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

[Cory]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

 

[lescrane]

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%.

very sharp, nice Bokeh.

 

[AlanF]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

 

[Cory]

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

Thanks.

 

[docsmith]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

I'd have to agree with Alan, the 100-400L would be a good general purpose telephoto zoom. As would the 70-300L. They are two good options. One key differentiator would be price (100-400 II is $2,200 USD and the 70-300L is $1,350 USD). The other keys are the focal lengths and size/weight. I would lean toward the 70-300L if your general purpose zoom only goes to 55 mm, and if size/weight matter. The 100-400 II otherwise.

I am a Sigma 150-600S owner (on a 5DIII). The real reason to get one of the 150-600 mm zoom lenses is if you really want the 400-600 mm range. Since you are shooting APS-C, which already applies the 1.6x crop factor, I suspect that 300 or 400 mm would be enough for most general purposes.

EDIT---another way of stating the comparison of the 70-300L vs 100-400L is that, if money is not an issue, you should consider which is more important to you, 70-100 mm (15.3 to 21.7 degrees angle of view) or 300-400 mm (3.8 to 5.1 AOV).

 

[traveller]

Anyone else think that Bryan's samples from the Sigma 150-600 C look just as good, if not better than the 150-600 S (at least up to 500mm)?

 

[docsmith]

Anyone else think that Bryan's samples from the Sigma 150-600 C look just as good, if not better than the 150-600 S (at least up to 500mm)?

Yep...up to ~400 or maybe 500 mm at TDP. Lenstip show them similar at 150mm, close at 300, but the S pulling away at 450 and 600. Ephotozine shows a similar trend as well.

But, honestly, I think you buy these lenses for 500-600. Otherwise, buy the 70-300L, 100-400 II, etc.

Also, and I am watching this and want to see more before making the final conclusion, I think the "S" has better bokeh and contrast. At least in some of the images I've seen so far. Like I said, I will want to see a few more side by side comparisons before finalizing that observation.

 

[jmeyer]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

It performs great on the 50D, and I just showed you examples on the first page. Not quite sure why you're pushing the 100-400 II so much. It was heavy, it's long, and it requires good light, but sharpness was on par with the 400 5.6. What more do you want from it?

 

[traveller]

Anyone else think that Bryan's samples from the Sigma 150-600 C look just as good, if not better than the 150-600 S (at least up to 500mm)?

Yep...up to ~400 or maybe 500 mm at TDP. Lenstip show them similar at 150mm, close at 300, but the S pulling away at 450 and 600. Ephotozine shows a similar trend as well.

But, honestly, I think you buy these lenses for 500-600. Otherwise, buy the 70-300L, 100-400 II, etc.

Also, and I am watching this and want to see more before making the final conclusion, I think the "S" has better bokeh and contrast. At least in some of the images I've seen so far. Like I said, I will want to see a few more side by side comparisons before finalizing that observation.

True about 500-600mm usage,, but I still don't see that much difference here. I'd like to see some real world comparison before making my final judgement. From what I've seen, the difference between the Sigma and the Tamron is quite slight, even at 600mm. The Sigma C version seems to test similar, if not a little better than the Tamron at the long end.

 

[AlanF]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

It performs great on the 50D, and I just showed you examples on the first page. Not quite sure why you're pushing the 100-400 II so much. It was heavy, it's long, and it requires good light, but sharpness was on par with the 400 5.6. What more do you want from it?

Here are some comparative shots from my last outing 2 or 3 weeks ago with it. A robin in the car park obliged me with a sitting target, while I was waiting for my wife. So, I decided to compare the 100-400 II on different bodies. The top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6, the middle with 560 at f/8, and the bottom the 5DIII at 560mm and f/8. (These are all 100% crops, ie 1 pixel = 1 pixel of the original).

 

[docsmith]

True about 500-600mm usage,, but I still don't see that much difference here. I'd like to see some real world comparison before making my final judgement. From what I've seen, the difference between the Sigma and the Tamron is quite slight, even at 600mm. The Sigma C version seems to test similar, if not a little better than the Tamron at the long end.

