Sigma 150-600 Sport image quality on TDP

[AlanF]

Just look at the MTF charts for the Sigma Sport in the link I posted.

 

[docsmith]

Just look at the MTF charts for the Sigma Sport in the link I posted.

I had. They are, potentially, troubling. But, they reminded me of:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Quotes that I have read over time that using imatest and other software for long focal lengths is problematic
[*]How little stock I put in single reviews from websites I've never heard of before.
[*]How while I do look at test results, I am more swayed by actual images.
[/list]

Also, part of the dip is going from 20 cycles/mm for FF to 30 cycles/mm for crop. Granted, some great lenses did not see much of a drop (70-200 II, 300 f/2.8 II). So, it is possible that high density sensors may expose a flaw with the 150-600S. I believe we are both fans of TDP, so lets see what happens when Bryan posts his results with the 7DII (assuming he is going to do this). If he is also showing an atypical drop off in IQ, that would carry more weight with me.

BTW...he already has observed a reasonable drop off from FF to APS-C with the other lenses, including the 100-400 II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

But...at the end of the day, even if the results hold up, that really isn't the point, at least to me. The point is "how do you get to 600 mm cost effectively." It isn't as if I am trying to have the 150-600S win some sort of prize for "best lens ever." It is a tool and what really matters is comparisons to lenses in the same price range that serve the same function. Thus far, the IQ from TDP for FF shows 600 mm on the Sigma and 560 mm on the 100-400 II to be essentially even. Thus, other factors when into the decision on which lens is selected. Could it be that result changes on a crop body? We'll see. Hopefully Bryan posts results with the 7DII and Sigma.

 

[AlanF]

The Swedish website had virtually the same data for the Tamron 150-600mm as for the Sigma. DxO did an in-depth analysis of the Tamron on FF and crop. On FF it did very well. However, on crop it deteriorated greatly, consistent with the Swedish site.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-lens-performance-on-7D

"This lens is more likely to be used in conjunction with an APS-C format body where it’s the equivalent of a 240-960mm f5-6.3. ............ Sharpness is lower throughout the zoom range, unfortunately, and it drops significantly over the 400mm to 600mm range."

I tried the Tamron at 600mm on the 70D, and it was very disappointing although I got excellent results with it on the 5DIII, so I believe both DxO and the Swedes on the Tamron 150-600mm. My experience and every other report I have seen rates the 100-400mm II as excellent on crop as well as FF, and I routinely use it at 560mm on the 7DII. In contrast, My old 100-400 Mk 1 was fine on FF but rubbish on crop, again consistent with DxO.

I await other websites to test the Sigmas on crop, and the Swedes to do the 100-400 II.

 

[docsmith]

I await other websites to test the Sigmas on crop, and the Swedes to do the 100-400 II.

Sounds good. It will be interesting to see both more reviews and more actual photos come in. If the observations the Sweds made and you made with the Tamron hold up, in that the 3rd party 150-600 lenses take a large hit on crop vs FF compared to the Canon lenses....then that would be a good reason for crop users to buy something like the Canon 100-400 II over the 3rd party 150-600mm lenses. So hopefully we get such a direct comparison, ie 100-400II plus 1.4xTC vs the 150-600S on crop bodies from the same source.

Of course, I am already seeing some pretty great images taken with the 150-600's on crop (links provided above, and also, scrolling through the lens page on flickr).

 

[ahsanford]

I await other websites to test the Sigmas on crop, and the Swedes to do the 100-400 II.

Sounds good. It will be interesting to see both more reviews and more actual photos come in. If the observations the Sweds made and you made with the Tamron hold up, in that the 3rd party 150-600 lenses take a large hit on crop vs FF compared to the Canon lenses....then that would be a good reason for crop users to buy something like the Canon 100-400 II over the 3rd party 150-600mm lenses. So hopefully we get such a direct comparison, ie 100-400II plus 1.4xTC vs the 150-600S on crop bodies from the same source.

Of course, I am already seeing some pretty great images taken with the 150-600's on crop (links provided above, and also, scrolling through the lens page on flickr).

Not sure if this was covered, but LensTip has tested all the recent 150-600 offerings and report resolution on FF and crop.

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary:
http://www.lenstip.com/434.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

Sigma 150-600 Sports:
http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

Tamron 150-600:
http://www.lenstip.com/403.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_Di_VC_USD_Image_resolution.html

They have the Canon 100-400 II there as well, but it's apples and oranges when you aren't covering 200mm of FL.

- A

 

[AlanF]

Lenstip has NOT tested those lenses on crop. You have, unfortunately, misread the tests. They tested on the Canon EOS 5D MkIII and reported the resolution at the "edge of the APS-C sensor" - that is what the resolution is at a distance on the FF sensor which would correspond to the edge of the APS-C.

Lenstip has yet to test the 100-400 Mk II - it is indeed listed on the site, but it is untested.

 

[9VIII]

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

When I look at the 100-400MkII on crop vs. the Sigma 150-600 S on full frame, they look virtually identical to me, maybe even giving the edge to the cropped 100-400MkII, and that lens is actually giving a 640mm equivalent FOV.
There's a lot of reasons to stick with the Canon.
If I had a full frame sport body already it might be a close call, but the 100-400MkII is a lens with very few downsides.
(Yes at f8 the Sigma improves a tiny bit more in comparison.)

 

[ahsanford]

Lenstip has NOT tested those lenses on crop. You have, unfortunately, misread the tests. They tested on the Canon EOS 5D MkIII and reported the resolution at the "edge of the APS-C sensor" - that is what the resolution is at a distance on the FF sensor which would correspond to the edge of the APS-C.

