Sigma Announce a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport Lens

[Steve]

Well, owning the EF 600mm f/4 L II myself, I honestly having a VERY hard time believing anyone who owned one would ever sell it for the Temmy 150-600. If you've ever used a lens of the same caliber as the Canon 600...there is simply no alternative. You usually use such a lens on a tripod...so it isn't like weight is really a concern. I could see ADDING the 150-600 for use while traveling, but I just cannot imagine anyone selling the 600...not unless they had serious financial concerns and were forced to.

I can definitely see someone selling off a 600 f4 entirely because of weight. Sure, you'll probably have it tripod mounted while actually shooting, but what about hiking it in to the shooting location? Especially when you consider just how many people doing this kind of thing are elderly retirees? I just ran into a guy a couple days ago when shooting shorebirds who was talking about ditching his 1DIV and 500 f4 because it was too heavy and hard to move around. Something like the Tammy/Siggy 150-600 is great for older folk doing bird photography or airshows or whatever for fun.

 

[mycanonphotos]

Better than the 1.4X extender on the 100-400 ??...??...??

APS-C 100-400=160-640
Full Frame 100-400 w 1.4X=140-560

If Sigmas 150-600 is anything like their lenses of late...then its a 1-2 punch in the face of Canons new missing in action 100-400...

 

[scyrene]

I can't be the only one who uses a super tele (albeit slightly lighter than the 600) almost exclusively handheld? The idea you'd always have it on a tripod is a bit perplexing. For sport sure, I seen photos of the sidelines of football matches etc. But for wildlife... I find it rare that the things I want to photograph are static enough that I could set up and use a tripod :-\

 

[RomainF]

I can't be the only one who uses a super tele (albeit slightly lighter than the 600) almost exclusively handheld? The idea you'd always have it on a tripod is a bit perplexing. For sport sure, I seen photos of the sidelines of football matches etc. But for wildlife... I find it rare that the things I want to photograph are static enough that I could set up and use a tripod :-\

I've never used a tripod, even a monopod, with my 600 (version I) and I can't even understand how one can work that way… On the side line of a soccer/rugby game, maybe, but that's all. It ain't that heavy, and IS + ISOs these days make it easy for us to shoot handheld.
Twice a week, i work in the parliament, handheld, with the IS i can get down to 1/125 (but that's the definitive limit).

Well……if I may say so……when I watch the pictures shot by the people on this forum who tend to only work with a tripod……I think that they really should try to shoot handheld...

 

[Steve]

I shoot my 300 2.8 + 2x TC almost exclusively handheld when hiking. My Sigma 300-800 f5.6, not so much, although I can handhold it. To get really good wildlife/bird shots though you have to use a hide and attractor or sit still for a long period of time and wait for the wildlife to come to you, in which case a tripod/support is ideal. I just laid in the mud for hours the other day until the shorebirds I wanted to shoot got comfortable enough with my presence to come within my minimum focusing distance. I got nice, full frame, eye-level photos of the birds, with prey. No way I could handhold a 300-800mm lens while laying fully prone without my ground pod. BIF shots, handheld is often better, but I found it to be much easier to track flying pelicans with a tripod and gimbal while using the Sigmonster.

 

[RickWagoner]

Not a birders lens with that weight, size, aperture. The large question is would a 400mm 5.6 still be better cropped to the same reach at 600mm. If so Most would take the lighter, smaller, affordable and sharper Canon for birds.

 

[GaryJ]

Tried shooting my 600LII handheld,I am in my sixties and after a hard life mI just don't have the strength to hand hold for longer than a couple of minutes,please remember all photogs aren't weightlifters,more power to you who don't use a tripod, unfortunately I need to.

 

[weixing]

Hi,

I can't be the only one who uses a super tele (albeit slightly lighter than the 600) almost exclusively handheld? The idea you'd always have it on a tripod is a bit perplexing. For sport sure, I seen photos of the sidelines of football matches etc. But for wildlife... I find it rare that the things I want to photograph are static enough that I could set up and use a tripod :-\

I've never used a tripod, even a monopod, with my 600 (version I) and I can't even understand how one can work that way… On the side line of a soccer/rugby game, maybe, but that's all. It ain't that heavy, and IS + ISOs these days make it easy for us to shoot handheld.
Twice a week, i work in the parliament, handheld, with the IS i can get down to 1/125 (but that's the definitive limit).

Well……if I may say so……when I watch the pictures shot by the people on this forum who tend to only work with a tripod……I think that they really should try to shoot handheld...

Not sure how you guys management to handheld the 600mm f4 for an extended period of time...

Anyway, I had seen more than 20 people using 600mm f4 and never seen one handheld it... not even the 500mm f4... all are use on a tripod.

Have a nice day.

 

[lescrane]

100 oz. Sigma, 68 oz Tamron.


Sigma may be "better" but we're talking heavy here, w/more elements for same speed, focal length.

Personally, not an option. Hope it works for the younger stronger photographers.

