Sigma 150-600 Sport image quality on TDP

[AlanF]

Doc
You haven't made the best comparisons. First, the 100-400mm II is better at f/5.6 than f/8, and at f/5.6 has a slight edge on the 7DII at 400mm over the Sigma 150-600mm at 400mm f/8, with an extra stop of signal/noise to favour the Canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Secondly, with the Sigma at 600mm and the Canon at 560mm both at f/8 on the 7DII, the Canon is significantly sharper in the all-important centre - best seen by toggling between the two on the central circular arcs. The Sigma loses contrast.

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

Finally, in your last comparison of the 1.4xTC + 100-400mm II on the 5DIII vs the 7DII, it looks like the 7DII is soft - but in practice it isn't because the extra 1.5x "extra reach" more than compensates. I know this from much experience in the past. I returned last night from a birding trip to Barcelona and the Pyrenees where my wife used the 5DIII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII and I used the 7DII, and the 7DII won out every time for long distance shots.

 

[AlanF]

Bryan has now posted the 150-600mm Sport image quality on the 7DII.

The S is better than the C at 600mm f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

The 100-400mm II at 560mm is midway between the two.

Versus the slightly less weighty 300mm f2.8 II + 2xTC both at f/8 and 600mm, the Canon is much sharper.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

whereas it is much closer on FF.

 

[docsmith]

It doesn't look like this has been posted yet, but the review of the "C" is also up:

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

My overall conclusion is that just over a year ago, we had one lens, the 100-400 Mk 1, in the less than $10k range. Now we have 4 lenses in the less than $2,200 range that are all at least pretty good for people to chose between. That is excellent. I do tend to favor Bryan's results (not exclusively, but he tends to be very good) and, based on his results, there are pros and cons to each and I do not see any of the 4 falling apart on crop.

Personally, I went with the Sigma 150-600S although I admit, the 100-400II plus 1.4xTC is better than I had thought it would be when I made my purchase. But, as I already own the 70-200 II, I am really after the 400-600 range (I've even used 840 mm @ f/11 which isn't bad). So, that works for me. But for those in the $2k+ price range, I can easily see picking either the 100-400II or 150-600S, but I imagine most will pick the 100-400 II. For those in the ~$1k price range, the 150-600C and the Tamron both hold their own remarkably well.

Where once we had so little, now we have so much.

 

[LSeries]

I needed to do some AFMA for my 150-600 Sport + 7D mk II combination and after that it's pretty nice, actually.

 

[ahsanford]

Personally, I went with the Sigma 150-600S although I admit, the 100-400II plus 1.4xTC is better than I had thought it would be when I made my purchase. But, as I already own the 70-200 II, I am really after the 400-600 range (I've even used 840 mm @ f/11 which isn't bad).

This is the heart of it for me. Why doesn't Canon offer (say) a shorter FL multiplier lens like a 300-600 f/6.3L IS? It wouldn't be a threat to the high end superteles but would be a clear IQ upgrade over all the lower priced 4x zooms or teleconvertered shorter lenses.

Folks who want ultimate reach today are forced to use one of the following:

1) A comically pricey best-in-class supertele
2) A T/C on the 100-400 II
3) A T/C on a cheaper supertele like the 400 f/5.6L
4) One of the three third party 150-600 options

So, for most shooters, Canon might get a T/C sale but that's it. Offering a 300-600 f/6.3L IS at (say) some price above the 150-600 glass (but not terribly so, say $2500) would sell very well. It would focus faster than a teleconverted lens and have that first-party confidence with AF, handling, weather-sealing and such.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

Personally, I went with the Sigma 150-600S although I admit, the 100-400II plus 1.4xTC is better than I had thought it would be when I made my purchase. But, as I already own the 70-200 II, I am really after the 400-600 range (I've even used 840 mm @ f/11 which isn't bad).

This is the heart of it for me. Why doesn't Canon offer (say) a shorter FL multiplier lens like a 300-600 f/6.3L IS? It wouldn't be a threat to the high end superteles but would be a clear IQ upgrade over all the lower priced 4x zooms or teleconvertered shorter lenses.

Folks who want ultimate reach today are forced to use one of the following:

1) A comically pricey best-in-class supertele
2) A T/C on the 100-400 II
3) A T/C on a cheaper supertele like the 400 f/5.6L
4) One of the three third party 150-600 options

So, for most shooters, Canon might get a T/C sale but that's it. Offering a 300-600 f/6.3L IS at (say) some price above the 150-600 glass (but not terribly so, say $2500) would sell very well. It would focus faster than a teleconverted lens and have that first-party confidence with AF, handling, weather-sealing and such.

- A

Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6. The EF-M 55-200 ends at f/6.3 but that uses the image sensor for AF, not traditional PDAF. It would be limiting if people shelled out thousands for an 300-600 f/6.3L IS and then can't use many AF ponts. However, this might change once the mirror is replaced down the road.

 

[docsmith]

Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.

I had heard that and was concerned when I got my 150-600S. But I have checked and not noticed a problem with the non-center AF points.

 

[Random Orbits]

Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.

I had heard that and was concerned when I got my 150-600S. But I have checked and not noticed a problem with the non-center AF points.

On which bodies?

 

[docsmith]

Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.

I had heard that and was concerned when I got my 150-600S. But I have checked and not noticed a problem with the non-center AF points.

On which bodies?

5DIII.

 

[Random Orbits]

Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.

I had heard that and was concerned when I got my 150-600S. But I have checked and not noticed a problem with the non-center AF points.

On which bodies?

5DIII.

Thanks! How well does the 150-600S work as a walk-around lens? I'd opted for the 100-400 II as an upgrade to the original, but the 150-600S is significantly heavier. I've usually tied the BR strap to the L-bracket rather than the lens tripod ring because I prefer walking with the camera lens down, but I'm not sure if the L-bracket/body tripod socket would be strong enough to handle the larger weight.

 

[docsmith]

Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.

I had heard that and was concerned when I got my 150-600S. But I have checked and not noticed a problem with the non-center AF points.

On which bodies?

5DIII.

Thanks! How well does the 150-600S work as a walk-around lens? I'd opted for the 100-400 II as an upgrade to the original, but the 150-600S is significantly heavier. I've usually tied the BR strap to the L-bracket rather than the lens tripod ring because I prefer walking with the camera lens down, but I'm not sure if the L-bracket/body tripod socket would be strong enough to handle the larger weight.

It works. I have hiked wildlife preserves with it. I am not going to kid you and if a "walk around" lens is your main purpose, the 100-400 II may be a better option. But the 150-600S can fit it in my flipside 400AW when mounted to the 5DIII, but it is a bit tight. I also have it strapped to a BR using the strap mount on the 5DIII or foot of the 150-600S. If the strap mount, I usually hold the lens by the foot while walking. I haven't tried connecting to my L-bracket, so I can't really speak to that.