# Sigma 150-600 Sport image quality on TDP



## AlanF (Apr 27, 2015)

Bryan has posted the image quality shots on TDP. Where it overlaps with the 100-400mm II, the Canon wins up to 400mm, usually with a wider aperture as well, eg

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1\\

The 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC at 560 mm is very similar to the 150-600mm at 600mm. The difference in weight is colossal, the difference in operational weights is 2.65 lb (1.2 kg) with the extender attached to the Canon or 3.2 lb (1.46 kg) without.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 27, 2015)

True...but I'd put the Sigma a bit better in the center comparing 600 mm f/8 to 560 mm f/8 and better across the frame at 500 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8.

No doubt about the size weight advantages. If the AF and other factors are comparable with the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC, then I can see that being a very desirable option.

But, honestly, I think too much is made about the size/weight of the sigma. I've gone through thousands of shots all hand held. I've hiked with it. I've sat holding it on target. It took some getting used too, but it is manageable.

Seems as if we have two very good options. I may swap someday if I am willing to give up the extra mm and center IQ for size/weight. But for now, I am keeping the Sigma. But I certainly can see those that have the 100-400 II also being happy with these results as well. One of those situations, close enough optically that I would be happy to own either.

BTW...I thought this was interesting as well:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=978&LensComp=972&Units=E

Specifically, the distance to target at the bottom. More evidence of focus breathing on the 100-400L II at those distances (may not be as much at infinity). But I shoot birds at 30 ft, so it is relevant.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 27, 2015)

Thanks for the post Alan.

I see the Canon being much better at 400mm, but the Sigma is usable. At 600mm f/8, The Sigma has the advantage in center and mid IQ by a small amount, but loses at the edges. At higher focal lengths, the Sigma wins by a noticeable amount, but I wouldn't want to use either at a small enough aperture to get sharp images.

As far as IQ goes, the Sigma is obviously a good buy, but its also a concern that the first lens had major issues and the second lens also showed some decentering. What are the chances of getting one that is not damaged, and of it staying that way? Shipping is very hard on a lens, Canon has taken a lot of care to safely package the 100-400mm L, and then Adorama put a full 3 inches of air bags around mine. 

The weight of 7.15 pounds for the Sigma versus The 3.75 lb weight of the 100-400mm MK II + the 0.5 lb weight of the Canon 1.4X III extender gives the Canon a huge handholding advantage. The price per pound for Sigma glass is very low 



+ Attachments and other options 
The link to TDP does not work for me, here is one that is less direct.



The link to TDP does not work for me, here is one that is less direct.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2\


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 27, 2015)

Glad to see that the 100-400 II holds up so well. Hoping to upgrade the version I to the version II soon.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 27, 2015)

docsmith said:


> True...but I'd put the Sigma a bit better in the center comparing 600 mm f/8 to 560 mm f/8 and better across the frame at 500 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8.
> 
> No doubt about the size weight advantages. If the AF and other factors are comparable with the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC, then I can see that being a very desirable option.
> 
> ...



The 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC is smaller and lighter than the Sigma, doesn't focus breathe and is significantly sharper at its f/5.6 vs f/6.3, and f/8 vs f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

If the difference in sharpness really matters to you, then take the Canon prime plus extenders. Sharpness does matter to me. Nevertheless, I like taking the 100-400mm II with me, even on the 7DII, because it is good enough in most cases. So much so, I have just bought a second copy as my wife has snaffled my first copy and I want to leave the 300 at home on many occasions.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2015)

*Long zooms: Canon 100-400 II vs. Sigma 150-600 Sports vs. Tamron 150-600*

The good Mr. Carnathan has a fresh batch of IQ comparisons for us:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=14971

From a really quick viewing, on the wide open end, it appears:

Canon 100-400 II > Sigma 150-600 sports > Tamron 150-600 >>> the original Sigma 150-500.

I'm a _little _surprised. LensTip's 150-600 Sigma Sports review implied we'd see the Sigma outperform even the 100-400 II.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Apr 28, 2015)

Hi ahsanford....I do not believe lenstip has reviewed the 100-400 II. The Sigma 150-600S was a tick better than the 100-400 Mk I in the lenstip review. Ephotozine has reviewed both, but, as Alan has pointed out in another thread, their results with the 100-400II are inconsistent with other reviews.

Bryan is the next to have reviewed both, to the best of my knowledge.



AlanF said:


> If the difference in sharpness really matters to you, then take the Canon prime plus extenders. Sharpness does matter to me. Nevertheless, I like taking the 100-400mm II with me, even on the 7DII, because it is good enough in most cases. So much so, I have just bought a second copy as my wife has snaffled my first copy and I want to leave the 300 at home on many occasions.



Thanks Alan. At some point, I may be talking about a big white. I have no doubt they are a step up. Like many, I am sure, I check out charts and graphs. I see the images and all I can say is that I am impressed. But, that is not in my budget for a bit longer, if ever. But, the combination you mention is one that I have considered. Right now, I think I might lean toward the 400 DO II if I was to spend that kind of money. Or I might save up for a bit more for a 500 or 600 f/4 II. 

So, in the mean time I am in the ~$2k budget range for the super telephoto range and used that to get the 150-600S. And an odd thing happened as I shot the Sigma 150-600S. It did what I wanted it too.


----------



## candc (Apr 28, 2015)

I never saw the appeal with this lens. Its a heavy pumper zoom and the iq doesn't look significantly better than the 100-400ii or even the tamron for that matter. Sigma should have just come out with the 150-600c and made a 300-600 f/5.6s with the same design as the 120-300. Even if the price was double that of this lens it would have more appeal


----------



## docsmith (Apr 28, 2015)

candc said:


> I never saw the appeal with this lens. Its a heavy pumper zoom and the iq doesn't look significantly better than the 100-400ii or even the tamron for that matter. Sigma should have just come out with the 150-600c and made a 300-600 f/5.6s with the same design as the 120-300. Even if the price was double that of this lens it would have more appeal



No lens is for every person. But, if interested, check out some of the reviews:

http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/10/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-reviews-sample-images/


----------



## AlanF (Apr 28, 2015)

docsmith, what I am really getting at is that too much is often made of relatively small differences in IQ. My 300/2.8 II with or without extenders does outperform my 100-400mm II. But, for 90% or more of the time it makes very little difference in practice - if I am close enough to the birds I photo I will get superb shots, and the better lens lets me be a bit further away. My old 100-400mm Mk 1 was not good enough, but the Tamron 150-600mm, the two Sigmas and the Mk 2 have crossed a threshold and give crisp images. So, I now go for the lightest and smallest.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> docsmith, what I am really getting at is that too much is often made of relatively small differences in IQ. My 300/2.8 II with or without extenders does outperform my 100-400mm II. But, for 90% or more of the time it makes very little difference in practice - if I am close enough to the birds I photo I will get superb shots, and the better lens lets me be a bit further away. My old 100-400mm Mk 1 was not good enough, but the Tamron 150-600mm, the two Sigmas and the Mk 2 have crossed a threshold and give crisp images. So, I now go for the lightest and smallest.



Alan...that makes a lot of sense. I can see many people picking the 100-400 II for it's size and weight. I also agree that small differences in IQ that can only be discerned under controlled conditions and test charts shouldn't be deciding factors (unless the goal is to shoot---test charts ???). 

For me, since I added the 70-200 II (plus TCs) to my kit a while ago, my 100-400 Mk I has only seen very limited use. But, since I picked up the Sigma 150-600S, I use it any time I want lots of reach (i.e. 400-600 mm). So, what has impressed me about the 100-400 II is that it seems to take the 1.4xTC very well. But, as you say, if IQ is essentially a push, other factors are used to make the decision. In my instance, since I want the 400-600 mm range, those other factors are not size/weight, but rather AF points, an extra 40 mm of reach, and f/6.3 vs f/8. With the Sigma I can use all my AF points and options rather than just the center point I would be limited to with the 100-400 II plus 1.4xTC on my 5DIII. Now, if somehow I am wrong and I wouldn't be limited to the center AF point or if the 5DIV has a nice spread of f/8 AF points, that might change things for me. But, right now, I enjoy shooting with the 150-600S enough, it certainly wouldn't change right away. Sometimes it isn't about "the best" but what works for you and the 5DIII plus the 150-600S has worked so far.


