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

[scyrene]

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.

FYI adding a 1.4x extender to an f/5.6 lens makes it f/8 (one stop narrower).

 

[RodS57]

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 don't own the Canon 600mm and I can't imagine that either! Especially at 600mm. I rented the Tammy for a trip to Malheur Wildlife Refuge and wasn't that impressed- I'll try to rent the Sigma though as I don't see my budget ever getting to the 600mm. I do wonder if any of them have considered a crop sensor long lens- would that be considerably less expensive to build...and market... and would there be enough demand? Say, a fixed 500mm?

I have the tamron and I find image quality acceptable but not great. I closely followed reviews for the tamron for about six months. There was one universal claim, "for the price it is a great lens." If the sigma has 10% better IQ and costs 50% more than it needs something else to justify the price. So far I haven't seen any pricing mentioned.

 

[Steve]

So far I haven't seen any pricing mentioned.

Sigma Rumors mentioned $2k but qualified it by saying they don't believe that's accurate.

 

[RodS57]

So far I haven't seen any pricing mentioned.

Sigma Rumors mentioned $2k but qualified it by saying they don't believe that's accurate.

It could get interesting for sure. One can assume the sigma will generate as many forum posts as the tamron did. Reading the release the sigma does have some features missing from the tamron. (Ie: ability to lock at any focal length and two stage IS/OS.)

As some else noted, with a 105mm front element vs 95 for the tamron maybe it is a faster F6.3

 

[Maui5150]

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.

LOL Lets see all and all I prefer the Canon 1Dx to the 5D MKII

That is pretty much your comparison almost. 300MM F/2.8 IS (1st version) is a $6500 lens ($12K retail)

I am assuming the new Bigma will be more like the Tamron, but better build all and all, so expecting more $1500 or so.

Part of the attraction with a Telephoto zoom is range. I have used the 300mm /f2.8 IS. Loved it. At the same time though, hated it as well when shooting sports because often I only had a small field to shoot in, where as having a range, I could continuously shoot action coming towards me and get a dozen shots of an approaching athlete over a few seconds versus a smaller segment of time.

No doubt a 5.6 - 6.3 is limited, but a fair amount of the time when I was shooting the 300MM I was shooting at 5.6 - 8 anyways

This will not be a nighttime or overcast lens, but for daylight, very serviceable.

As well... there is also 200mm of reach more.

Other part of performance... Again... AF.... When using the teleconverters either 1.4 or 2 the AF is deliberately slowed by that same factor as well.

Having a tack sharp image but just a smidge too late can be useless as well.

Depends on what you are shooting.

For sports and action I want to hit the shutter and CLICK and not wait wait click. Now if Canon introduces a version IV of the Teleconverters where AF not slowed, then that could be a different matter.

 

[pknight]

I have used a 100-400 for years, and have had the Tamron 150-600 for a few months. It took me a few weeks to hone my style and camera settings for the Tammy, and during that time I was concerned. Now, I have gotten used to how it handles, and with some MFA I am getting very sharp shots at 600mm, despite the rumors of problems at that length. Given this experience I am skeptical of reviews from short-term users,

Indeed it is a lens that needs lots of light or high ISOs, just as the Sigma will, so if you can't deal with that neither of these lenses are for you.

Looking at the sharpness and detail I am getting now, I am not sure what the Sigma would provide that would justify the additional weight, or any additional cost. Certainly not substantially higher costs. But I will keep an open mind. I never thought I would see a lens like the Tammy for under $1100, so I am open to surprises.

 

[dufflover]

As a 100-400 user I bought the Sigma 120-300mm OS as the only "non-$5000+" upgrade from that lens combined with TCs. It's not the strongest thing around with the 2x TC (nothing ever is short of those fancy super teles) but it is "good enough" too though I prefer using it as a faster 420mm instead where possible. When the Tamron was announced I was keen as it was a native lens and surely would have better IQ and AF when not hobbled by a TC. Sadly the rumoured front end specs (95mm) and lowish price were true and it wasn't much of an upgrade from my current set up was disappointing. Though I can not deny they did a fantastic price/performance lens ... just not useful for people like me who own this current set up.

This Sigma looks like it is doing it properly and if they really cater the IQ to the long end I might be tempted to sell and step up, if it is a big increase from my current lens, and dare I dream to say comparable to say the old Canon IS Mk1s?

In terms of the 100-400 discussion I don't think anything will change.
1. Canon has never cared about 3rd party lol. Brand name and red ring
2. I even rebought my 100-400 after selling it because I missed the fact it packs into 70-200 size. Extremely handy for travelling and having a "mounted camera ready to go"
3. An updated 100-400 will no doubt be super-sharp like all of Canon's new lenses and it will compete well

 

[Arkarch]

Not so worried about stopping action (though a very legitimate concern) - but more wanting to blur out the background. You want your subject to stand-out from the crowd - not be able to read every shirt and hat.
But for the reach, I can see many getting it just to capture action. And 150-600 could be handy.

For my game, motorsports, the 300mm f/2.8 II is great for breaking out the action, light enough for effective pan shots; and if I need the reach, works super well with the 1.4 (420/4) and oddly well with the 2.0 (600/5.6). Of course that means the 600/4 has suddenly appeared on my wish list But now we are again in epic financial impact land again.

 

[pknight]

Sadly the rumoured front end specs (95mm) and lowish price were true and it wasn't much of an upgrade from my current set up was disappointing. Though I can not deny they did a fantastic price/performance lens ... just not useful for people like me who own this current set up.

Just making sure I understand. It doesn't sound like you have the Tamron, and that you were disappointed with the size of the front element and the low price. Interesting.

I do understand that there would be little incentive to upgrade if your current setup is satisfactory for you. In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC, so the Tamorn's extra reach and IQ that is at least equivalent to that of the 100-400 have brought me to selling the Canon (although, unlike some, I waited to see if the Tamron would work for me before deciding to sell).

I suspect that the Sigma 150-600 will be very good. I really like what they have been doing lately, and have had excellent results with the 30mm f/1.4 Art. I just don't expect that any difference in IQ is going to be enough to convince me to haul around another kilo of weight and pay what is likely to be a sizable premium compared to the Tamron.

 

[Lee Jay]

In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,

This is a 100% crop from a 100-400L with two 1.4x TCs stacked on a T2i (18MP).

 

[mackguyver]

Not so worried about stopping action (though a very legitimate concern) - but more wanting to blur out the background. You want your subject to stand-out from the crowd - not be able to read every shirt and hat.
But for the reach, I can see many getting it just to capture action. And 150-600 could be handy.

For my game, motorsports, the 300mm f/2.8 II is great for breaking out the action, light enough for effective pan shots; and if I need the reach, works super well with the 1.4 (420/4) and oddly well with the 2.0 (600/5.6). Of course that means the 600/4 has suddenly appeared on my wish list But now we are again in epic financial impact land again.

I have the same set up and love the 300+extenders, but sometimes miss my 400 f/5.6 which was a whole lot more portable. I've been watching the Tamron threads for a while and will do the same for the new Sigma. I sure wish these options had existed when I first got into wildlife shooting!

 

[pknight]

In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,

This is a 100% crop from a 100-400L with two 1.4x TCs stacked on a T2i (18MP).

I am happy for you. My mileage certainly was different.

 

[AlanF]

The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs

 

[KitsVancouver]

In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,

This is a 100% crop from a 100-400L with two 1.4x TCs stacked on a T2i (18MP).

That's a 100% crop? I'm surprised the moon image isn't much larger. With a 200-400, I shot some of the moon with the built in 1.4 and an external 2x and the image was quite a bit larger.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs

Sorry but no, look at all the color shifts :

 

[Lee Jay]

The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs

I hope you were kidding. Your SX50 shot is noisy, over-sharpened, full of halos and artifacts, and full of CA. Make sure you click on my shot to see it at full size.

 

[scyrene]

The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs

I hope you were kidding. Your SX50 shot is noisy, over-sharpened, full of halos and artifacts, and full of CA. Make sure you click on my shot to see it at full size.

The SX50 shot has a fair bit less detail, too. Compare certain craters and mountainous areas. The 100-400 is clearly superior (incidentally, this is very impressive!)

 

[Steve]

Not so worried about stopping action (though a very legitimate concern) - but more wanting to blur out the background. You want your subject to stand-out from the crowd - not be able to read every shirt and hat.

You can get some really good subject isolation with 600mm at 6.3. On my 300mm 2.8, I usually stop down a hair with the 2x TC to 6.3 or 7.1 to preserve some IQ and, as long as there is good subject-to-bg distance, it will happily blow out the background. There's not really anything you can do if you're shooting field sports and the action is right up against the stands, but f4 isn't really gonna save you there either, so...

 

[Lyle Krannichfeld]

I was totally in for this lens (barring any bad reviews) until I saw the weight :'( Can't handhold a 6 pound lens for 8 hours a day, 3 or 4 days a week...that 100-400 replacement needs to hurry up already!

 

[Steve]

Do you really handhold any lens for 8 hours a day? What kind of shooting do you do?