Q for Canon shooters. Next Lens?

[beagle100]

I have the 150-600 Sigma and the 150-600 Sigma Sports lens. The Sports lens is much larger and heavier. My wife has the Canon 100-400 and I just got her a Sports lens. She said it may be too heavy for her.

all the larger telephoto lens are large and heavy - but gotta have it for wildlife and sports
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[ac12]

Micro 4/3
A small 75-300 = huge 150-600 on a FF camera. Same 3 - 12x magnification, in a smaller/lighter package
Put that 150-600 on a m4/3, and you have 6 - 24x magnification.

 

[photoflyer]

all the larger telephoto lens are large and heavy - but gotta have it for wildlife and sports

Agreed but I have found that my 300mm F4 L with the 1.4 teleconverter on a crop sensor is "relatively" compact given its reach. Of course it is only F5.6.

 

[BasilFawlty]

all the larger telephoto lens are large and heavy - but gotta have it for wildlife and sports
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

That's why, when I bought my Sigma 150-600mm, I opted for the Contemporary version over the "Sport" since the former, at 4.3lbs, is a full two pounds lighter than the Sports, which weighs in at 6.3lbs. I have not been disappointed. Based on many comparison tests I've seen, the difference is IQ between the two is almost imperceptible unless you really zoom in and, at focal lengths I often shoot at (400-500mm) the contemporary in many tests I've seen is actually slightly better. At 600mm, the Sport may have a slight edge, but only slight. Here's a picture I took at Bosque Del Apache at 600mm (handheld).

 

[freixas]

That's why, when I bought my Sigma 150-600mm, I opted for the Contemporary version over the "Sport" since the former, at 4.3lbs, is a full two pounds lighter than the Sports, which weighs in at 6.3lbs. I have not been disappointed. Based on many comparison tests I've seen, the difference is IQ between the two is almost imperceptible unless you really zoom in and, at focal lengths I often shoot at (400-500mm) the contemporary in many tests I've seen is actually slightly better. At 600mm, the Sport may have a slight edge, but only slight.

Interesting. I've been thinking about the Sport version, but concerned about its weight. I do tend to shoot at the maximum focal length (currently 400mm + 1.4x extender = 560mm). If I had either Sigma lens, I would probably add the 1.4x extender, but might drop it in shaded conditions to get an extra stop.

I'll have to review the two lenses in more depth. Thanks.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Interesting. I've been thinking about the Sport version, but concerned about its weight. I do tend to shoot at the maximum focal length (currently 400mm + 1.4x extender = 560mm). If I had either Sigma lens, I would probably add the 1.4x extender, but might drop it in shaded conditions to get an extra stop.

I'll have to review the two lenses in more depth. Thanks.

Here's one review you might find helpful.

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary vs Sport

The Sport is clearly better built and weather resistant, but if you plan to hand hold a lot, that extra 2 pounds would be a definite consideration. Image quality seems to be a wash unless you really zoom in and pixel peep. All I can say is, now that I have the Contemporary I don't regret for one second not buying the Sport (for nearly twice the price). The C can be used on a ball or gimbal head quite nicely, but being able to shoot hand-held "relatively" well is a big plus. Just for fun, here I am with my Siggy at Bosque Del Apache.

One more thing. As pointed out in the article, the Contemporary stays at a wider aperture longer than the Sport. From f5 to f5.6 they switch close to the same point, but when switching from 5.6 to 6.3, notice that the Contemporary stays at 5.6 all the way to 390mm whereas the Sport "stops down" much sooner at around 314mm. So the Contemporary stays "brighter" for more of the zoom range. That actually surprises me, given how much wider the Sport lens is.