(now I would love to see canon w/more DO lenses, but don't think it will happen)

 

[Khufu]

(now I would love to see canon w/more DO lenses, but don't think it will happen)

Isn't there a new 400mm DO rumoured for this months announcements, or has that gone the way of the 100-400?!

Also, I'm quite happy hand-holding my 400mm f/5.6L, apparently that's not so impressive in this thread though

400mm f/5.6L and the SL1/100D is a nice, lightweight pairing - though the shape and weight distribution can be a little odd. I had fun trying it out for a while alongside the 5D3, pretty much as a "1.6x Crop Digital Back" to grab out my bag as necessary and throw back in again, that thing really is "Super Light" - but ultimately I've been re-wooed by the 70D, with it's flippy-floppy screen, 1/3-stop selectable ISOs, weight, bells, whistles et al... Anybody in the UK needing to buy an SL1/100D?

 

[Lee Jay]

Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.

Sometimes we play sports during the day, here on Earth. Daytime is often about 7 stops brighter than nighttime under the lights. So, unless you have a sports lens that's about 7 stops faster than f/6.3 I guess you can't shoot night sports.

I shot all day today at f/6.3, and I was getting around 1/1000th at ISO 200. That was in leas than perfect weather. Guess what? 1/1000th is often enough but where it isn't my camera does produce usable images at higher ISOs.

 

[Chaitanya]

Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable. I'd like to see how it compares to the 120-300 S+2x both at 600mm and both at F8.
I currently use the Sigma 300+2x which is alright at F8. I would prefer Sigma to update that lens and I hope they do or else a 400 F4 OS would be very sweet.

Even I would love a 400mm f4 lens with 1.4tc for photographing lizards and occasional birding. I am using the 400mm f5.6L right now for that purpose. A 500mm f5.6 lens also would sell like hot cakes amongst birders who are just starting out.

 

[scyrene]

I shoot my 300 2.8 + 2x TC almost exclusively handheld when hiking. My Sigma 300-800 f5.6, not so much, although I can handhold it. To get really good wildlife/bird shots though you have to use a hide and attractor or sit still for a long period of time and wait for the wildlife to come to you, in which case a tripod/support is ideal. I just laid in the mud for hours the other day until the shorebirds I wanted to shoot got comfortable enough with my presence to come within my minimum focusing distance. I got nice, full frame, eye-level photos of the birds, with prey. No way I could handhold a 300-800mm lens while laying fully prone without my ground pod. BIF shots, handheld is often better, but I found it to be much easier to track flying pelicans with a tripod and gimbal while using the Sigmonster.

Interesting. I sometimes wonder if I'm missing a trick by not doing this, but it just doesn't seem feasible where I go. Maybe it's simply that - the environments we shoot in. I have a portable hide, and a tripod, but they almost never come out with me (extra weight for one thing!). I tend to range around for a few miles, and photograph what I encounter, rather than staking species out. As for waders... we have a lot here, but I don't think lying on the mud would be an option. It's either inaccessible (without a boat!), or too dangerous to go onto.

Tried shooting my 600LII handheld,I am in my sixties and after a hard life mI just don't have the strength to hand hold for longer than a couple of minutes,please remember all photogs aren't weightlifters,more power to you who don't use a tripod, unfortunately I need to.

Oh sure, I get that. I wasn't trying to sound superior - I absolutely appreciate some people would find it too heavy. I thought I'd need a monopod at least when I first got it. But I just got used to the weight. I never thought of myself as strong though. Like I say, I'm genuinely surprised by the suggestion that most people wouldn't hand hold it though.

Also, I'm quite happy hand-holding my 400mm f/5.6L, apparently that's not so impressive in this thread though

Haha, when I got the 400 5.6 I found it depressingly heavy and awkward to begin with. A few weeks after getting the 500 I was used to it. I guess you just get used to what you have. It's not a competition though!

 

[canon1dxman]

Only a minor point, but an important one. That hood on the new Sigma looks like the one off the 120-300 Sport. Mine was forever falling off. seems like it's a feature of the model. Hope they've fixed it.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable.

+1. I dislike f/6.3 zooms but could use something longer than my 100-400.... For motorsports, an f/6.3 maximum aperture is fine, by the way.

The biggest issue with 6.3 zooms is that using them at 6.3 usually yields less than adequate iq. You still need to stop them down to f8 or more to clean up the contrast lines. By then you dont have much to work with when its overcast or late in the day/evening. You end up with a fair weather only lens.

 

[Maui5150]

It is an interesting proposition.

Love the Canon 300mm F/2.8 IS II, and found the 100-400 marginal. I did find when using either the 1.4 of 2 III teleconverters I really noticed the built in delay in AF / Shooting.

So the question almost becomes if the Canon 100-400 is f/4-5.6 and adding a 1.4 makes it a F/5.6 - 6.3 and 140-560, the resolution seems similar, the Canon probably sharper, but also a built in delay of 40% in shooting.

That can be a significant delay in trying to capture a moment. I also noticed a delay in burst

Now the 200-400 looks like an absolutely sweet lens, one I covet, but at the price?

Obviously the 300, 400 and 600s are going to be sharper lenses.

I have really debated the Tamron as a fill in lens. Images look decent but not superb, but for a lot of things that extra reach can be nice.

The Sigma I expect to be 20% maybe 30% higher, and if it is sharper, may be one I bite on. Not nearly as good at the Canons, but the trade off is perhaps the Sigma, the 7D MKII and some extra compared to what the Canon offering is going to cost way more... To get close, have to sacrifice IS

And more I look at it, I can upgrade my backup 5D MKII to the 5D MKIV, buy the 7D MK II and the new Bigma for probably the same amount as a used 600 MM f/4 IS, and still have cash left.

Canon lens hands down better, but two new bodies and long lens which is decent but not great is a fairly nice compromise

 

[Vgramatikov]

Hello
www.500px.com/Vgramatiokov

So i`m wildlife boy. Now i`m using 70d/400 5.6L/200 2.0L
300 2.8 and 600/4 in tha past.

I prefer cheaper, lighter equipment now.
Before two days i tested the Tamron on 40d and it was quite good. Nex week i will test it with 70d.

Sigma surprise me!!!
Seem optical design of the sigma is better. Bigger front element , more elements, special glasses and of course is near 1kg more than the Tamron. May be twice the Tamron price.

MTF`s show better performance than Tamron. At 600mm far better.

So we know that Tamron is good. Sigma have to be much better in 400-600mm range straight from max aperature in order to make me feel better.

So we speak about long slow lens. So AF and sharpness from max aperature is critical!!!

Both lens with this reach will force users to switch to FF cameras such as Nikon d750.
Because thay have the reach and this max f/stop with FF is not problem any more ))

If you want really big reach you may decide to stay with crop camera. But shooting at 600/6.3 is limited by the iso performance, bigger speed needed and of course smaller resolving power of smaller sensor.

400mm is 600 equiv on FF camera. So if we go backwards 150-600mm 5-6.3 lens on FF camera is something like 100-400mm 3.3-4.2 on crop camera. So lens like this is will be much better on FF camera as resolution, overall quality and bokeh.

 

[East Wind Photography]

It is an interesting proposition.

Love the Canon 300mm F/2.8 IS II, and found the 100-400 marginal. I did find when using either the 1.4 of 2 III teleconverters I really noticed the built in delay in AF / Shooting.

So the question almost becomes if the Canon 100-400 is f/4-5.6 and adding a 1.4 makes it a F/5.6 - 6.3 and 140-560, the resolution seems similar, the Canon probably sharper, but also a built in delay of 40% in shooting.

That can be a significant delay in trying to capture a moment. I also noticed a delay in burst

Now the 200-400 looks like an absolutely sweet lens, one I covet, but at the price?

Obviously the 300, 400 and 600s are going to be sharper lenses.

I have really debated the Tamron as a fill in lens. Images look decent but not superb, but for a lot of things that extra reach can be nice.

The Sigma I expect to be 20% maybe 30% higher, and if it is sharper, may be one I bite on. Not nearly as good at the Canons, but the trade off is perhaps the Sigma, the 7D MKII and some extra compared to what the Canon offering is going to cost way more... To get close, have to sacrifice IS

And more I look at it, I can upgrade my backup 5D MKII to the 5D MKIV, buy the 7D MK II and the new Bigma for probably the same amount as a used 600 MM f/4 IS, and still have cash left.

Canon lens hands down better, but two new bodies and long lens which is decent but not great is a fairly nice compromise

The 100-400 wide open at 400 suffers from some coma which affects a camera's ability to phase detect focus. I found that the 100-400 hunted more for focus than a 300 with 1.4xiii.... even more than the 70-200 with a 2xiii.

If I were making a purchase decision, the 100-400 would be at the bottom of my list (if cost was not a major driving issue). All things aside, a used 300mm F2.8L IS (old version) with a 1.4xiii is the best "low" cost choice and still get tack sharp images wide open.

300mm F/4L or 400mm F5.6L would be my next choice.

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.

If you're that close to the sun, an f16 lens will do.

Only if your sport is done in Venus orbit or in some fancy floating city high in the Venus atmosphere. Actually, the surface light level on Venus is very low:

"The cloud cover is such that very little sunlight can penetrate down to the surface, and the light level is only around 5,000–10,000 lux with a visibility of three kilometres. At this level little to no solar energy could conceivably be collected by a probe. Humidity at this level is less than 0.1%.[36] In fact, due to the thick, highly reflective cloud cover the total solar energy received by the planet is less than that of the Earth."

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus)

SCNR

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

Is it just me, or do the weight and filter size specs not sound a bit over the top compared to the Tamron with the same maximum aperture and focal length range?
Or is Sigma doing what they did with their 50mm Art, i.e., sacrificing weight and size (and therefore also cost) to get a boost in IQ that would not be possible with a lighter design?
In IT, we call this KIWI (kill it with iron).

Nonetheless, this announcement is exactly what I had been hoping for after the Tamron turned out to be a bit of a let-down for APS-C users in particular on the long end.
If Sigma can deliver the same level of quality of all their recent Sports and Art lenses with this lens as well, and if the price stays well south of 2k€, I might be interested.