Sigma 150-600mm C Reviews

[AlanF]

The first reviews of the C have appeared in the last day. slrgear gives it a good review

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1736

as does ePhotozine

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-contemporary-review-27247

It's very, very good at short focal lengths, better than the Tamron. However, it is weakest at 600mm, where it seems to be weaker than the Tammy. At 403mm, it appears to have dropped to f/6.3.

 

[lescrane]

tx for posting.

Compared both ephotozine reviews (Tammy and Sigma). As Alan F said, Tammy looks a hair better in sharpness at 600mm f6.3(except edges). Lenses looked identical at 600mm f8.

The Tamron looks a lot better in my reading of the charts in CA.

I am an owner of the Tamron. Three things could have gotten me to change: better sharpness, better CA, better IS. (also weight but that is not a factor as both lenses are about the same). At this point, I don't see any reason to change.

If anything, save $$ up for a Canon 100-400 II for when shorter length w/greater sharpness is needed.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm still dumbfounded by these lens designs (70-xxx, 100-xxx). Obviously compromises have to be made, but why at the long end in nearly every case, even the new 100-400 II? Given my use and what I've seen, read, and heard of others, these lenses are used at the max focal length 90-100% of the time. Either they can't make the long end sharper or they aren't listening to their customers, and the latter seems more likely.

 

[lescrane]

agree. If I'm mounting a lens w/a 600mm reach, I will almost never need it at 150-300. some exceptions, but rare. way back i had a sigma 170-500(on 35mm body). that was reasonable 3:1 zoom. There is of course, the 200-400 w/1.4x, beyond most of our reach. thing is, I don't know if Tamron/sigma made a 300-600, 250-600 at similar price, that it would nec. be sharper at the long end by virtue of a shorter zoom ratio.....

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'm still dumbfounded by these lens designs (70-xxx, 100-xxx). Obviously compromises have to be made, but why at the long end in nearly every case, even the new 100-400 II? Given my use and what I've seen, read, and heard of others, these lenses are used at the max focal length 90-100% of the time. Either they can't make the long end sharper or they aren't listening to their customers, and the latter seems more likely.

I fully agree. If we buy teles is because we'll use them most of the time at the long end. 200-400mm+1.4X is a beautiful sharp lens but way too expensive

 

[9VIII]

I'm still dumbfounded by these lens designs (70-xxx, 100-xxx). Obviously compromises have to be made, but why at the long end in nearly every case, even the new 100-400 II? Given my use and what I've seen, read, and heard of others, these lenses are used at the max focal length 90-100% of the time. Either they can't make the long end sharper or they aren't listening to their customers, and the latter seems more likely.

I agree it would have been nice to see a 200-400f5.6 that's sharper at 400mm, but given that what we got is still basically equal to every other 400mm capable lens on the market (within its price range), that it's nearly flawless at 200-300mm could be seen as just icing on the cake.
It's also undoubtedly the best built zoom lens ever made.
And it's nearly a Macro lens, which makes it particularly hard for me to be negative about that lens right now. Really the only thing I could want out of that lens that it doesn't do is tilt-shift.

(if the 200-400 would have had better Maximum Magnification I would have had to get a second job, thankfully it doesn't)

 

[justaCanonuser]

I'm still dumbfounded by these lens designs (70-xxx, 100-xxx). Obviously compromises have to be made, but why at the long end in nearly every case, even the new 100-400 II? Given my use and what I've seen, read, and heard of others, these lenses are used at the max focal length 90-100% of the time. Either they can't make the long end sharper or they aren't listening to their customers, and the latter seems more likely.

Obviously a good performance on the long tele end would degrade the lens' performance on the short end too much. But I agree, a best possible optical performance at the long end would be what 80-90 % of the users would prefer, including me.

Two years ago I had the chance to test the Sigmonster 300-800mm on a Sigma booth for a while, I always wanted to take a closer look at this rare but famous lens (feels like a bazooka). But although this huge lens starts on the short end already in the medium tele range, it shows the typical behavior of tele zooms: its optical performance close to 800mm was not bad but looked a bit soft. I have only a 500mm Canon prime so I have no experience with the 800mm range (w/o TCs) but I am sure that Canon's and Nikon's 800mm primes beat the Sigmonster easily in optical performance at the long end (even Sigma's old 800/5.6 should be better). So, if you want best optical performance you obviously still have to stick with good primes.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Thanks for sharing these good reviews, AlanF. I found one very interesting but nearly hidden information in ephotozine's reviews: In the "+" list, they mention "fast focusing", in the Tammy 150-600's review they do not. So it looks like the Sigma's AF performance could be better than the Tammy's really bad one, the biggest downside of this lens. We have a rich experience with Tammy for my wife's Nikon gear, and I tested a copy thoroughly with my 7D(I) and 5D3 with the result that its out-of-focus rate at the long end drives me nuts. I am too much spoiled by the fast, reliable AF performance of my Canon tele primes - they are tools, the Tammy is a toy. In Norway I met a guy shooting with a Tammy/70D combo birds, and he told me that he had given up to shoot anything moving a bit faster than a stone (on the long end).