----------



## weixing (May 15, 2015)

Hi,
I check at the TDP and notice the below:
1) Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm is F6.3 and not F5.6?? 
2) Tamron 150-600mm @ 400mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm
3) Tamron 150-600mm @ 500mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 500mm at the centre and Sigma is better at the mid-frame and edge.
4) At 600mm, Sigma 150-600mm Sport is better than the Tamron 150-600mm
5) There are 2 copies for the Sigma 150-600mm Sport and the 2nd copy look quite bad compare to the 1st copy...

Have a nice day.


----------



## Plainsman (May 26, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 5) There are 2 copies for the Sigma 150-600mm Sport and the 2nd copy look quite bad compare to the 1st copy...
> 
> Have a nice day.



QC is the big issue (which you can't quantify) with either Sigma and Tamron. 
Their QC never seems to gets much better! Indeed you really don't know what you're going to get. That's why they are cheaper because they let lenses pass thru to the unsuspecting customer - which Canon would not allow.
If you want a zoom up to 400mm pay more and get the 100-400 but don't ruin it with Canon converter that is not specifically designed for it!!


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I check at the TDP and notice the below:
> 1) Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm is F6.3 and not F5.6??
> 2) Tamron 150-600mm @ 400mm is better than Sigma 150-600 Sport @ 400mm
> ...



You are right about the second copy. It is far inferior to the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC. I have two copies of the 100-400 II now, and both are of identical high quaility.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


----------



## Aichbus (May 27, 2015)

Plainsman said:


> QC is the big issue (which you can't quantify) with either Sigma and Tamron.



QC is not only an issue with Sigma and Tamron, but also with Canon. My three most recently acquired lenses are:

Sigma 50 Art
Canon 4/16-35 L IS
Canon 100-400 L II

The Sigma was perfect, but both Canon lenses were significantly decentered. I had to send them back and only the replacements were good.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 27, 2015)

The 100-400 II is extremely useable, not too heavy, lighting-fast AF. The Sigma is really heavy and simply not a joy to use. IQ of 100-400 II is on the highest standards of a zoom lens. Walking miles along a coast line with the Canon and being quickly in a position to shoot seabirds is not a problem at all. To me, you cannot ask for more.


----------



## ahsanford (May 27, 2015)

HarryWintergreen said:


> The 100-400 II is extremely useable, not too heavy, lighting-fast AF. The Sigma is really heavy and simply not a joy to use. IQ of 100-400 II is on the highest standards of a zoom lens. Walking miles along a coast line with the Canon and being quickly in a position to shoot seabirds is not a problem at all. To me, you cannot ask for more.



Actually, you could ask for 200mm more length. 

The Sigma will always have that in its favor -- Canon won't let you get to 600 without a teleconverter or a loan from the bank. Give them some credit for delivering a solid product that doesn't cost a mint.

- A


----------



## Aichbus (May 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Aichbus said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


In both Canon lenses, the decentering was very obvious in real world photos already, but I have a lens check resolution test poster hanging in my office which I can use to get repeatable results. With that I can see even minor differences in sharpness across the frame. (This one, in case your are interested: http://www.fotokoch.de/allzub/56256.shtml)


----------



## AlanF (May 27, 2015)

These lenses are sorted out on the 7DII. The 100-400mm II is great at 400mm and really good at 560mm with the 1.4xTC. The Sigma falls apart at longer focal lengths - see http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/&prev=search

"With APS-C:
With the APS-C format provides good lens sharpness 150-200 mm and pass 300-400 mm. But a high-resolution APS-C sensor is less forgiving than a full-frame sensor and photos taken at 500 and 600 mm may not be particularly good drawing in small and fine details. As the plumage of birds or the fur of mammals."

The MTF charts are terrible. Its the same with the Tamron on APS-C.


----------



## docsmith (May 29, 2015)

Issues with APS-C? "Falls apart" at long focal lengths? Maybe it is just on Canon bodies.... : : :

http://nikonites.com/blogs/rob-bye/907-shooting-sports-sigma-150-600mm.html#axzz3O7hgJHxL

https://photographylife.com/sigma-150-600mm-sport-goes-on-a-safari

Oh....maybe it is just the 7DII : :

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/review-sigma-150-600mm-sports-650d

I am curious to see what Bryan/TDP comes up with. But I would not expect the Sigma to "fall apart" at longer focal lengths. It could be that the 100-400II is a better combination? Sure. If for no other reason, hand holding a 960 mm equivalent lens would be a challenge. But I fully expect to see someone use the 7DII and 150-600S combination and get some great images.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2015)

Just look at the MTF charts for the Sigma Sport in the link I posted.


----------



## docsmith (May 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Just look at the MTF charts for the Sigma Sport in the link I posted.



I had. They are, potentially, troubling. But, they reminded me of:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Quotes that I have read over time that using imatest and other software for long focal lengths is problematic
[*]How little stock I put in single reviews from websites I've never heard of before.
[*]How while I do look at test results, I am more swayed by actual images.
[/list]

Also, part of the dip is going from 20 cycles/mm for FF to 30 cycles/mm for crop. Granted, some great lenses did not see much of a drop (70-200 II, 300 f/2.8 II). So, it is possible that high density sensors may expose a flaw with the 150-600S. I believe we are both fans of TDP, so lets see what happens when Bryan posts his results with the 7DII (assuming he is going to do this). If he is also showing an atypical drop off in IQ, that would carry more weight with me. 

BTW...he already has observed a reasonable drop off from FF to APS-C with the other lenses, including the 100-400 II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

But...at the end of the day, even if the results hold up, that really isn't the point, at least to me. The point is "how do you get to 600 mm cost effectively." It isn't as if I am trying to have the 150-600S win some sort of prize for "best lens ever." It is a tool and what really matters is comparisons to lenses in the same price range that serve the same function. Thus far, the IQ from TDP for FF shows 600 mm on the Sigma and 560 mm on the 100-400 II to be essentially even. Thus, other factors when into the decision on which lens is selected. Could it be that result changes on a crop body? We'll see. Hopefully Bryan posts results with the 7DII and Sigma.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2015)

The Swedish website had virtually the same data for the Tamron 150-600mm as for the Sigma. DxO did an in-depth analysis of the Tamron on FF and crop. On FF it did very well. However, on crop it deteriorated greatly, consistent with the Swedish site.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-lens-performance-on-7D

"This lens is more likely to be used in conjunction with an APS-C format body where it’s the equivalent of a 240-960mm f5-6.3. ............ Sharpness is lower throughout the zoom range, unfortunately, and it drops significantly over the 400mm to 600mm range."

I tried the Tamron at 600mm on the 70D, and it was very disappointing although I got excellent results with it on the 5DIII, so I believe both DxO and the Swedes on the Tamron 150-600mm. My experience and every other report I have seen rates the 100-400mm II as excellent on crop as well as FF, and I routinely use it at 560mm on the 7DII. In contrast, My old 100-400 Mk 1 was fine on FF but rubbish on crop, again consistent with DxO. 

I await other websites to test the Sigmas on crop, and the Swedes to do the 100-400 II.


----------



## docsmith (May 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I await other websites to test the Sigmas on crop, and the Swedes to do the 100-400 II.



Sounds good. It will be interesting to see both more reviews and more actual photos come in. If the observations the Sweds made and you made with the Tamron hold up, in that the 3rd party 150-600 lenses take a large hit on crop vs FF compared to the Canon lenses....then that would be a good reason for crop users to buy something like the Canon 100-400 II over the 3rd party 150-600mm lenses. So hopefully we get such a direct comparison, ie 100-400II plus 1.4xTC vs the 150-600S on crop bodies from the same source. 

Of course, I am already seeing some pretty great images taken with the 150-600's on crop (links provided above, and also, scrolling through the lens page on flickr).


----------



## ahsanford (May 29, 2015)

docsmith said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I await other websites to test the Sigmas on crop, and the Swedes to do the 100-400 II.
> ...



Not sure if this was covered, but LensTip has tested all the recent 150-600 offerings and report resolution on FF _and_ crop.

