svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - SIGMA to announce a 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports soon

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

    By Updated:32 Comments1 Min Read Third Party Lenses

    SIGMA is bringing another super-telephoto zoom to their lineup. This new lens will be a 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports, which appears to be for the mirrorless mount(s), so it could be for Sony's E-mount, SIGMA's L mount, and Nikon's Z mount.

    I don't think this will be SIGMA's first RF mount release, so don't get your hopes up.

    No specifications or pricing for the new lens have been released.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    32 comments

    3. it could be for Sony’s E-mount, SIGMA’s L mount, and Nikon’s Z mount.
      There are no Sigma lenses in Nikon Z mount (yet).

      DG DN lenses are only available in Leica L and Sony E mounts.
    4. Speaking from self-interest, IQ-wise, it is unlikely to be significantly better than any of the other consumer lenses. I'm still holding out hope that someone will produce a 500 or 600mm f/5.6 compact prime similar to Nikon's 500pf for mirrorless.
    7. Speaking from self-interest, IQ-wise, it is unlikely to be any different from any of the other consumer lenses. I'm still holding out hope that someone will produce a 500 or 600mm f/5.6 compact prime, similar to Nikon's 500pf, for mirrorless.
      I wish Canon had produced a 600mm F8 instead of the RF600mm F11. I would happily have paid $1500-2000 for it. Currently I'm using the 100-400mm with 1.4 extender, which results in 560mm F8 and gives excellent images when used wide open, although I usually close down half a stop for a bit of extra bite. I've supplemented it with a RF800mm F11 which is optically quite reasonable, and extraordinarily easy to carry, but I don't like shooting faster than ISO3200, so it is limited to sunny or bright days.
    8. There are no Sigma lenses in Nikon Z mount (yet).

      DG DN lenses are only available in Leica L and Sony E mounts.
      This might be 1st 3rd party lens(with AF) for Z mount.
    9. I will be entirely and totally honest...Canon's refusal to share its mount with third party manufacturers could end up being the downfall of this system. Perhaps margins on camera bodies are even more narrow than previous DSLRs and lenses are where they plan to pick that back up? Who knows. But I would love some affordable "hobby" lenses that I could take around town. If I want a good telephoto lens or zoom from Canon it means I'm using a damn $1200-$2800 L-series lens...not exactly ideal when I'm just out having some fun. It's why I've chosen to keep my EF-M stuff for now. Fuji is really tempting me though! haha
    10. I will be entirely and totally honest...Canon's refusal to share its mount with third party manufacturers could end up being the downfall of this system. Perhaps margins on camera bodies are even more narrow than previous DSLRs and lenses are where they plan to pick that back up? Who knows. But I would love some affordable "hobby" lenses that I could take around town. If I want a good telephoto lens or zoom from Canon it means I'm using a damn $1200-$2800 L-series lens...not exactly ideal when I'm just out having some fun. It's why I've chosen to keep my EF-M stuff for now. Fuji is really tempting me though! haha

      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.
    11. I wish Canon had produced a 600mm F8 instead of the RF600mm F11. I would happily have paid $1500-2000 for it. Currently I'm using the 100-400mm with 1.4 extender, which results in 560mm F8 and gives excellent images when used wide open, although I usually close down half a stop for a bit of extra bite. I've supplemented it with a RF800mm F11 which is optically quite reasonable, and extraordinarily easy to carry, but I don't like shooting faster than ISO3200, so it is limited to sunny or bright days.
      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.
    12. I’m surprised it’s not the equivalent of their 60-600mm, which is a very good lens.
      What is it, something like 2.6kg, no thanks. 150-600 is plenty of range and under 2kg. Too bad it isn't coming in RF mount, I'll never buy Canon's 100-500L, ludicrously priced at nearly $5K in Australia and stupid restriction on the TC. I owned the EF 150-600 and had an excellent copy, even quite sharp at 600mm wide open and it worked really well on my 1DX. I already own the Sony 200-600 so this won't be of much interest to me, but good to see more options coming.
    13. 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.
      Yep, I agree, I could see some sense in a very good 800 f/8, but no sense in a 600 f/8 when you can get 600 f/6.3 zooms anyway. 600 f/11 is utterly ludicrous. 600 f/5.6 is my ideal lens. I have the Nikon 500 PF and it's sublime, IQ on par with my 500 f/4 at less than half the weight and size. A 600 PF would be ideal. My problem is whereas Nikon's 600 PF would be around $5K, Canon's 600 f/5.6 DO would be probably $8K based on how much they charge for the 400 f/4 DO.
    14. I will be entirely and totally honest...Canon's refusal to share its mount with third party manufacturers could end up being the downfall of this system. Perhaps margins on camera bodies are even more narrow than previous DSLRs and lenses are where they plan to pick that back up? Who knows. But I would love some affordable "hobby" lenses that I could take around town. If I want a good telephoto lens or zoom from Canon it means I'm using a damn $1200-$2800 L-series lens...not exactly ideal when I'm just out having some fun. It's why I've chosen to keep my EF-M stuff for now. Fuji is really tempting me though! haha
      Come to Australia and see what price gouging means RF style. $4899 for 100-500L, $5.2K for 85L f/1.2, $3800+ for the holy trinity. RF lenses up about 30% or higher than their EF cousins.
    15. 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 feel exactly the same way.

      If we started seeing the Sigma DG DN series lenses and other third party lenses in RF mount, I might consider staying with Canon. Otherwise, Sony looks just so tempting because of the lenses available for the Sony system.
    16. I will be entirely and totally honest...Canon's refusal to share its mount with third party manufacturers could end up being the downfall of this system.
      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.
    17. 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.
      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.
    18. What is it, something like 2.6kg, no thanks. 150-600 is plenty of range and under 2kg. Too bad it isn't coming in RF mount, I'll never buy Canon's 100-500L, ludicrously priced at nearly $5K in Australia and stupid restriction on the TC. I owned the EF 150-600 and had an excellent copy, even quite sharp at 600mm wide open and it worked really well on my 1DX. I already own the Sony 200-600 so this won't be of much interest to me, but good to see more options coming.
      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. The 60-600 Sports is actually 0.3 kg less. As for the 100-500mm, it’s the best telephoto zoom I have owned, and nearly indistinguishshable in sharpness and weight from my very sharp 500mm PF, a lens you describe as sublime. The 200-600mm that you like is 2.4 kg, only 0.4kg lighter than the 60-600mm at that you have written off as being too heavy and 0.8kg heavier than the 100-500mm.
    19. 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. The 60-600 Sports is actually 0.3 kg less. As for the 100-500mm, it’s the best telephoto zoom I have owned, and nearly indistinguishshable in sharpness and weight from my very sharp 500mm PF, a lens you describe as sublime. The 200-600mm that you like is 2.4 kg, only 0.4kg lighter than the 60-600mm at that you have written off as being too heavy and 0.8kg heavier than the 100-500mm.
      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.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment