# Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 OS HSM Sport announced



## tayassu (Sep 5, 2014)

Well, here it is:
http://sigma-rumors.com/
I believe this will be a better option than the Tamron optically, maybe I'll buy one for myself :


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



tayassu said:


> Well, here it is:
> http://sigma-rumors.com/
> I believe this will be a better option than the Tamron optically, maybe I'll buy one for myself :



;D

For twice the money it better is noticeably better.


Though constant f5.6 would have been nice.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

Well, it isn't what I've been asking Sigma for, but it'll work for outdoor field sports, at least during daytime. The question is: will it deliver excellent images, corner to corner, _wide open_, over its entire zoom range? When I say excellent, I mean as good as my 300 f/2.8 with or without 1.4x or 2x TC.

As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.


----------



## tayassu (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Bob Howland said:


> Well, it isn't what I've been asking Sigma for, but it'll work for outdoor field sports, at least during daytime. The question is: will it deliver excellent images, corner to corner, _wide open_, over its entire zoom range? When I say excellent, I mean as good as my 300 f/2.8 with or without 1.4x or 2x TC.
> 
> As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.



That lens will never be as sharp as the bare 300/2.8, which rivals the Otus about the title being the sharpest lens in the world... Maybe the 300 with a 1.4 TC... :
But how do you want to tell the camera to use 5.6 if the lens is only 6.3 at the long end?


----------



## CANONisOK (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

The big question is: which way will the zoom go? The "correct" Canon way?  Or the "reverse" Nikon way? 

Unfortunately, I'm sure it's the latter.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Bob Howland said:


> Well, it isn't what I've been asking Sigma for, but it'll work for outdoor field sports, at least during daytime. The question is: will it deliver excellent images, corner to corner, _wide open_, over its entire zoom range? When I say excellent, I mean as good as my 300 f/2.8 with or without 1.4x or 2x TC.



Uh, no. If it did, it would cost a heck of a lot more than 2000. 

I imagine it will be marginally better than the tamron, but it isn't going to out do or match a prime across a 4X zoom range.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

Tha 300 2.8 ii is in a different Price league, nobody can expect the zoom to rival this one. Whats the good News is, that it will put some pressure on Canon..... and offer an alternative to the Tamron. 

Interesting will be, which one has better autofocus, better IQ at the long end and what Canons response will be


----------



## CANONisOK (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



CANONisOK said:


> The big question is: which way will the zoom go? The "correct" Canon way?  Or the "reverse" Nikon way?
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm sure it's the latter.


After looking at the link, it appears this one zooms the "correct" Canon way! ;D

I know it's probably not a big deal to most people, but for me it's a major PITA to switch lenses and have to quickly reprogram my brain to react the opposite way when trying to catch fast shots.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

It looks very good indeed from the MTFs. But, it is an absolute monster. It weighs 900g (2 lb) more than the Tamron and is significantly bigger. It even weighs a couple of 100g more than the Canon 300/2.8 + 2xTC.

It's of little interest to me as if I need a smaller, lighter lens for travel the Tamron is more suitable, and if I want the best IQ I will use the Canon. But, it could be a good choice vs the 300/2.8 +TCs if you can't afford the Canon and or want a zoom. 

Really looking forward to the reviews.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

At almost 3kg, it might be too heavy for me to use handheld all day at airshows, which would be my planned use.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



tayassu said:


> Well, here it is:
> http://sigma-rumors.com/
> I believe this will be a better option than the Tamron optically, maybe I'll buy one for myself :



I wouldn't be surprised if the optics are marginally better (bigger, heavier, larger front element), but my biggest concern (as with all Sigma products) will be AF accuracy. At longer focal lengths even a little miss produces an out of focus image.

Still, options are good. If this is a better lens than the Tamron it might attract the middle tier of buyers, but the fact that it may cost twice as much means that Tamron will probably still claim the majority of amateur sales.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

It'll be interesting to see side-by-side performance comparisons between this and the Tamron.


----------



## weixing (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

Hi,
The front element is nearly the size of a 300mm f2.8, but why only f6.3 at 600mm? Or the front element is just a protective element?? 

Anyway, the only feature I like about this lens is that it can lock at any focal length which to me is very useful (if I want to use it for Astrophotography), but I already have a Tamron and not 100% convince about the QC of Sigma yet.

Have a nice day.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



JonAustin said:


> It'll be interesting to see side-by-side performance comparisons between this and the Tamron.


+1


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Bob Howland said:


> As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.



Well every quant of light counts.

It´s not much but it´s still better.
And with that weight plus over the Tamron it would be a nice bonus.

But i guess there are reasons for not doing it. Who knows how much more it would weight than.


----------



## hoodlum (Sep 5, 2014)

*Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM*

Sigma went more higher end than Tamron with this focal length. It has 4 additional lens elements (including 2 fluorite) and has larger diameter lens elements for the same aperture. Build quality/features also seem to be a step up from the Tamron, although there is the penalty for weight (2.8kg vs 1.8kg for the Tamron).

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.optyczne.pl/7378-news-Sigma_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.optyczne.pl/7378-news-Sigma_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D922


----------



## canon1dxman (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

What will interest me is the performance with the new 1.4X.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Canonicon said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.
> ...



600/5.6 results in a 107mm clear aperture, same as 300/2.8. The filter size of both this lens and the 120-300 is 105mm. Therefore, the 120-300 f/2.8 can't reach 300mm or be f/2.8 at that focal length. I'm hoping that Sigma is honest about the focal length and aperture for this new lens. We'll see. FWIW, the Tamron uses 95mm filters, which is as small as possible for 600mm and f/6.3.

I really don't expect it to be as good as my 300 but I do expect it to be very good, probably better than the Tamron. More important is whether it can focus quickly and accurately enough to capture race cars and motorcycles. I don't expect to buy it before next spring since, by the time it'll likely be available, there will be snow on the ground around here. So there's lots of time for people to test it.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

Sigma is into flourite now? Very interesting.

Honestly I wish it had been a prime 600f5.6 instead, but zooming has its advantages (and sells a million times better).
If they can beat the performance of the 400f5.6 with 1.4xTC (which still wholly beats the Tamron), then it'll be hard to resist, even with bad AF (which is an improvement over no AF).

Edit: Ah who am I kidding, the 400f5.6 on crop is still nearly as good as the Tamron and gives you no compromise in AF. Sigma would have to blow IQ out of the water to make it worthwhile.


----------



## Steve (Sep 5, 2014)

Sigma just announced their answer to Tamrons wildly popular budget birding lens. Sounds like they are going to make it a bit of a higher end offering with better glass, weather sealing, and teleconverter compatibility (!) plus a bunch of OS and AF optimization.

http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-additional-details/

With the Tamrons being backordered out to somewhere around the heat death of the universe, this should be a killer lens for Sigma


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

Its gonna need a working panning mode is and AF to match the tamron which has awesome AF


----------



## Plainsman (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Canonicon said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > Well, here it is:
> ...




...still a lot cheaper than the Sigma 300/2.8 + 2xTC so maybe assembled outside of Japan ie only slightly better optically if you get a good one than the Tamron equiv. Nice strong mount though.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



wsmith96 said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > It'll be interesting to see side-by-side performance comparisons between this and the Tamron.
> ...


+1; When is availability scheduled?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2014)

Petapixel is reporting the same:

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/05/sigma-challenges-tamron-hefty-150-600mm-f5-6-3-sport-zoom/

- A


----------



## seamonster (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*

LOL at that pitifully narrow zoom ring AND it necks down along the barrel.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the optics are marginally better (bigger, heavier, larger front element), but my biggest concern (as with all Sigma products) will be AF accuracy. At longer focal lengths even a little miss produces an out of focus image.
> 
> Still, options are good. If this is a better lens than the Tamron it might attract the middle tier of buyers, but the fact that it may cost twice as much means that Tamron will probably still claim the majority of amateur sales.



Tamron does seem to be better at AF emulation of Canon lenses. With a f/6.3 lens, its going to slow down in any event.

The size and weight is a killer for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Bob Howland said:


> As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.



Actually, it _is_ a big deal, isn't it? Wouldn't a constant F/5.6 max aperture still allow autofocusing with a 1.4x teleconverter on the right Canon bodies?

(Forgive me if I'm off here -- I never shoot with long lenses like these.)

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Bob Howland said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Zoom lenses rely on magnification of the aperture. The physical aperture on the 120-300 isn't 107mm, it's probably not even 43mm (I assume there is some magnification at 120mm). However, the entrance pupil (aperture as magnified by the optics) is.

Perhaps you mean that the 120-300 can only actually be f/2.85 (i.e. 105mm) at full zoom? There is quite a bit of rounding in lens marketing. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.85 is negligible to most anyone.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



ahsanford said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.
> ...



There are two issues here: (1) the maximum aperture being constant throughout the zoom range and (2) that maximum aperture anywhere in the zoom range being wider (i.e., numerically smaller) than f/5.6. 

Regarding (1), the Canon 100-400 L, which I own and use extensively, has a maximum aperture which varies from f/4.5 at 100mm to f/5.6 at 400mm. When I use the camera to set the aperture to any value between f/5.6 and f/32, that value is held regardless of the focal length that I zoom to. If I set the aperture to f/4.5 at 100mm, then zoom to 400mm, the aperture automatically changes to f/5.6. Making that lens a constant maximum aperture means that maximum aperture would have to be f/5.6. Why should I give up 2/3 of a stop at 100?

The effect is even more pronounced with the 28-200 Canon lens. At 28mm, the maximum aperture is f/3.5, at 200mm, it is f/5.6. Who wants to use a 28 f/5.6 lens?

Regarding (2), somehow third party lens manufacturers get their lenses to lie to the camera body. The actual maximum aperture at 600 is f/6.3 but the lens tells the body that it is f/5.6. Since the difference is only 1/3 stop, I suppose the image is underexposed by that amount, although I've never tested it. So why don't Sigma and Tamron make 150-600 f/5.6 lenses?? My guess is cost and market positioning. To maintain the same 95mm aperture diameter, the maximum focal length of these lenses would only be 532mm. I suppose both manufacturers thought fewer people would buy, for example, a 130-520 f/4.5-5.6 or a 150-500 f/5-5.6 that weighed and cost 50% more due to its 107mm front element.

Hope that helps.

Correction: "... or a 150-500 f/5-5.6 that weighed and cost..." should be "...or a 150-600 f/4.5-5.6 that weighed and cost... "


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



ahsanford said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > As for wanting constant f/5.6, I don't see that as important or even useful. Remember, the camera body tells the lens what aperture to use and the lens has to figure out how to do it.
> ...



Except for certain high end bodies, Canon cameras turn off autofocus when a lens reports a smaller than f/5.6 aperture. The lens is f/6.3, but reports a f/5.6 to the camera so it can attempt to autofocus. Usually that works just fine.

If you put a 1.4X TC on the lens, it might report a f/8 aperture to a camera, but the real aperture might be close to f/9. That might make it difficult to autofocus even on f/8 bodies. We will have to hear from actual users on a camera by camera basis. Live autofocus may work fine with a 1.4 TC, or even a 2X TC on some bodies.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



3kramd5 said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Canonicon said:
> ...



What you're calling the "entrance pupil" is what I mean by "clear aperture". It's the apparent aperture as viewed from the front of the lens. A long time ago, I was interested in astronomy. "Clear aperture" is the phrase that I heard/read then.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps you mean that the 120-300 can only actually be f/2.85 (i.e. 105mm) at full zoom? There is quite a bit of rounding in lens marketing. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.85 is negligible to most anyone.



So is the difference between 294mm/2.8 (105mm) and 300mm/2.86 (105mm).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Lee Jay said:


> So is the difference between 294mm/2.8 (105mm) and 300mm/2.86 (105mm).



Agreed.



Bob Howland said:


> What you're calling the "entrance pupil" is what I mean by "clear aperture". It's the apparent aperture as viewed from the front of the lens. A long time ago, I was interested in astronomy. "Clear aperture" is the phrase that I heard/read then.



Interesting. Good to know.


----------



## rs (Sep 5, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Bob Howland said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...


Most lenses aren't built to precise specifications produced by marketing departments - if a manufacturer decides they're going to enter the 300/2.8 market, why should it be 300.0000mm and have an aperture ratio if f2.80000? For a start off, f2.8 in itself is shorthand for the square root of 8. In other words 2.82827 if we round to 5 decimal places. Most engineering departments will work towards a general goal, but sticking to it 100% is a waste of money, engineering resources, and could result in additional optical compromises, not to mention increased weight, size and cost in the end product.

Just read the patents for new lenses. Not one of them reads as neat as the specs once they've been sterilised by the marketing department.


----------



## Steve (Sep 6, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



9VIII said:


> Sigma is into flourite now? Very interesting.



No, its FLD glass - fluorite equivalent. Its what they use in the 120-300 2.8 Sport, 50 1.4 Art, etc.

I'm curious about what they mean by teleconverter compatibility. Another part of this announcement is the new 1.4x and 2x tc's. Sigma says that this new lens is optimized for them. There is no way the 2x will AF on any body of course, but I wonder if the 1.4 might with f8 focusing bodies. The large 105mm filter size suggests that it may be a "big" 6.3, possibly to enlarge the image circle for better corner sharpness but it could also allow just that bit more light necessary to get reliable f8-ish AF. Or it could be marketing and the TC's are manual focus only. I wonder though because Sigma said specifically that tele's do not work on my 300-800 5.6 zoom and they seem to suggest otherwise with this press release.

Also, this forum is weird. I posted a thread about this in a different sub forum this morning but instead of locking the thread and pointing to this one, they renamed this thread with my title and moved my original post into this thread where it doesn't make sense. That seems like a weird and confusing way of doing things. And there are waaaaay too many sub forums with overlapping topics. Half of them could be merged or deleted and nobody would miss them.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Sep 6, 2014)

The announcement says it has a panning mode for the stabilizer. That alone seems like a big plus over the Tamron. If Iq is good and af turns out to be reliable, it could turn out to be more interesting despite it size/weight and price disadvantage. Furthermore, is the Tamron sealed or does the Sigma strikes another point there?


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 6, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> The announcement says it has a panning mode for the stabilizer. That alone seems like a big plus over the Tamron.



I never, ever, use panning mode on my 70-200/2.8. And I shoot thousands and thousands of panning shots. Mode 1 just works better for obvious reasons - it stabilizes in both directions instead of just one.


----------



## cycleraw (Sep 6, 2014)

Will the Canon 1.4x III work with this lens? If so, will it AF on my 5D Mark III and 1D Mark V?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 6, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Well, here it is:
> http://sigma-rumors.com/
> I believe this will be a better option than the Tamron optically, maybe I'll buy one for myself :



Too heavy and too pricy. Hopefully comes with the same quality of the 120-300 f2.8 sport


----------



## weixing (Sep 6, 2014)

*Re: SIGMA 150-600!!*



Steve said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma is into flourite now? Very interesting.
> ...


Hi,
Sigma had been using FLD lens since 2010, so nothing new...
Anyway, about the TC, 1.4x possible, but 2x?? Who's know... may be Sigma got "inside news" that may be the new generation of DSLR will allow AF at F8, F9 and even F11... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Sep 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > The announcement says it has a panning mode for the stabilizer. That alone seems like a big plus over the Tamron.
> ...



Well, I guess the mode 1 of the 70-200 2.8 is smarter than the one one my lenses and that you are much better at panning than I am (well, that won't be so hard)... To me mode 2 is certainly a nice to have.


----------



## DavidCannon (Sep 16, 2014)

Price is up on B&H: $1,999 for the Sport.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082150-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html


----------