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary:
http://www.lenstip.com/434.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

Sigma 150-600 Sports:
http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

Tamron 150-600:
http://www.lenstip.com/403.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_Di_VC_USD_Image_resolution.html

They have the Canon 100-400 II there as well, but it's apples and oranges when you aren't covering 200mm of FL. 

- A


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2015)

Lenstip has NOT tested those lenses on crop. You have, unfortunately, misread the tests. They tested on the Canon EOS 5D MkIII and reported the resolution at the "edge of the APS-C sensor" - that is what the resolution is at a distance on the FF sensor which would correspond to the edge of the APS-C.

Lenstip has yet to test the 100-400 Mk II - it is indeed listed on the site, but it is untested.


----------



## 9VIII (May 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> HarryWintergreen said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 II is extremely useable, not too heavy, lighting-fast AF. The Sigma is really heavy and simply not a joy to use. IQ of 100-400 II is on the highest standards of a zoom lens. Walking miles along a coast line with the Canon and being quickly in a position to shoot seabirds is not a problem at all. To me, you cannot ask for more.
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

When I look at the 100-400MkII on crop vs. the Sigma 150-600 S on full frame, they look virtually identical to me, maybe even giving the edge to the cropped 100-400MkII, and that lens is actually giving a 640mm equivalent FOV.
There's a lot of reasons to stick with the Canon.
If I had a full frame sport body already it might be a close call, but the 100-400MkII is a lens with very few downsides.
(Yes at f8 the Sigma improves a tiny bit more in comparison.)


----------



## ahsanford (May 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Lenstip has NOT tested those lenses on crop. You have, unfortunately, misread the tests. They tested on the Canon EOS 5D MkIII and reported the resolution at the "edge of the APS-C sensor" - that is what the resolution is at a distance on the FF sensor which would correspond to the edge of the APS-C.
> 
> Lenstip has yet to test the 100-400 Mk II - it is indeed listed on the site, but it is untested.



Ah, yes. I stand corrected.

- A


----------



## AJ (May 31, 2015)

Thanks for the link to the TDP charts. I just did a quick comparison between the Sigma S and the Tamron 150-600. The Tamron edges the Sigma at 300 and 400 mm, but at 500 and 600 mm the Sigma is clearly better.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 31, 2015)

9VIII said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > HarryWintergreen said:
> ...


7D-II is not the same as a 1Ds-III both in terms of resolution and AA filter so in my mind at least these are not directly comparable setups.

Here is [email protected],f/8 vs [email protected],f/8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Also just out of interest here is [email protected],f/10 vs Canon @800,f/11:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=8&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

To me the Sigma with less teleconversion appears to resolve better than the shorter Canon 100-400 especially in the central portion of the frame which is most important if you are reach limited.


----------



## Vincwat (May 31, 2015)

Hi everyone,

I had a 7Dmk1 and the orginal 100-400. It worked well. Then I switched to the 5Dmk3 and the Tamron 150-600. It was very good. I replaced the Tamron with the Sigma 150-600 sport. On the 5Dmk3 it is very good. On the 7Dmk2 it is terrible. I am going on a trip next week. When I am back I will send the 7Dmk2 for repair. If it doesn't fix the problem I will look for another solution. I would like to post some sample images. 100% crop of the files. I am using lightroom 5. But I have never done this before. So I have no idea how to do it. If someone can explain this to me I could post them.

Vincwat


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2015)

There is probably absolutely nothing wrong with your 7DII. The truth is that both the Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are very poor on crop above 500mm. I posted on page 2 of this thread links to Swedish websites where they have measured the MTFs on crop - they are down to very weak values of 0.4-0.5 or worse at 600mm. Here are the links again.

http://www.lensfreaks.com/lens-reviews/tamron/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd-review/

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/&prev=search

I am now really pleased I sold my Tamron for the 100-400 II. On FF, the Tamron was fine but it was weak on my 70D as you have found on your 7DII. But, I routinely use the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC III on the 7DII with excellent results.


