Does any one have a Sigma 150-600mm OS lens F/5-6.3 - Comments

[SCraig]

I have the Sigma 150-500 lens. I've had it about 6 years and have been quite pleased with it. Lot of bang for the buck.

 

[zombiesniper]

The Sigma contemporary is a good lens. The new Tamron G2 is a bit better. The version 2 of the Canon 100-400 is good but the Tamron will out perform the version 1. A side note the Canon 100-400 version 1 is also more prone to dust intrusion with the push/pull zoom system.

Right now on a TeleZoom I would say the Tamron G2 is the best value.

 

[SCraig]

Here are a few taken with the Sigma 150-500. The Sigma 150-600 or Tamron 150-600 lenses are both considered better lenses than mine. All were shot at the 500mm end of the lens using either a Nikon D7000 or D7100 and most were probably shot using a tripod. Most were also most likely heavily cropped since 500mm is nice but no lens is ever long enough.

Great Egret - 07/20/2013 - Old Hickory Lake in Nashville, TN

Great Blue Heron - 04/11/2014 - Radnor Lake in Nashville, TN

Pied-Billed Grebe (Winter Plumage) - 11/22/2012 - Old Hickory Lake in Nashville, TN

 

[PJcam]

Nice shots.

 

[weepete]

It's hard to beat the Canon 100-400 L. If I was currently looking for a long telephoto that would probably be top of the list right now.

No doubt- but at $2.o0o it is more than double the cost of the Sigma contemporary.

Not a reason to pass on it, but surely worthy of mention...

True, but I think it's a better imager. Add in the cost of a TC as well it's not insignificant.

 

[weepete]

It's hard to beat the Canon 100-400 L. If I was currently looking for a long telephoto that would probably be top of the list right now.

Do you think the Canon lens and the slightly better F-Stop out weighs the consideration for longer focal distance?

No doubt it's sharper, and you can use it with a 1.4x TC which will get you the extra reach if needed. So yes.

But would not the 1.4x cause reduced light into the camera, therefore taking the F-Stop value to similar to that of the Tamron, but the Tamron has a longer focal distance so does this make the Tamron a better choice? So now it is saying to me, the Tamron can capture images at the longer distance, but would the quality of the Canon 100-400 at 400mm be better than the Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, when cropped? I hope that makes sense.

I think what I am trying to say is, a shot taken with both lens, at max distance, when cropped could the Canon be a better image (without a 1.4x).

Yes, it does mean you loose some light on the wide end but it is IMO a moot point because mostly people will be shooting at f8 with these lenses anyway and you can use the Canon with a TC and get at least as sharp if not sharper images than any of the 150-600s. The 100-400 L mkii is a very sharp lens, even sharper than some of the older 400mm primes.

Ultimatley all I know is that I've shot along side guys using the 100-400L mkii, sometimes with a TC sometimes without and consistantly it's out performed my Tamron 150-600mm G1 which is comparable to the Sigma 150-600mm C

 

[PJcam]

Thanks weepete, the Tamron 150-600mm G2 is supposed to be better than the G1.

The price of the Tamron G2 and the Canon L 400mm, I would possibly go for the Canon L, but the Canon L 400mm II is a massive price compared to the Tamron G2. So I am currently leaning towards the Tamron specially with the images and video I have seen.

At this stage I having purchased all I have in three weeks my budget can meet the Tamron G2, or Canon L (not version II). I guess with either there is a good secondhand market 12-24 months down the line.

This is a good forum, some great guys on here, very helpful and knowledgeable. The recent threads about lenses have been very good and replies from you guys excellent. Thank you all.

 

[weepete]

Thanks weepete, the Tamron 150-600mm G2 is supposed to be better than the G1.

The price of the Tamron G2 and the Canon L 400mm, I would possibly go for the Canon L, but the Canon L 400mm II is a massive price compared to the Tamron G2. So I am currently leaning towards the Tamron specially with the images and video I have seen.

At this stage I having purchased all I have in three weeks my budget can meet the Tamron G2, or Canon L (not version II). I guess with either there is a good secondhand market 12-24 months down the line.

This is a good forum, some great guys on here, very helpful and knowledgeable. The recent threads about lenses have been very good and replies from you guys excellent. Thank you all.

From what I've read the Tamron G1 is actually slightly sharper than the G2.
Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Image Quality though the autofocus is better on the G2.

But yeah, between the 100-400mm mki and the 150-600mm I'd go with a 150-600mm.

 

[amj]

I own both, Sigma 150-600 contemporary & Canon 100-400L mk II. Canon with 1.4x mk iii surely gives great output. However, when located in a forest with low light (like the rain forests of Malaysia), focussing at F8 (560mm) is challenging compared to What I can do with Sigma at F6.3 (600mm) at the same ISO.
Frankly, if the images are being taken for earning your bread, would recommend canon prime & preferably 600mm mk II. Otherwise, my Sigma gives me good amount of keepers.
Cheers...

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

My uncle shoots that lens on a Nikon system and I shoot a tamron 150-600 g2 in my canon system. I like the sigma because it zooms the same way my canon lenses do and he likes my tamron because it zooms the way Nikon does lol. I think the tamron has a bit of edge in the technology department as they have a bit better optical stabilization and they have the tap in console that lets you customize the lens features but image quality seems to be the same for the most part. I like that the sigma lens foot can be removed and replaced with a filler piece so it doesn't look so ugly, the tamron does not. If price is not a factor go tamron but I think you'll be happy with either...

 

[beagle100]

I own both, Sigma 150-600 contemporary & Canon 100-400L mk II. Canon with 1.4x mk iii surely gives great output. However, when located in a forest with low light (like the rain forests of Malaysia), focussing at F8 (560mm) is challenging compared to What I can do with Sigma at F6.3 (600mm) at the same ISO.
Frankly, if the images are being taken for earning your bread, would recommend canon prime & preferably 600mm mk II. Otherwise, my Sigma gives me good amount of keepers.
Cheers...

right, the Sigma 150-600 contemporary also gives me plenty of keepers and cost less than the Tamron G2 and Canon 100-400 V2
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless