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

[AJ]

Dustin, any thoughts about bokeh? Does one lens stand out above the others?

 

[Isaac Grant]

I have been a member for quite some time but very rarely post. I had the Tamron for over a year and found it to be a great lens. When the Sigma C came out I bought it and tested it side by side with the Tamron. To me the Sigma C was quite a bit sharper than the Tamron when both were at f8. I also found the color and contrast of the Sigma C to be better. It is also as fast or faster at tracking birds than the Tamron was. The autofocus is great and I have no problem tracking and shoot fast flying birds like martins and swallows or flying shorebirds. Don't know if those who have trouble using it or are having focusing problems have a bad copy or just bad technique. (sorry I don't mean to sound rude, but that option is always a valid one until proven otherwise) My Sigma C along with my Canon 7d2 is a fantastic tool to use and one that I can use in many different situations with great results.

Here are a few shots that I have gotten with it recently that show that the lens tracks like a boss. I have long strings of shots of flying martins that have 30 or so shots in a row where just about every one is in focus. Lighting and angle are of course bad in most as the bird has to be turned just right to get the light on it. But the lens tracks like a champ. It is up to the photographer to do the rest.

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Willet by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[Isaac Grant]

And here are a few more to show what results the Sigma C gets. I can tell you with 100% certainty that if your lens has a hard time tracking or focusing then there is something wrong with it. Send it back for service. Here are more fast flying small birds that the Sigma C handles with ease. Results are fantastic as well when the birds are not flying 100 mph.

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Barn Swallow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[crisotunity]

I have been a member for quite some time but very rarely post. I had the Tamron for over a year and found it to be a great lens. When the Sigma C came out I bought it and tested it side by side with the Tamron. To me the Sigma C was quite a bit sharper than the Tamron when both were at f8. I also found the color and contrast of the Sigma C to be better. It is also as fast or faster at tracking birds than the Tamron was. The autofocus is great and I have no problem tracking and shoot fast flying birds like martins and swallows or flying shorebirds. Don't know if those who have trouble using it or are having focusing problems have a bad copy or just bad technique. (sorry I don't mean to sound rude, but that option is always a valid one until proven otherwise) My Sigma C along with my Canon 7d2 is a fantastic tool to use and one that I can use in many different situations with great results.

Here are a few shots that I have gotten with it recently that show that the lens tracks like a boss"



Which is why every thread should always have a big flashing sign: "all comments reflect personal circumstances".
All I can say is that, for me and with my limited technique and in weather/light-specific (UK) circumstances, this lens tracked like the kind of boss I used to have a couple of years ago: not particularly quick and unpredictable. ;D
Let me reiterate that the Sigma C is not unusable by any stretch and we are lucky that it exists as an option: some will love it. It's just that, for my very amateurish shooting and in UK "summer" weather, it did not seem to be an upgrade on the 100-400v1, even with 1.4 TC. This is the sort of combo that a lot of amateurs like me have and some may be tempted to switch. From my experience, it wouldn't be worth it, but then again it wouldn't be a catastrophe either.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The lens should work just fine, even in poorer light. But of course it is an f6.3 so you have to deal with that. Results should be much better than the 100-400 version 1 plus the 1.4x. Especially since you get the use of all focus points at f8. Personal circumstances do not make a lens focus/track slower. If the lens does not track well it is either a bad copy, something wrong with your camera/settings or user error. I'd be happy to post loads more shots of flying swallows, shorebirds, terns, etc. All with the Sigma C. It tracks great.

 

[AlanF]

The lens should work just fine, even in poorer light. But of course it is an f6.3 so you have to deal with that. Results should be much better than the 100-400 version 1 plus the 1.4x. Especially since you get the use of all focus points at f8. Personal circumstances do not make a lens focus/track slower. If the lens does not track well it is either a bad copy, something wrong with your camera/settings or user error. I'd be happy to post loads more shots of flying swallows, shorebirds, terns, etc. All with the Sigma C. It tracks great.