I own the Sigma 150-600S and have shot the Tamron 150-600 both on the 5DIII. The sharpness is very similar at f/8. Bokeh and AF are better with the Sigma 150-600S. Also, I intentionally shot the Tamron at 600 f/6.3 and deleted all those shots in my normal first cut of images where I just scroll through the images looking for good sharpness, etc. So, apparently, I do not like the IQ of the Tamron at 600 f/6.3, but at 600 f/8 the sharpness between the Sigma and Tamron are similar.

So there are differences, but they are subtle. I can absolutely understand people buying the Tamron. I was impressed. But there are some reasons to get the Sigma "sport" such as more consistent AF and better bokeh.

I haven't used the "C" yet.

 

[jmeyer]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

It performs great on the 50D, and I just showed you examples on the first page. Not quite sure why you're pushing the 100-400 II so much. It was heavy, it's long, and it requires good light, but sharpness was on par with the 400 5.6. What more do you want from it?

Here are some comparative shots from my last outing 2 or 3 weeks ago with it. A robin in the car park obliged me with a sitting target, while I was waiting for my wife. So, I decided to compare the 100-400 II on different bodies. The top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6, the middle with 560 at f/8, and the bottom the 5DIII at 560mm and f/8. (These are all 100% crops, ie 1 pixel = 1 pixel of the original).

I expect the canon lens to be very sharp and based on your pictures it is. I'm just wondering what you don't like about the sigma? You say it performs bad on the 70D and 7D II, but on my older 50D, it performed better than my expectations.

 

[AlanF]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

It performs great on the 50D, and I just showed you examples on the first page. Not quite sure why you're pushing the 100-400 II so much. It was heavy, it's long, and it requires good light, but sharpness was on par with the 400 5.6. What more do you want from it?

Here are some comparative shots from my last outing 2 or 3 weeks ago with it. A robin in the car park obliged me with a sitting target, while I was waiting for my wife. So, I decided to compare the 100-400 II on different bodies. The top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6, the middle with 560 at f/8, and the bottom the 5DIII at 560mm and f/8. (These are all 100% crops, ie 1 pixel = 1 pixel of the original).

I expect the canon lens to be very sharp and based on your pictures it is. I'm just wondering what you don't like about the sigma? You say it performs bad on the 70D and 7D II, but on my older 50D, it performed better than my expectations.

I haven't used the Sigma 150-600mm's. But, I have used the Tamron 150-600mm extensively on the 5DIII and the 70D. According to the www.objektivtest.se and lensfreak sites, the Tamron and the Sigmas have weak MTF performance and softness at greater than 400mm. Here is my experience using a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on a 5DIII (bottom) versus the Tamron 150-600mm at 428mm on a 70D (top) of a greenfinch taken from the same spot. By itself, the Tamron looks OK. But, compare it with the Canon lens on the 5DIII you can see the differennce.

 

[jmeyer]

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?

The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.

It performs great on the 50D, and I just showed you examples on the first page. Not quite sure why you're pushing the 100-400 II so much. It was heavy, it's long, and it requires good light, but sharpness was on par with the 400 5.6. What more do you want from it?

Here are some comparative shots from my last outing 2 or 3 weeks ago with it. A robin in the car park obliged me with a sitting target, while I was waiting for my wife. So, I decided to compare the 100-400 II on different bodies. The top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6, the middle with 560 at f/8, and the bottom the 5DIII at 560mm and f/8. (These are all 100% crops, ie 1 pixel = 1 pixel of the original).

I expect the canon lens to be very sharp and based on your pictures it is. I'm just wondering what you don't like about the sigma? You say it performs bad on the 70D and 7D II, but on my older 50D, it performed better than my expectations.