----------



## weixing (May 31, 2015)

Vincwat said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I had a 7Dmk1 and the orginal 100-400. It worked well. Then I switched to the 5Dmk3 and the Tamron 150-600. It was very good. I replaced the Tamron with the Sigma 150-600 sport. On the 5Dmk3 it is very good. On the 7Dmk2 it is terrible. I am going on a trip next week. When I am back I will send the 7Dmk2 for repair. If it doesn't fix the problem I will look for another solution. I would like to post some sample images. 100% crop of the files. I am using lightroom 5. But I have never done this before. So I have no idea how to do it. If someone can explain this to me I could post them.
> 
> Vincwat


Hi,
Have you try to shooting it using live view? If you think the IQ result is still not good when shoot using live view, then probably the problem is not with the 7D2... I suggest you look at Canon Super Telephoto prime.

Anyway, I'm waiting for the Canon 100-400mm II to replace my Tamron 150-600mm, but I'm changing not because of Tarmon IQ (I'm quite happy with my Tarmon IQ and AF speed after the firmware update)... the high magnification, very short MFD, weight lesser and smaller package are the main reason I'm changing.

Have a nice day.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 1, 2015)

Bryan/TDP's review of the 150-600S is up.....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx


----------



## jmeyer (Jun 1, 2015)

Hi, I rented the sigma sport two weekends ago from LensRental, to give it a shot. I currently use a 50D and 400mm 5.6, so I was looking to get a few extra mm without thousands of dollars. I have to say I was quite impressed with the lens. I thought it was very sharp at 600mm. I didn't use it at any other focal lengths. One thing I did notice, though, is you need light. It struggles with slow shutter speeds. Here are a couple of pictures I took with the lens at 600mm.


----------



## meywd (Jun 1, 2015)

jmeyer said:


> Hi, I rented the sigma sport two weekends ago from LensRental, to give it a shot. I currently use a 50D and 400mm 5.6, so I was looking to get a few extra mm without thousands of dollars. I have to say I was quite impressed with the lens. I thought it was very sharp at 600mm. I didn't use it at any other focal lengths. One thing I did notice, though, is you need light. It struggles with slow shutter speeds. Here are a couple of pictures I took with the lens at 600mm.



nice shots, are these 100% crops?


----------



## jmeyer (Jun 1, 2015)

No, just cropped down to, what I think, frames the bird nicely


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 2, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Glad to see that the 100-400 II holds up so well. Hoping to upgrade the version I to the version II soon.


I'd love to put my hands on this Sigma for a Safari but for practical terms I see myself upgrading as well to the lighter 100-400mmL II because of the weight and portability advantages.


----------



## Dixiekurtz (Jun 3, 2015)

I had the Tamron with a 7D, they didn't play well together. Then I got the 7D 2. I probably got onr good shot out of 10. I wasn't sure if it was the camera or the lens. My other lenses worked fine so I unloaded the Tamron and got the Sigma Sport I personally couldn't be happier. Sharp and the focus is light years better than the Tamron. Looking back I'm sure I had a bad copy.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 9, 2015)

Bryan has tested the 150-600C on the 7DII

Compared to the 100-400 II @ 400

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Compared to the 100-400 II plus 1.4TC
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

FF vs crop

Sigma 150-600C
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

100-400 II plus 1.4TC

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

We each will have our own opinion, but both lenses take a hit going over to crop. To me, they are very similar on crop. While I am a big fan of Canon, I have to say, I think the price difference will come into play for many users.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2015)

Doc
You haven't made the best comparisons. First, the 100-400mm II is better at f/5.6 than f/8, and at f/5.6 has a slight edge on the 7DII at 400mm over the Sigma 150-600mm at 400mm f/8, with an extra stop of signal/noise to favour the Canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=990&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Secondly, with the Sigma at 600mm and the Canon at 560mm both at f/8 on the 7DII, the Canon is significantly sharper in the all-important centre - best seen by toggling between the two on the central circular arcs. The Sigma loses contrast.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Finally, in your last comparison of the 1.4xTC + 100-400mm II on the 5DIII vs the 7DII, it looks like the 7DII is soft - but in practice it isn't because the extra 1.5x "extra reach" more than compensates. I know this from much experience in the past. I returned last night from a birding trip to Barcelona and the Pyrenees where my wife used the 5DIII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII and I used the 7DII, and the 7DII won out every time for long distance shots.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 11, 2015)

Bryan has now posted the 150-600mm Sport image quality on the 7DII.