So, if the Sigmas C and S perform AF wise better than the Tammy they might be a true alternative for Canon's 100-400 II, if one needs a good tele zoom in the sub-8 k$ range. In real life, in wildlife and sports, you can't avoid action, so a fast and reliable AF IMHO is much more important than the last tiny bits of optical performance in the lab.

 

[photonius]

I'm still dumbfounded by these lens designs (70-xxx, 100-xxx). Obviously compromises have to be made, but why at the long end in nearly every case, even the new 100-400 II? Given my use and what I've seen, read, and heard of others, these lenses are used at the max focal length 90-100% of the time. Either they can't make the long end sharper or they aren't listening to their customers, and the latter seems more likely.

It probably does have to do with the way these things are designed. In a way all these telezooms seem to work a bit like teleconverters. I.e. it's like you have a fixed focal length lens, and as you zoom to longer focal lengths, you simply magnify the central part of the image more and more (like with teleconverters). That means of course as you zoom, aberrations are magnified. So, based on this principle, the wide end will probably tend to be better. The question is then, how much are developers/companies investing into getting the best performance at the tele end. The wide end will probably almost automatically end up a bit better (sort of like the Metabones speed booster).

 

[docsmith]

I could be wrong, but the way I look at it is that they could be optimizing the IQ at 600 mm. It just so happens when they do the best they can at 600 mm the shorter focal lengths are even better. This makes some sense to me as the shorter focal lengths can take advantage of the excessively large front element.

As an "S" owner, I have been watching this closely. I am happy with my "S," but if I could save $1k, size and weight, I would do so. It is really amazing to me have few sites have reviewed both lenses (or the "S" vs the Tamron), so we really have only one comparison point at this time, ephotozine. Based these tests, the "S" is a bit better at 600 mm f/8-11. But that is really it. As I have seen discussed elsewhere, the bokeh does seem better with the "S". But I will be curious to hear about difference in AF between the S and C.

I know many have jumped on the 100-400 II, and I have been tempted. But in looking at the ephotozine reviews, the Sigma S is pretty comparable @ 600 mm to the 100-400 II @ 400. I have to think it is better compared to the 100-400 II +1.4 tc (granted, I've seen some nice photos going by).

 

[AlanF]

docsmith
There is something wrong with the ePhotozine measurements of the 100-400 Mk II at 400mm. It has the MTF jumping up sharply from f/5.6 to f/8 and then down again. Photozone has the lens sharpest at f/5.6, well into "excellent". TDP has the lens very much the same at f.5.6 and 8 and my own copy of the lens is as sharp at f/5.6.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

My 100-400 II + 1.4xTC +7DII is giving very similar results to my 300/2.8 II + 2xTC + 5D III, both at f/8 (apart from noise levels).

 

[lw]

Also very positive Sigma 150-600 C reviews at
http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=https://news.mapcamera.com/KASYAPA.php%3Fitemid%3D27274
and
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d-pixx.de%2F2015%2F03%2Fsigma-150-600mm-contemporary-test%2F&edit-text=&act=url

The Sigma 5 to 6.3 / 150-600 mm Contemporary is an excellent lens and is located in the imaging performance almost equal to the Sports version. Often the difference is only seen when you look at the images in parallel. The sport is a trifle forward only in the very long focal lengths.

Why should anyone be € 2099 to spend on sports variant, when the Contemporary is already available for € 1399 plus also weighs 800 g less?

Mine has just been delivered!

 

[docsmith]

docsmith
There is something wrong with the ePhotozine measurements of the 100-400 Mk II at 400mm. It has the MTF jumping up sharply from f/5.6 to f/8 and then down again. Photozone has the lens sharpest at f/5.6, well into "excellent". TDP has the lens very much the same at f.5.6 and 8 and my own copy of the lens is as sharp at f/5.6.

Ha....you mean we shouldn't get all wrapped up in minutia and whether one lens scored a 3258 and another a 3324?

Yes, there is a lot of inconsistency when you start comparing test results. The 100-400 II @ 400 f/5.6 does seem a bit inconsistent with the other reviews, but so is ephotozine's "excellent" characterization of the edges at 400 mm f/8. At photozone the edges straddle "good" to "very good."

Then, start comparing ephotozine's/photozone's ratings of the 100-400 L (I and II) and the 400 f/5.6 with the reviews that lens rentals are doing and there are some reasonable inconsistencies there as well.

What are we to do? Oh yeah, go out and shoot. I've been impressed with what I've seen from the 100-400 II. But I am very much impressed with the 150-600S as well. I got to shoot it side by side with the Tamron 150-600. Very nice lens, but I was glad to go home with my Sigma at the end of the day.