I haven't used the Sigma 150-600mm's. But, I have used the Tamron 150-600mm extensively on the 5DIII and the 70D. According to the www.objektivtest.se and lensfreak sites, the Tamron and the Sigmas have weak MTF performance and softness at greater than 400mm. Here is my experience using a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on a 5DIII (bottom) versus the Tamron 150-600mm at 428mm on a 70D (top) of a greenfinch taken from the same spot. By itself, the Tamron looks OK. But, compare it with the Canon lens on the 5DIII you can see the differennce.

I guess that's my point, because your saying that the sigma is bad, but you haven't used it. I used it and it was really good. Also, comparing one of the best canon lens made on the 2nd best canon body made with a tamron on a crop camera is a terrible comparison, imo. Here are the mtf charts I've seen, maybe they are different from what you've seen.

 

[AlanF]

The MTF charts you have just quoted are not relevant to the points I am making about the performance on crop sensors. The Canon ones are computationally generated for a full frame sensor and the Sigma are measured for their particular design of FF sensor. I have been virtually screaming that the 150-600mm lenses are great on FF but in contrast that are weaker above 400mm on APS-C. You need to look at the MTF charts for APS-C to see this, not the ones you have posted. The MTF charts are posted in the Swedish websites for which I posted the links. However, here they are for APS-C.
First the Tamron 150-600mm on APS-C
http://www.lensfreaks.com/lens-reviews/tamron/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd-review/
Then the Sigma 150-600mm Sport from
http://www.objektivtest.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MTF-Test-Sigma-150-600-mm-F5-63-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-@-APS-C-format.png

If you go to those sites you can see how much better the lenses are on FF. Those values at greater than 400mm on APS-C are weak.

 

[docsmith]

I haven't used the Sigma 150-600mm's. But, I have used the Tamron 150-600mm extensively on the 5DIII and the 70D. According to the www.objektivtest.se and lensfreak sites, the Tamron and the Sigmas have weak MTF performance and softness at greater than 400mm. Here is my experience using a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on a 5DIII (bottom) versus the Tamron 150-600mm at 428mm on a 70D (top) of a greenfinch taken from the same spot. By itself, the Tamron looks OK. But, compare it with the Canon lens on the 5DIII you can see the differennce.

All lenses take a bit of a hit on crop. The question really is "how much?" As I digression, Alan, I believe you were the one to calculate that the true "reach" of crop bodies was ~1.16-1.19x and not 1.6x by looking at different resolution test results. That alone indicates that resolution results take a hit due to the crop sensor when compared to FF. So, I am not surprised that a >$6k lens on a FF body produced better results than a ~$1k lens on a crop body. That is exactly the result I would expect.

That said, I continue to see some very nice images taken with different crop bodies and the 150-600S. Maybe at some point I will hook up my M to the 150-600S and test it out myself. But...you know...time.

What I really hope that Bryan/TDP does look at the 150-600's on the 7DII so we can do some direct comparisons of different telephoto options for crop cameras. As that is really what is relevant, as all lenses take a hit on crop, what is the comparative hit taken by one lens over another and ultimately finding the combination that works for you.

 

[AlanF]

That's right Doc. The Swedes have the 300 mm f/2.8 II data on lensfreak.com, and that ultrasharp lens takes only a small hit on crop, as seen also on Bryan's TDP site. As I wrote elsewhere, the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC gives spectacular results at 420mm on crop.

 

[AlanF]

Bryan on TDP has compared the Contemporary with the Tamron 150-600mm, and finds that on stopping down to f/8 the C slightly beats the Tammy in the centre (as well as clearly at the edges). Interestingly, he now has the C data for the 7DII (but not the Tammy). The Canon 100-400mm II at 560mm f/8 beats the Sigma C at 600mm and f/6.3 hands down on the 7DII. On stopping down the Sigma to f/8, it improves greatly. However, the Canon is still sharper at the centre. This is seen most clearly when looking at the arcs of circles on the top left of his pictures and toggling back and forth.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[noncho]

I had a chance to try 150-600S and it's a very good performer. Problem for me is that it's heavy for walking around and shooting for more time without a tripod/monopod.
Examples:

P.S. Pictures are taken with 7D mark II and I had no issues with focus accuracy.