SIGMA to announce a 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports soon

[AlanF]

Sony 200-600 is 2.115kg, not 2.4kg get you facts right if you want to have a go at me. I consider 2.5kg the max I can comfortably handhold for an extended period based on my 300 f/2.8L IS. A zoom is about convenience for me. I use a zoom to scout out areas. Then I might go back with the 500 f/4 and TC's. 2.8kg zoom defeats the purpose for me. Same reason I have never had interest in the 200-400 f/4 or Sigma 120-300 f/2.8.

It’s you who need to get your facts right - its working weight with hood etc is 2.41 kg - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1438. I always check my facts before posting. The weight I quoted for the Sigma lens was also its working weight as I wrote.

 

[padam]

You have got the weights confused. The Contemporary is just under 2kg, but the Sports, the one they are now producing for mirrorless as it says in the OP, is 3.155 kg working weight.

While it is branded as a Sports lens, it doesn't mean it's the same lens.
All DG DN lenses are bespoke optical designs for mirrorless cameras.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon's refusal to share its mount with third party manufacturers could end up being the downfall of this system.

Canon does not protect the RF mount any more than any of its other mounts.
The main reason the RF mount has a smaller lens selection than the E-mount is that the E-mount has been around so much longer.
It is not as big of a disadvantage as it looks if you consider how adaptable EF lenses are to the RF mount.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yeah, the costs of these RF lenses is aggravating. I can afford Sigma glass, but not Canon. As much as I love my R6, I'm considering jumping ship to Sony. I don't like their camera bodies, but I care about lenses more and Sigma has the affordable ones.

I am curious as to why you would not just consider adapting EF lenses.
They are cheaper and there is more of a selection than E-mount lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

What do you mean by “share its mount?” As far as I know all third party lens makers reverse engineer the mounts and no camera manufacturer shares its proprietary specs. Third party lens manufacturers will produce R mount lenses at some point it just takes some time.

The story is that Sony made a deal with Sigma and they already had a partnership with Zeiss.
A Sony and Sigma deal seems to completely undermine the L-mount alliance.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

License the protocol for a fee, I think Red is one of the licensee right now for RF mount. Even Sony is doing the same thing.

I am unaware of any camera not made by Sony with an intelligent E-mount.
The same can't be said for Canon.
RED Komodo is the first with an RF-mount but there are many with fully intelligent EF-mounts.
If anything, Canon is far more open than Sony.

 

[Billybob]

It’s you who need to get your facts right - its working weight with hood etc is 2.41 kg - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1438. I always check my facts before posting. The weight I quoted for the Sigma lens was also its working weight as I wrote.

I see no point in quibbling over weights, but I will comment on comfort having used all these lenses plus the Nikon 200-500mm. I'm not sure where I draw the line on weight, but the two Sigma Sport lenses--150-600 and 60-600--are definitely on the wrong side of that line, whereas the Canon 100-500, Sony 200-600, and Nikon zoom are on the manageable side of the line. For me, the Nikon was a little more comfortable than the Sony due to its design. Ironically the Sony's highly touted non-telescoping design resulted in a long package that was harder to handle than the more compact (slightly heavier) Nikon, which telescoped when zoomed. But, for me, both lenses are fine to carry and use handheld in the field. By contrast, both Sigma zooms were noticeably heavier and caused excessive fatigue after only a short time. I ended up returning both Sigmas after a short trial--even though IQ on the 60-600mm was perhaps the best I've seen in a consumer zoom--but extensively used both Nikon and Sony lenses (I've subsequently sold the Nikon replacing it with the 500mm pf). The 500mm pf is an amazing instrument to use given its high IQ and relatively small size and weight.

 

[AlanF]

While it is branded as a Sports lens, it doesn't mean it's the same lens.
All DG DN lenses are bespoke optical designs for mirrorless cameras.

The Sigma C Contemporay telephoto lenses are lightweight with less sealing and less robust build than the Sports series and possibly fewer elements, and so the S weigh more. Sigma has continued the C and S distinction into mirrorless. The lightweight Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN for mirrorless is classified as C. It will be interesting to see what their S for mirrorless will weigh.

 

[dwarven]

I am curious as to why you would not just consider adapting EF lenses.
They are cheaper and there is more of a selection than E-mount lenses.

I have done that, but it adds length to the kit. And some of Sigma's/Tamron newer E mount lenses are becoming too juicy to pass up.

 

[entoman]

I tried the RF800 for a couple of weeks. Decent IQ, but it was too dark. F/8 doesn't do it for me either. I don't like shooting slower than ISO400, but will go to ISO1600 if absolutely needed. Thus, I'd really like a compact 600mm f/5.6. The f/4 lenses are just too bulky, plus I can't rationalize spending $10k+ for a lens. Whoever makes that f/5.6 lens first--with excellent IQ--gets my money.

I'm with you all the way on that one - a 600mm F5.6 that weighed no more than the RF800mm would be very nice indeed.

I tried the RF 600mm F11 but for me the light weight was outweighed by the one stop advantage of my existing 100-400mm + 1.4x extender, especially as the zoom and extender, even when wide open is very sharp and not too heavy (and focuses much closer).

In the end I opted to supplement the zoom and extender by getting the 800mm. The extra reach is quite significant, and as I only intend to use it for distant subjects, the not-so-close minimum focus distance didn't really bother me.

I can live with the fact that the RF600 and RF800 aren't weather-sealed, as F11 restricts me to dry sunny days anyway. I can also live with the fact that Canon don't supply a hood for them, as I picked up a perfectly good third party hood for under $20. What I find much harder to live with is the non-rotating tripod foot.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

While it is branded as a Sports lens, it doesn't mean it's the same lens.
All DG DN lenses are bespoke optical designs for mirrorless cameras.

I’ve noticed that Sigma’s mirrorless lenses also don’t use HSM’s. E.g., the 100-400 DN vs. the non-DN version

 

[RickD]

BOOOO!

Sigma... Doomed... No RF mount etc.

(Just cause I want one!)

 

[padam]

The Sigma C Contemporay telephoto lenses are lightweight with less sealing and less robust build than the Sports series and possibly fewer elements, and so the S weigh more. Sigma has continued the C and S distinction into mirrorless. The lightweight Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN for mirrorless is classified as C. It will be interesting to see what their S for mirrorless will weigh.

Weight: 2.1 kg (including the tripod collar), so not much difference once the adapter is added to the C version.