Lenstip has yet to test the 100-400 Mk II - it is indeed listed on the site, but it is untested.

Ah, yes. I stand corrected.

- A

 

[AJ]

Thanks for the link to the TDP charts. I just did a quick comparison between the Sigma S and the Tamron 150-600. The Tamron edges the Sigma at 300 and 400 mm, but at 500 and 600 mm the Sigma is clearly better.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

When I look at the 100-400MkII on crop vs. the Sigma 150-600 S on full frame, they look virtually identical to me, maybe even giving the edge to the cropped 100-400MkII, and that lens is actually giving a 640mm equivalent FOV.
There's a lot of reasons to stick with the Canon.
If I had a full frame sport body already it might be a close call, but the 100-400MkII is a lens with very few downsides.
(Yes at f8 the Sigma improves a tiny bit more in comparison.)

7D-II is not the same as a 1Ds-III both in terms of resolution and AA filter so in my mind at least these are not directly comparable setups.

Here is Sigma@600mm,f/8 vs Canon@560,f/8:
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

Also just out of interest here is Sigma@840,f/10 vs Canon @800,f/11:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=8&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

To me the Sigma with less teleconversion appears to resolve better than the shorter Canon 100-400 especially in the central portion of the frame which is most important if you are reach limited.

 

[Deleted member 369279]

Hi everyone,

I had a 7Dmk1 and the orginal 100-400. It worked well. Then I switched to the 5Dmk3 and the Tamron 150-600. It was very good. I replaced the Tamron with the Sigma 150-600 sport. On the 5Dmk3 it is very good. On the 7Dmk2 it is terrible. I am going on a trip next week. When I am back I will send the 7Dmk2 for repair. If it doesn't fix the problem I will look for another solution. I would like to post some sample images. 100% crop of the files. I am using lightroom 5. But I have never done this before. So I have no idea how to do it. If someone can explain this to me I could post them.

Vincwat

 

[AlanF]

There is probably absolutely nothing wrong with your 7DII. The truth is that both the Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are very poor on crop above 500mm. I posted on page 2 of this thread links to Swedish websites where they have measured the MTFs on crop - they are down to very weak values of 0.4-0.5 or worse at 600mm. Here are the links again.

http://www.lensfreaks.com/lens-reviews/tamron/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd-review/

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

I am now really pleased I sold my Tamron for the 100-400 II. On FF, the Tamron was fine but it was weak on my 70D as you have found on your 7DII. But, I routinely use the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC III on the 7DII with excellent results.

 

[weixing]

Hi everyone,

I had a 7Dmk1 and the orginal 100-400. It worked well. Then I switched to the 5Dmk3 and the Tamron 150-600. It was very good. I replaced the Tamron with the Sigma 150-600 sport. On the 5Dmk3 it is very good. On the 7Dmk2 it is terrible. I am going on a trip next week. When I am back I will send the 7Dmk2 for repair. If it doesn't fix the problem I will look for another solution. I would like to post some sample images. 100% crop of the files. I am using lightroom 5. But I have never done this before. So I have no idea how to do it. If someone can explain this to me I could post them.

Vincwat

Hi,
Have you try to shooting it using live view? If you think the IQ result is still not good when shoot using live view, then probably the problem is not with the 7D2... I suggest you look at Canon Super Telephoto prime.

Anyway, I'm waiting for the Canon 100-400mm II to replace my Tamron 150-600mm, but I'm changing not because of Tarmon IQ (I'm quite happy with my Tarmon IQ and AF speed after the firmware update)... the high magnification, very short MFD, weight lesser and smaller package are the main reason I'm changing.

Have a nice day.

 

[docsmith]

Bryan/TDP's review of the 150-600S is up.....

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

 

[jmeyer]

Hi, I rented the sigma sport two weekends ago from LensRental, to give it a shot. I currently use a 50D and 400mm 5.6, so I was looking to get a few extra mm without thousands of dollars. I have to say I was quite impressed with the lens. I thought it was very sharp at 600mm. I didn't use it at any other focal lengths. One thing I did notice, though, is you need light. It struggles with slow shutter speeds. Here are a couple of pictures I took with the lens at 600mm.

 

[meywd]

Hi, I rented the sigma sport two weekends ago from LensRental, to give it a shot. I currently use a 50D and 400mm 5.6, so I was looking to get a few extra mm without thousands of dollars. I have to say I was quite impressed with the lens. I thought it was very sharp at 600mm. I didn't use it at any other focal lengths. One thing I did notice, though, is you need light. It struggles with slow shutter speeds. Here are a couple of pictures I took with the lens at 600mm.

nice shots, are these 100% crops?

 

[jmeyer]

No, just cropped down to, what I think, frames the bird nicely

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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

I'd love to put my hands on this Sigma for a Safari but for practical terms I see myself upgrading as well to the lighter 100-400mmL II because of the weight and portability advantages.

 

[Dixiekurtz]

I had the Tamron with a 7D, they didn't play well together. Then I got the 7D 2. I probably got onr good shot out of 10. I wasn't sure if it was the camera or the lens. My other lenses worked fine so I unloaded the Tamron and got the Sigma Sport I personally couldn't be happier. Sharp and the focus is light years better than the Tamron. Looking back I'm sure I had a bad copy.

 

[docsmith]

Bryan has tested the 150-600C on the 7DII

Compared to the 100-400 II @ 400

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Compared to the 100-400 II plus 1.4TC
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=0

FF vs crop

Sigma 150-600C
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

100-400 II plus 1.4TC

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

We each will have our own opinion, but both lenses take a hit going over to crop. To me, they are very similar on crop. While I am a big fan of Canon, I have to say, I think the price difference will come into play for many users.