sore shoulders. Here are a couple of examples at 600mm.

Understand that many here will just read the review, copy what the review says into their brain and then regurgitate it out like fact without any personal experience. If Sigma did deliver a top notch 600 prime then people like the above would say "Can't trust Sigma autofocus" or something else and by asking for a 400-600 zoom, essentially saying "Don't compete with Canon's products." i.e. Just the usual internet garbage.

And so what was your thought of this lens, did you use it for bif or just sport photos. Or have you actually used it

 

[dslrdummy]

...
Which says it all for me. I don't want to hump around a huge, heavy lens, with an enormous lens hood, which would occupy most of my hand luggage allowance on a flight, too heavy for extended hand holding and requiring a tripod, when for not much more money I can get (and did get) a much lighter, smaller and better Canon lens.

Indeed. This lens is targeted at sports shooters - i.e. people who will not travel very far from a car (or other vehicle) and will put the lens on a monopod or tripod.

I would see it as a sports lense for those who must have 500-600mm focal length (surfing, skiing etc) but for most other uses the Canon would be more suitable.

It's good that this is your opinion. To better acquaint yourself with what it is like to shoot sports, get out and attend some sporting events.

Sorry you found it necessary to insult someone you don't remotely know. I am not a professional, but if I didn't "get out and shoot sporting events" I wouldn't have expressed a view. A personal one. Enjoy your photography.
phillipallaway.zenfolio.com

 

[sanj]

At 600mm. Slight crop. ISO 400. f6.3. 1/200 FF camera.

 

[Click]

Lovely shot. Well done sanj.

 

[sanj]

...
Which says it all for me. I don't want to hump around a huge, heavy lens, with an enormous lens hood, which would occupy most of my hand luggage allowance on a flight, too heavy for extended hand holding and requiring a tripod, when for not much more money I can get (and did get) a much lighter, smaller and better Canon lens.

Indeed. This lens is targeted at sports shooters - i.e. people who will not travel very far from a car (or other vehicle) and will put the lens on a monopod or tripod.

I would see it as a sports lense for those who must have 500-600mm focal length (surfing, skiing etc) but for most other uses the Canon would be more suitable.

It's good that this is your opinion. To better acquaint yourself with what it is like to shoot sports, get out and attend some sporting events.

Sorry you found it necessary to insult someone you don't remotely know. I am not a professional, but if I didn't "get out and shoot sporting events" I wouldn't have expressed a view. A personal one. Enjoy your photography.
phillipallaway.zenfolio.com

Now it is your turn to ask dilbert for samples of his sports photography. dilbert? dilbert?

 

[Rudeofus]

And this is what Bryan says versus the 100-400mm II.

"The Canon easily bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm and the two lenses have similar image sharpness.

If Sigma/Tamron's zooms at 600mm don't create higher sharpness than Canon's 100-400 cropped, then I really wonder why anyone would lug around all that extra weight.

 

[sanj]

Lovely shot. Well done sanj.

Thank you Click. Some more here http://greypartridgefilms.com/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-review/

 

[lescrane]

very well put together review by Bryan Carnathan.

It looks like he is in process with the "C" version of the lens, I am curious about how that will stack up. As an owner of the Tamron 150-600, I;m looking for a little more sharpness at 600mm but am not willing to deal with the extra 1lb. I also notice that both sigmas have a panning mode IS setting whereas the Tamron does not.

Thanks again to Digital Picture for easy to follow, comprehensive review.

There is a firmware update available for the lens. Itk adds automatic panning detection and vc on the perpendicular axis. Sounds good, i will send mine in for the update.

http://www.tamron-usa.com/about/updates_canon.php

Thank you for posting this. Great to get this good info amongst all the nasty,pointless arguments in this thread. I will send my Tammy in to get the upgrade.

 

[lescrane]

And this is what Bryan says versus the 100-400mm II.

"The Canon easily bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm and the two lenses have similar image sharpness.

If Sigma/Tamron's zooms at 600mm don't create higher sharpness than Canon's 100-400 cropped, then I really wonder why anyone would lug around all that extra weight.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but the answer to "why would anyone" is usually that different buyers have different opinions on any product, otherwise, everyone would buy the same thing. Specifically, 1000.00 is a lot less than 2400.00. (100-400II+ TC approx). Cost counts for me. The weight difference is not a mountain. Personally, I would rather have one lens than a lens and converter combo, all things being equal. I'm sure that the Canon is a great lens and has many happy customers.

 

[docsmith]

Whereas 18 months ago, the super telephoto zoom field was limited to expensive or older options, it is now very interesting with a number of good options. I consider the 150-600 sports to be one of those good options, especially if you want something that goes out to 600 mm.

Most of these where shot mid-day, so maybe not the most artistic of shots, but I think do illustrate what the lens can do. BTW, the GBH chick shot is a ~100% crop, the others are also heavily cropped, but not approaching 100%.