The S is better than the C at 600mm f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

The 100-400mm II at 560mm is midway between the two.

Versus the slightly less weighty 300mm f2.8 II + 2xTC both at f/8 and 600mm, the Canon is much sharper.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

whereas it is much closer on FF.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 11, 2015)

It doesn't look like this has been posted yet, but the review of the "C" is also up:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx

My overall conclusion is that just over a year ago, we had one lens, the 100-400 Mk 1, in the less than $10k range. Now we have 4 lenses in the less than $2,200 range that are all at least pretty good for people to chose between. That is excellent. I do tend to favor Bryan's results (not exclusively, but he tends to be very good) and, based on his results, there are pros and cons to each and I do not see any of the 4 falling apart on crop. 

Personally, I went with the Sigma 150-600S although I admit, the 100-400II plus 1.4xTC is better than I had thought it would be when I made my purchase. But, as I already own the 70-200 II, I am really after the 400-600 range (I've even used 840 mm @ f/11 which isn't bad). So, that works for me. But for those in the $2k+ price range, I can easily see picking either the 100-400II or 150-600S, but I imagine most will pick the 100-400 II. For those in the ~$1k price range, the 150-600C and the Tamron both hold their own remarkably well.

Where once we had so little, now we have so much.


----------



## LSeries (Jun 12, 2015)

I needed to do some AFMA for my 150-600 Sport + 7D mk II combination and after that it's pretty nice, actually.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Personally, I went with the Sigma 150-600S although I admit, the 100-400II plus 1.4xTC is better than I had thought it would be when I made my purchase. But, as I already own the 70-200 II, I am really after the 400-600 range (I've even used 840 mm @ f/11 which isn't bad).



This is the heart of it for me. Why doesn't Canon offer (say) a shorter FL multiplier lens like a 300-600 f/6.3L IS? It wouldn't be a threat to the high end superteles but would be a clear IQ upgrade over all the lower priced 4x zooms or teleconvertered shorter lenses.

Folks who want ultimate reach today are forced to use one of the following:

1) A comically pricey best-in-class supertele
2) A T/C on the 100-400 II
3) A T/C on a cheaper supertele like the 400 f/5.6L 
4) One of the three third party 150-600 options

So, for most shooters, Canon might get a T/C sale but that's it. Offering a 300-600 f/6.3L IS at (say) some price above the 150-600 glass (but not terribly so, say $2500) would sell very well. It would focus faster than a teleconverted lens and have that first-party confidence with AF, handling, weather-sealing and such.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I went with the Sigma 150-600S although I admit, the 100-400II plus 1.4xTC is better than I had thought it would be when I made my purchase. But, as I already own the 70-200 II, I am really after the 400-600 range (I've even used 840 mm @ f/11 which isn't bad).
> ...



Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6. The EF-M 55-200 ends at f/6.3 but that uses the image sensor for AF, not traditional PDAF. It would be limiting if people shelled out thousands for an 300-600 f/6.3L IS and then can't use many AF ponts. However, this might change once the mirror is replaced down the road.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 16, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.



I had heard that and was concerned when I got my 150-600S. But I have checked and not noticed a problem with the non-center AF points.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 16, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because a f/6.3 lens won't perform well enough on existing bodies, whose non-center points are limited to f/5.6.
> ...



On which bodies?


----------



## docsmith (Jun 16, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



5DIII.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 17, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



Thanks! How well does the 150-600S work as a walk-around lens? I'd opted for the 100-400 II as an upgrade to the original, but the 150-600S is significantly heavier. I've usually tied the BR strap to the L-bracket rather than the lens tripod ring because I prefer walking with the camera lens down, but I'm not sure if the L-bracket/body tripod socket would be strong enough to handle the larger weight.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 17, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


It works. I have hiked wildlife preserves with it. I am not going to kid you and if a "walk around" lens is your main purpose, the 100-400 II may be a better option. But the 150-600S can fit it in my flipside 400AW when mounted to the 5DIII, but it is a bit tight. I also have it strapped to a BR using the strap mount on the 5DIII or foot of the 150-600S. If the strap mount, I usually hold the lens by the foot while walking. I haven't tried connecting to my L-bracket, so I can't really speak to that.


----------