I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?

 

[BobHope]

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.

I have a gitzo 5 series carbon tripod and you can still see wobbles when I touch the camera with my 600f4, even with the legs on shortest setting and the spiked feet on solid concrete. I think you are being a trifle unfair.

 

[Isaac Grant]

I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?


I personally find it very difficult to keep the really fast flying birds in the frame at 600mm. The camera and lens track just fine at that focal length, but my ability to keep them in the frame and to hold the camera and pan steady enough at that focal length is at fault. That is why most of the in flight shots are at shorter focal lengths.

For static objects it, with the OS on, it works great. Here are just a few samples all at 600mm

Semi-palmated Plover by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

House Wren by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Piping Plover by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

Prothonotary Warbler by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[AlanF]

Isaac, I very much agree with you - 400mm is my upper limit on the 7DII for birds in flight.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

...
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.

Number of shots that you'll miss while you add/remove the extender?

That's always a valid point. I will primarily use the lens in its bare form, and may be more inclined to throw it on my 70D when I want more reach rather than use the TC. What I really want is the IQ, IS, and build of the Canon with the focal length and price of the Tamron/Sigma C. :-\

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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

Thanks for the nice feedback.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

I did a more comprehensive comparison of the Canon 100-400L II and the Tamron on this count, and found the Canon more steady (and more mannerly) even with the 1.4x extender attached to somewhat equalize the focal length.

I found that neither the Tamron nor the Sigmas stabilize the viewfinder image as much as what I would personally like. Tweaking the lenses through the USB dock with the Sigmas can make a minor improvement on this front. My copy of the Tamron did have the firmware update, so I found the lenses all roughly equal in the stablizer department.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?


I personally find it very difficult to keep the really fast flying birds in the frame at 600mm. The camera and lens track just fine at that focal length, but my ability to keep them in the frame and to hold the camera and pan steady enough at that focal length is at fault. That is why most of the in flight shots are at shorter focal lengths.

For static objects it, with the OS on, it works great. Here are just a few samples all at 600mm

Fantastic series, Isaac. I suspect you have a very effective technique, which helps. My experience favored the Tamron and Sigma for tracking, but you are right - technique helps, and there is always the possibility for some sample variation.

I'm curious: have you used the USB dock to customize the lens to your body and B) did you find that you were able to significantly improve the focus through this technique?

I don't work for Tamron or Sigma, so if you are happy with your purchase, then I'm happy. Your opinion is more important than mine.

 

[AlanF]

...
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.

Number of shots that you'll miss while you add/remove the extender?

That's always a valid point. I will primarily use the lens in its bare form, and may be more inclined to throw it on my 70D when I want more reach rather than use the TC. What I really want is the IQ, IS, and build of the Canon with the focal length and price of the Tamron/Sigma C. :-\

It's not an important criticism as you don't have to change the extender if the timing is critical. If you leave the extender on, you have a similar focal length zoom (140-560mm) to the 150-600mm. If don't have time to put the extender on, you are indeed limited to 400mm rather than 600mm, but this is not a killer especially as the IQ at 400mm of the Canon 100-400mm II is much better than the Sigma C or Tamron at 600mm.For birds in flight, Isaac Grant doesn't even use the 400-600mm region on his 7DII.

 

[Isaac Grant]

I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?


I personally find it very difficult to keep the really fast flying birds in the frame at 600mm. The camera and lens track just fine at that focal length, but my ability to keep them in the frame and to hold the camera and pan steady enough at that focal length is at fault. That is why most of the in flight shots are at shorter focal lengths.

For static objects it, with the OS on, it works great. Here are just a few samples all at 600mm

Fantastic series, Isaac. I suspect you have a very effective technique, which helps. My experience favored the Tamron and Sigma for tracking, but you are right - technique helps, and there is always the possibility for some sample variation.

I'm curious: have you used the USB dock to customize the lens to your body and B) did you find that you were able to significantly improve the focus through this technique?

I don't work for Tamron or Sigma, so if you are happy with your purchase, then I'm happy. Your opinion is more important than mine.

Thank you for the compliment Dustin. Coming from you it really means a great deal. I do own the dock and set my lens up as follows: All I did was to assign C1 to Dynamic OS and focus priority. I find this to be the best overall setting as it creates the most stable image in the viewfinder (but it is not as stable as the Canon 100-400 ii.) and also the most accurate focus. It is supposed to slow the focus down a bit but I find it plenty fast for my uses. I use C1 for all static shots. Pretty much without exception. I do have C2 set up differently but never use it. I did not do any other adjustments to the lens or body. No micro adjustments either. Just slapped it on and shot with it.

This is the first shot I ever took with the Sigma.

275mm
American Oystercatcher by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

For all BIF shots I take the OS off.

I have heard quite a few people say that they do not see a difference really between the Tamron and Sigma. I had a very sharp copy of the Tamron and was quite pleased with it but find the Sigma better in many ways. First and foremost is image quality. At 600mm it is just sharper. I did lots and lots of testing with my copies before I sold my Tamron. I like the colors and contrast more. I like the focal length locks. I like the ability to use custom settings. Overall I find it to be a much better value than the Tamron. After all, as you well know, even slight increases in image quality cost a lot of money in optics. To me the Sigma is a much better lens, not only optically but also as far as user experience goes. It even comes with a great case.

I also find it extremely sharp at all focal lengths.

Here are a few other examples above 400mm of small and harder to photograph birds. I personally do not find that taking pics of large, slow and tame birds to be a very good test of a lens. Sharpness yes, but it does little to give you real world usage results.

484mm
Semi-palmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

500mm
Song Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

516mm
American Oystercatcher by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

516mm
Barn Swallow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

421mm
Chipping Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[Isaac Grant]

...
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.

Number of shots that you'll miss while you add/remove the extender?

That's always a valid point. I will primarily use the lens in its bare form, and may be more inclined to throw it on my 70D when I want more reach rather than use the TC. What I really want is the IQ, IS, and build of the Canon with the focal length and price of the Tamron/Sigma C. :-\

It's not an important criticism as you don't have to change the extender if the timing is critical. If you leave the extender on, you have a similar focal length zoom (140-560mm) to the 150-600mm. If don't have time to put the extender on, you are indeed limited to 400mm rather than 600mm, but this is not a killer especially as the IQ at 400mm of the Canon 100-400mm II is much better than the Sigma C or Tamron at 600mm.For birds in flight, Isaac Grant doesn't even use the 400-600mm region on his 7DII.

I have used the 400-600 for BIF but do so very rarely. I do not often shoot large and slow moving birds like Egrets and things like that. But it is much easier to use the longer focal lengths on these kinds of birds. I prefer to have very good field craft and position myself where I can be as close to the birds as possible, especially for BIF and this way I can use the shorter focal lengths with much greater success.

 

[Plainsman]

Thanks Dustin Abbott for giving us a very useful review of the final of the Sigma/Tamron trio.

I think you've confirmed that my Tamron 150-600 is no worse than the other two.

One thing I would like to ask is if you found any difference in performance when photographing at distance because I think that assessing these long lenses at imatest distances (40ft) is not a realistic reference.

Of interest will be the new Nikon 200-500 which will give a true 500/5.6 against a very poor 320/5.6 for the Sigma Sport. Indeed although limited to 500mm it could be a very good 500! I hope Canon will copy Nikon soon - just in time for the 80D!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Maybe you should buy a copy and cuddle up to it every night?

 

[Ozarker]

I just prefer and faster lens for birds. I have the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L IS and find it to be supurb in good light. However, I will always wish for something faster. I'de spend the money on the Canon before this any day of the week. I am sure it is a fine lens, but I still prefer the Canon.

 

[dufflover]

That doesn't make much sense at all. Firstly there's no such lens (the 400mm with IS), and it's not really much faster at 400mm. Canon because it's Canon?