I am still tempted by the 100-400 II. In addition to the optics, the MFD is very attractive. Seems to me that would open up some interesting options. Maybe later this year I'll pick one up and shoot it side by side with the Sigma 150-600S.

 

[docsmith]

Yep...there are a fair number of reviews out there now....Sigma Rumors has a page where they are trying to aggregate links to all of them. Some additional ones are in the comments:

http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/03/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-contemporary-reviews-comparisons/

Overall, seems like we have gone from limited options to several very good ones...two from Sigma, the Tamron, the 100-400 II plus 1.4 TC, etc.

 

[lw]

Mine just arrived. First impressions of half a dozen pics using the lens straight from the box were favourable. But its a dull cloudy day here so all my shots were at 1600 iso. Too busy to do some real testing - will have to wait till tomorrow.

FYI, I am in UK, so anyone in UK interested in this lens, stock is now becoming available.

First pic below, out of the box, no MFA. Uncropped. 70D, 600mm, F7.1, 1/400s, iso1600

 

[unfocused]

I agree with many others here. I would much rather manufacturers reduce the range and improve sharpness. As far as I am concerned, even a 300-600mm zoom would be an adequate range.

 

[Ladislav]

I got my Sigma 150-600 C and used it quite extensively over the weekend:

• Colchester Zoo - mostly static images of animals in enclosures photographed through poor glass
• Airtattoo airshow - flying jets and historic planes - anything between 1/125s to 1/2500s
• Seal trip in Norflok - taking pictures of Common Seals on beach and in the sea from small boat which was moving a lot in waves - 1/2000s to 1/4000s

Before I went on trip, I used USB dock to do some basic AF improvements based on FoCal testing and configured custom functions to:

• C1 - AF speed priority and Dynamic OS
• C2 - AF speed priority, Dynamic OS and Focus limiter for 30m to infinity

I shot whole airshow with C2 and used C1 and C2 during Seal trip. I used 6D with AI Servo and sequence mode - center AF point only. I took almost 4k pictures during those three days so I didn't have time to go through most of them but here are few points I noticed.

Main positives:

• Sharpness and overall image quality is significantly better then I expected at the long end and I have absolutely no complains about the sharpness in bellow 400mm
• Even with limited AF capability of my camera I had really high success rate in getting good AF - especially C2 mode helped A LOT

Main negatives:

• Optical stabilization - initially, I was so disappointed that I thought my copy may be faulty but when I thought about my other lenses, it may be just about half stop worse then my Canon 70-300 L. It is exaggerated by long focal length. In short, keeper rate drops a lot when I get bellow 1/320s. That was especially problem on airshow where I wanted to do panning at speeds down to 1/125s.

Other small positives:

• Lens doesn't look cheap at all. It is well build and comes with nice case.

Other small negatives:

• Very weird experience I had in the zoo: I had my camera on PeakDesign strap with lens attached and on multiple occasions mirror lock somehow accidentally turned on - it was last selected item in my custom action list. I assume I just somehow accidentally switched it on. It didn't happen again when I started using strap supplied with the lens and attached to tripod collar. I don't want to think about what would happen if last thing used in my menus was format card ...
• There were few showers during Airshow and since this lens is not weather sealed it had to go to the bag and there were plenty of photographers who at that time probably regretted that they didn't invest to Sport version.
• Zoom ring - the amount of rotation from 150mm to 600mm is very long and it is difficult and inconvenient to track a something while zooming from one end to another.
• Switches on lens are very easy to move and sometimes got to some middle position where you are not sure which mode is turned on.
• Sealing again - I expect this lens to be full of dust quite soon. I actually had one particle in the lens when it arrived but it doesn't affect picture quality.

It may not look like that from the list of positives and negatives, but I'm very impressed with the lens. I initially thought that I may be returning the lens if I don't like it but it now looks very unlikely. I will probably communicate with retailer about optical stabilization and try to figure out if ti is in spec but overall I like the lens. I hope it will perform even better with newer camera bodies because I'm going to update my 6D to at least Mk.II.

Why I didn't buy Sport version instead? Because based on a lot of reviews I watched and read, Sigma shot themselves to the foot by releasing these two lenses together with almost no difference on the paper. Moreover most reviewers agree on the main points where C version is faster lens (transitions to slower aperture later in the zoom range), with better sharpness and faster AF, lighter, better hand holdable and cheaper. Sport has benefit only in build and weather sealing. If Sigma made Sport version 4-5.6 with 400mm still at 5.0, I wouldn't probably even watch/read reviews for C and went straight to Sport. Making more noticeable difference between those models should be possible considering that they don't share optical design and dimensions.

Or even better, Sigma should had add weather sealing to C version, raise cost by $200 and scrap Sport version completely.