# Review: Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Contemporary



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2015)

Discuss our review of the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Contemporary here.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 18, 2015)

I'm confused ... is the Sport still meant to be the best of the bunch then?
Given these are all still "consumer" priced lenses I think there'd be a market for a "consumer" price 600mm f/6.3 prime which bests them all (obviously) - I know f/5.6 is more normal and preferable, but I guess then that would give a reason to class it in the "super tele" category with that extra bit of required glass.


----------



## slclick (Aug 18, 2015)

Damn, I was really hoping for a standout between the two lower priced models. Especially since my wife told me to buy some glass for Yellowstone, lol.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2015)

slclick said:


> Damn, I was really hoping for a standout between the two lower priced models. Especially since my wife told me to buy some glass for Yellowstone, lol.



I thought there might be more separation between these three models, but really the biggest difference between any of them is the superior build (and resulting weight!!) of the Sigma Sport.

The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.


----------



## ejenner (Aug 18, 2015)

Interesting that the reviewer thought the Tamron AF was better. I'd heard a lot of so-so comments about the AF on the Tamron which is why I went for the sigma. AF on is was about what I expected for a 600mm f6.3 lens, and not like those older sigma primes with random focus issues or massive AMFA variations with subject distance.

Also the zoom ring turns the 'right' way.

I like the manual focus ring. It is not to be used if you do a lot of MF, it is completely out of the way for normal use, but there if you really need it.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.



That's a useful comment, thanks!
Indeed even when these were first announced, knowing they're target price points I knew not to realistically judge them/use them at 600mm f/6.3, but more likely f/7.1 or f/8 - where if they did really well at f/6.3 all the better  . But then, aside from "auto AF" it puts the 400 II with 1.4x into the mix which is definitely a lot lighter. I mean my 120-300mm OS is quite hefty (relatively) but probably bested by all 4 of those options with the 2x on it (my copy anyway). It's almost a small pity the Sport version isn't noticeably better at the IQ end?
(to clarify, like most internet users I haven't used any of the 150-600s  )


----------



## ejenner (Aug 18, 2015)

dufflover said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma's are both slightly better than the Tamron at 600mm f/6.3, but there isn't much of a difference when stopped down to f/8. If I were making the choice myself I would be torn. For the record, I'm choosing the new 100-400L II and will just use a 1.4x extender when I need more reach. I honestly can't say which of the 150-600 variants I would choose, though.
> ...



There are definitely lots of options out there in that range. I haven't seen comparisons, but I do think it puts the 400II very solidly in the mix from an IQ perspective. I did not really like the sig IQ at f6.3, I am shooting it at f8 and upping ISO if I have to. 

So I'm actually going to be upgrading to the 400 DO II and using that with a 1.4 when necessary. Piint being I theing a 400mm max with 1.4TC is a viable alternative to the 150-600s - at leat from my experience now of having that FL range available to me. So I think if the 100-400 suits your needs better overall and you can put a 1.4 on it when needed, it could very well be a better option than these lenses - although more than 2x the cost of the aig C and Tam - but also lighter and shorter. The 150-600s will fo BIF at 600mm and you can use more AF points and potentially crop less, not sure how good the 100-400+TC is for BIF.

In any case I don't think any of the options in this range from 400 f5.6 through to the 150-600s is an obvious choice over another. I think all seem good value for money, but in all cases you also get what you pay for - there are definitely weak points with the cheaper lenses.


----------



## Lt Colonel (Aug 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, I was really hoping for a standout between the two lower priced models. Especially since my wife told me to buy some glass for Yellowstone, lol.
> ...



Thanks Dustin. I've been struggling with this decision too and your decision to go with the 100-400 II is what I needed to put me over the fence. Your having the opportunity to put them through their paces personally and your decision to go with the Canon lens is the final piece of evidence I needed.


----------



## cycleraw (Aug 18, 2015)

Dustin, I preordered the Sigma Sport when it was first announced and have found it to have very good IQ up through about 450mm, above that it's not great. I then ordered a Canon 100-400 II when it was announced thinking I would return it but the Canon is an awesome lens and I had to keep it. The Canon works very well with a 1.4x in fact I find the IQ of the Canon with the 1.4x (560mm) superior to the bare Sigma at that focal length. AF speed and accuracy does take a hit using the 1.4x and my experience is the bare Sigma is better at 560mm in that regard. Is that what your testing shows?

Anyone interested in a slightly used Sigma 150-600 sport?


----------



## d (Aug 18, 2015)

Hi Dustin,

Really appreciate your thoughtful and insightful reviews, but please o' please could you stop split toning your product shots - camera gear just looks wrong with a greenish tint!

Otherwise, keep up the good work 


d.


----------



## geonix (Aug 18, 2015)

Hello all
Imho the sigmas have one real advantage over the tamron and it has nothing to do with build quality or sharpness. I do believe Dustin is right when he says the differences in sharpnes ar minor. What I mean is the ability to connect the sigma lenses to a computer via usb dock. I don't own one, but I imagine this option can be really handy. For firmware updates and AF adjustments this is so much more better than having to send a lens in to the manufacturer. 

Of cours one could say (an I've heard it before) that if they would do their lenses right in the first place, one wouldn't need that usb dock, but I think for the varieties of bodys and AF systems (even within a brand like canon) it should be expected that AF is not perfect for everybody when such lenses come out. 

Dustin, I like your work on reviewing gear, keep on doing that. Have you considered to review the Canon 400mm DO II ?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2015)

In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.



His tripod technique might not be the best, it is more hand-some like - "handsome" is used 10x in the full review. Never mind the poor AF, the lens is handsome, handsome and handsome. Though, hand full would be a good description of the S lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2015)

geonix said:


> Hello all
> Imho the sigmas have one real advantage over the tamron and it has nothing to do with build quality or sharpness. I do believe Dustin is right when he says the differences in sharpnes ar minor. What I mean is the ability to connect the sigma lenses to a computer via usb dock. I don't own one, but I imagine this option can be really handy. For firmware updates and AF adjustments this is so much more better than having to send a lens in to the manufacturer.
> 
> Of cours one could say (an I've heard it before) that if they would do their lenses right in the first place, one wouldn't need that usb dock, but I think for the varieties of bodys and AF systems (even within a brand like canon) it should be expected that AF is not perfect for everybody when such lenses come out.
> ...



I've got a request in for it, but, as you can imagine, my supplier parts with the super-teles a little slower than other lenses


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.
> ...



That's _*beautiful*_ feedback... ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.



All the images were reviewed and commented on more thoroughly in the full text review. The point you make here is one of the conclusions elaborated in the full written review (hosted on my own site). Video reviews require a fine balance (that I've not perfected) of getting as much information in them without making them too long (where no one will watch them).

Using a remote shutter release for this kind of test would defeat the point - viewers need to see the interaction between what happens once you've pressed the shutter - that's the way the lens will be used in reality. As for my tripod - it is rated for more about three times as much weight as is presented by this camera/lens combo. Do you think that most potential users of this lens will have an $800-$1000 tripod for their $1100 lens? 

Still, I appreciate the feedback. I always want to improve my technique and process by which I review.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2015)

d said:


> Hi Dustin,
> 
> Really appreciate your thoughtful and insightful reviews, but please o' please could you stop split toning your product shots - camera gear just looks wrong with a greenish tint!
> 
> ...



And here I am liking that look


----------



## crisotunity (Aug 18, 2015)

A big thank you to Dustin - very thoughtful review and I think you always leave space for potential users to draw their own conclusions based on their specific needs. You are right, in terms of optical performance, it is a minor miracle that we can buy a very accomplished 600mm lens for around £850-£900 and you make an excellent point that none of the three latest non-CanoNikon is a "loser".

However, I wish I had watched your review sooner. For my needs, over nearly three months of ownership, I found Sigma C's leisurely and slightly inconsistent AF (to which you hint in your review) a struggle. I have now sold it and I think it'll make a fantastic bird-spotting lens for someone (good resolution and low chromatic aberrations), but I don't see it as a "wildlife action" lens: there were far too many false-positives with fast-moving animals and -more worryingly- even if the first shot was in focus, it just couldn't follow the action accurately throughout the sequence. My 5D Mkiii and 1D Mkiii have performed better with a 100-400v1 + 1.4 extender in this respect: initial AF might have been slow, but once they locked on, I was always confident that I'd get a good percentage of in-focus shots. 

I still think that it's a solid lens (in every sense of the word) and both Sigma and Tamron are to be applauded for giving Canon a kick up their back-side. I guess the just-announced Nikon 200-500 is a reaction to this and there are already rumours that Canon has got an "affordable" prime in the works. Imagine a super sharp Ef-S 500 /f5.6: my 1D will be part-exchanged for a 7D Mkii within 24 hours ;D


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 18, 2015)

crisotunity said:


> A big thank you to Dustin - very thoughtful review and I think you always leave space for potential users to draw their own conclusions based on their specific needs. You are right, in terms of optical performance, it is a minor miracle that we can buy a very accomplished 600mm lens for around £850-£900 and you make an excellent point that none of the three latest non-CanoNikon is a "loser".
> 
> However, I wish I had watched your review sooner. For my needs, over nearly three months of ownership, I found Sigma C's leisurely and slightly inconsistent AF (to which you hint in your review) a struggle. I have now sold it and I think it'll make a fantastic bird-spotting lens for someone (good resolution and low chromatic aberrations), but I don't see it as a "wildlife action" lens: there were far too many false-positives with fast-moving animals and -more worryingly- even if the first shot was in focus, it just couldn't follow the action accurately throughout the sequence. My 5D Mkiii and 1D Mkiii have performed better with a 100-400v1 + 1.4 extender in this respect: initial AF might have been slow, but once they locked on, I was always confident that I'd get a good percentage of in-focus shots.
> 
> I still think that it's a solid lens (in every sense of the word) and both Sigma and Tamron are to be applauded for giving Canon a kick up their back-side. I guess the just-announced Nikon 200-500 is a reaction to this and there are already rumours that Canon has got an "affordable" prime in the works. Imagine a super sharp Ef-S 500 /f5.6: my 1D will be part-exchanged for a 7D Mkii within 24 hours ;D



Agree with the comments on AF. If AF is not consistent especially at the long end, it doesn't matter how nice it looks or feels. The video shows that the Tamron is able to AF much more consistently than this Sigma C, and that is with a center point. Never mind trying a side point; it's only going to get worse. And waiting for a firmware update to "fix" the AF is not realistic. Dustin has noted that the Sport focuses better than the Contemporary. If so, Sigma knows how to do AF but has chosen not to, which is a shame. If anything, the 150-600C should be marked a lot lower than the 150-600S and the Tamron for that alone.

I've used the 100-400L II with the 1.4x on a 5DIII and it AFs as well as a lens should. I don't worry about it failing to lock in decent light.


----------



## lescrane (Aug 18, 2015)

Dustin, Thank you for the wonderfully presented, comprehensive review.

I have a question on the stabilization. Were you able to compare the "effective number of stops" between the Sigma C and the Tamron?

Did you get to experiment with the "panning mode"??

I have had the Tamron since the day it came out and overall pleased. I am a bit disappointed w/the VC... 2 stops seems to be the limit.

Also, lack of a panning mode switch bugs me when I do BIFS. I often forget to turn VC off during panning, ......Tamron is offering a software enhancement/fix to detect panning, but you need to send the lens back, it would be my second lens return. Am happy Tamron does this at no charge(and very promptly), but the Sigma dock really is appealing to avoid shipping lenses back and forth

Thanks again.


----------



## AJ (Aug 18, 2015)

Dustin, any thoughts about bokeh? Does one lens stand out above the others?


----------



## Isaac Grant (Aug 18, 2015)

I have been a member for quite some time but very rarely post. I had the Tamron for over a year and found it to be a great lens. When the Sigma C came out I bought it and tested it side by side with the Tamron. To me the Sigma C was quite a bit sharper than the Tamron when both were at f8. I also found the color and contrast of the Sigma C to be better. It is also as fast or faster at tracking birds than the Tamron was. The autofocus is great and I have no problem tracking and shoot fast flying birds like martins and swallows or flying shorebirds. Don't know if those who have trouble using it or are having focusing problems have a bad copy or just bad technique. (sorry I don't mean to sound rude, but that option is always a valid one until proven otherwise) My Sigma C along with my Canon 7d2 is a fantastic tool to use and one that I can use in many different situations with great results.

Here are a few shots that I have gotten with it recently that show that the lens tracks like a boss. I have long strings of shots of flying martins that have 30 or so shots in a row where just about every one is in focus. Lighting and angle are of course bad in most as the bird has to be turned just right to get the light on it. But the lens tracks like a champ. It is up to the photographer to do the rest.



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Willet by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## Isaac Grant (Aug 18, 2015)

And here are a few more to show what results the Sigma C gets. I can tell you with 100% certainty that if your lens has a hard time tracking or focusing then there is something wrong with it. Send it back for service. Here are more fast flying small birds that the Sigma C handles with ease. Results are fantastic as well when the birds are not flying 100 mph. 



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Barn Swallow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## crisotunity (Aug 18, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> I have been a member for quite some time but very rarely post. I had the Tamron for over a year and found it to be a great lens. When the Sigma C came out I bought it and tested it side by side with the Tamron. To me the Sigma C was quite a bit sharper than the Tamron when both were at f8. I also found the color and contrast of the Sigma C to be better. It is also as fast or faster at tracking birds than the Tamron was. The autofocus is great and I have no problem tracking and shoot fast flying birds like martins and swallows or flying shorebirds. Don't know if those who have trouble using it or are having focusing problems have a bad copy or just bad technique. (sorry I don't mean to sound rude, but that option is always a valid one until proven otherwise) My Sigma C along with my Canon 7d2 is a fantastic tool to use and one that I can use in many different situations with great results.
> 
> Here are a few shots that I have gotten with it recently that show that the lens tracks like a boss"
> 
> ...


----------



## Isaac Grant (Aug 18, 2015)

The lens should work just fine, even in poorer light. But of course it is an f6.3 so you have to deal with that. Results should be much better than the 100-400 version 1 plus the 1.4x. Especially since you get the use of all focus points at f8. Personal circumstances do not make a lens focus/track slower. If the lens does not track well it is either a bad copy, something wrong with your camera/settings or user error. I'd be happy to post loads more shots of flying swallows, shorebirds, terns, etc. All with the Sigma C. It tracks great.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> The lens should work just fine, even in poorer light. But of course it is an f6.3 so you have to deal with that. Results should be much better than the 100-400 version 1 plus the 1.4x. Especially since you get the use of all focus points at f8. Personal circumstances do not make a lens focus/track slower. If the lens does not track well it is either a bad copy, something wrong with your camera/settings or user error. I'd be happy to post loads more shots of flying swallows, shorebirds, terns, etc. All with the Sigma C. It tracks great.



I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?


----------



## BobHope (Aug 18, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.



I have a gitzo 5 series carbon tripod and you can still see wobbles when I touch the camera with my 600f4, even with the legs on shortest setting and the spiked feet on solid concrete. I think you are being a trifle unfair.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Aug 18, 2015)

I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?


I personally find it very difficult to keep the really fast flying birds in the frame at 600mm. The camera and lens track just fine at that focal length, but my ability to keep them in the frame and to hold the camera and pan steady enough at that focal length is at fault. That is why most of the in flight shots are at shorter focal lengths.

For static objects it, with the OS on, it works great. Here are just a few samples all at 600mm



Semi-palmated Plover by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



House Wren by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Piping Plover by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Prothonotary Warbler by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2015)

Isaac, I very much agree with you - 400mm is my upper limit on the 7DII for birds in flight.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's always a valid point. I will primarily use the lens in its bare form, and may be more inclined to throw it on my 70D when I want more reach rather than use the TC. What I really want is the IQ, IS, and build of the Canon with the focal length and price of the Tamron/Sigma C. :-\


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2015)

crisotunity said:


> A big thank you to Dustin - very thoughtful review and I think you always leave space for potential users to draw their own conclusions based on their specific needs. You are right, in terms of optical performance, it is a minor miracle that we can buy a very accomplished 600mm lens for around £850-£900 and you make an excellent point that none of the three latest non-CanoNikon is a "loser".
> 
> However, I wish I had watched your review sooner. For my needs, over nearly three months of ownership, I found Sigma C's leisurely and slightly inconsistent AF (to which you hint in your review) a struggle. I have now sold it and I think it'll make a fantastic bird-spotting lens for someone (good resolution and low chromatic aberrations), but I don't see it as a "wildlife action" lens: there were far too many false-positives with fast-moving animals and -more worryingly- even if the first shot was in focus, it just couldn't follow the action accurately throughout the sequence. My 5D Mkiii and 1D Mkiii have performed better with a 100-400v1 + 1.4 extender in this respect: initial AF might have been slow, but once they locked on, I was always confident that I'd get a good percentage of in-focus shots.
> 
> I still think that it's a solid lens (in every sense of the word) and both Sigma and Tamron are to be applauded for giving Canon a kick up their back-side. I guess the just-announced Nikon 200-500 is a reaction to this and there are already rumours that Canon has got an "affordable" prime in the works. Imagine a super sharp Ef-S 500 /f5.6: my 1D will be part-exchanged for a 7D Mkii within 24 hours ;D



Thanks for the nice feedback.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2015)

lescrane said:


> Dustin, Thank you for the wonderfully presented, comprehensive review.
> 
> I have a question on the stabilization. Were you able to compare the "effective number of stops" between the Sigma C and the Tamron?
> 
> ...



I did a more comprehensive comparison of the Canon 100-400L II and the Tamron on this count, and found the Canon more steady (and more mannerly) even with the 1.4x extender attached to somewhat equalize the focal length.

I found that neither the Tamron nor the Sigmas stabilize the viewfinder image as much as what I would personally like. Tweaking the lenses through the USB dock with the Sigmas can make a minor improvement on this front. My copy of the Tamron did have the firmware update, so I found the lenses all roughly equal in the stablizer department.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?
> 
> 
> I personally find it very difficult to keep the really fast flying birds in the frame at 600mm. The camera and lens track just fine at that focal length, but my ability to keep them in the frame and to hold the camera and pan steady enough at that focal length is at fault. That is why most of the in flight shots are at shorter focal lengths.
> ...



Fantastic series, Isaac. I suspect you have a very effective technique, which helps. My experience favored the Tamron and Sigma for tracking, but you are right - technique helps, and there is always the possibility for some sample variation.

I'm curious: have you used the USB dock to customize the lens to your body and B) did you find that you were able to significantly improve the focus through this technique?

I don't work for Tamron or Sigma, so if you are happy with your purchase, then I'm happy. Your opinion is more important than mine.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 19, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



It's not an important criticism as you don't have to change the extender if the timing is critical. If you leave the extender on, you have a similar focal length zoom (140-560mm) to the 150-600mm. If don't have time to put the extender on, you are indeed limited to 400mm rather than 600mm, but this is not a killer especially as the IQ at 400mm of the Canon 100-400mm II is much better than the Sigma C or Tamron at 600mm.For birds in flight, Isaac Grant doesn't even use the 400-600mm region on his 7DII.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Aug 19, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > I checked the focal lengths you used for these shots: they vary from 150mm to about 400mm on a 7DII, and nothing at 500 or 600mm. Have you got the same performance at 600mm?
> ...



Thank you for the compliment Dustin. Coming from you it really means a great deal. I do own the dock and set my lens up as follows: All I did was to assign C1 to Dynamic OS and focus priority. I find this to be the best overall setting as it creates the most stable image in the viewfinder (but it is not as stable as the Canon 100-400 ii.) and also the most accurate focus. It is supposed to slow the focus down a bit but I find it plenty fast for my uses. I use C1 for all static shots. Pretty much without exception. I do have C2 set up differently but never use it. I did not do any other adjustments to the lens or body. No micro adjustments either. Just slapped it on and shot with it.

This is the first shot I ever took with the Sigma.

275mm


American Oystercatcher by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

For all BIF shots I take the OS off.

I have heard quite a few people say that they do not see a difference really between the Tamron and Sigma. I had a very sharp copy of the Tamron and was quite pleased with it but find the Sigma better in many ways. First and foremost is image quality. At 600mm it is just sharper. I did lots and lots of testing with my copies before I sold my Tamron. I like the colors and contrast more. I like the focal length locks. I like the ability to use custom settings. Overall I find it to be a much better value than the Tamron. After all, as you well know, even slight increases in image quality cost a lot of money in optics. To me the Sigma is a much better lens, not only optically but also as far as user experience goes. It even comes with a great case.

I also find it extremely sharp at all focal lengths.

Here are a few other examples above 400mm of small and harder to photograph birds. I personally do not find that taking pics of large, slow and tame birds to be a very good test of a lens. Sharpness yes, but it does little to give you real world usage results.

484mm 


Semi-palmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

500mm


Song Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

516mm


American Oystercatcher by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

516mm


Barn Swallow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

421mm


Chipping Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## Isaac Grant (Aug 19, 2015)

AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I have used the 400-600 for BIF but do so very rarely. I do not often shoot large and slow moving birds like Egrets and things like that. But it is much easier to use the longer focal lengths on these kinds of birds. I prefer to have very good field craft and position myself where I can be as close to the birds as possible, especially for BIF and this way I can use the shorter focal lengths with much greater success.


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 19, 2015)

Thanks Dustin Abbott for giving us a very useful review of the final of the Sigma/Tamron trio.

I think you've confirmed that my Tamron 150-600 is no worse than the other two.

One thing I would like to ask is if you found any difference in performance when photographing at distance because I think that assessing these long lenses at imatest distances (40ft) is not a realistic reference.

Of interest will be the new Nikon 200-500 which will give a true 500/5.6 against a very poor 320/5.6 for the Sigma Sport. Indeed although limited to 500mm it could be a very good 500! I hope Canon will copy Nikon soon - just in time for the 80D!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2015)

AlanF said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > In the AF speed video...can you see the camera and lens wobble as he hits the shutter. A sure sign of poor testing technique. The tripod he is using is NOT suitable for a 600mm lens. Also he hits the shutter so hard, the whole lens test is invalid. He's also not pushing the images to a laptop screen to check if the lens has actually focused accurately. Just because it locks on, doesn't mean it's properly focused. I've had many Sigma lenses which AF lock fine...but are inconsistent in their actual focus accuracy.
> ...



Maybe you should buy a copy and cuddle up to it every night?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 20, 2015)

I just prefer and faster lens for birds. I have the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L IS and find it to be supurb in good light. However, I will always wish for something faster. I'de spend the money on the Canon before this any day of the week. I am sure it is a fine lens, but I still prefer the Canon.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 20, 2015)

That doesn't make much sense at all. Firstly there's no such lens (the 400mm with IS), and it's not really much faster at 400mm. Canon because it's Canon?


----------



## IslanderMV (Sep 2, 2017)

Had the lens for a month now - replaced a canon 100-400mm. Found it to be superior in every way except BIF's. I am enjoying it quite a bit. I have found it works better with my 6D than my 7D.


----------



## Talys (Sep 3, 2017)

If you upgrade the firmware on the 150-600C past 1.01 -- which actually significantly improves autofocus -- it breaks compatibility with the Canon 1.4x III extender  It causes an Error 01 on shutter half-press or AF button, even if lens is switched to MF.

The only way to make it work is to switch to MF, go to live view, and shoot from there. Once in LiveView, you can switch it back to AF, and then DPAF still works.

Annoying, because it basically means you can't use the OVF. Sigma will tell you to buy their extender  Taping pins doesn't seem to work, but I have read that cheap kenko extenders do (I don't have one, so I can't try).


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 3, 2017)

For those who are still using this lens: What is your experience with OS? I find it quite hard to have a sharp image at 600mm (FF) handheld with speeds bellow 1/500s. I can still achieve sharp images in 1/320s but if I want to go bellow, I need a tripod. I'm not talking about moving subjects! 

When it comes to discuss quality of this lens, I wouldn't complain about focus or IQ. My biggest complain is related to build. Missing weather sealing. Lens which most people are using for wild life or air shows without weather sealing is annoying. And it is not only about the moisture but also about dust. 

I know that Sigma made Sport version which is supposed to be weather sealed but based on many comparisons, it is also worse in almost every other aspect.

Another bad aspect of build are switches on the side of the lens. They are very easy to move. Just by pulling the lens from backpack I usually move at least one of them and on those which have three position it is not sometimes clear if they are already in the middle or not. 

Otherwise when it comes to performance / price ratio, it is probably one of the best lenses I've ever bought.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2017)

The OS on mine is very good, far better than the Sigma 100-400mm Cs I have looked at, but the image is not as stable in the viewfinder as it is for the Canon 100-400mm II. The switches are so annoying that I have stuck black vinyl tape over them.


----------



## Talys (Sep 3, 2017)

@Ladislav -

The OS is constantly panning, and is vastly inferior to (not even in the same universe as) Canon 100-400LII Mode 3 IS in terms of usability. It's constantly moving, so you have to fight it to get focus. I also haven't figured out after thousands of pictures whether, on a tripod, I'm better off with OS on, or off. 

Now, I just leave it on because the keeper rate seems about the same for stills, and I don't have to quickly switch it if I take the camera off the tripod for a handheld shot.

On the Canon 100-400 II, I leave it on Mode 3, which leaves IS off until the moment the shutter is going to open; I've found that this is gives me the highest keeper rate.

On the Sigma 150-600C, I also cannot get a "sharp" (read: usable) BIF photo at speeds below 1/500 handheld; keeper rate falls off a cliff when I go to 1/320. But my bigger problem for BIF is actually that at 6.3 my 80D just focus hunts until the bird is gone if it's a "fast" moving bird. It works for big birds like eagles flying towards me, with the sun behind me. It's also MUCH easier with a gimbal.

The Sport is far inferior, IMO. It's so heavy that it can only be used on a tripod, and the price premium makes it a no-brainer to buy a 100-400L II + 1.4x converter, unless your goal is to use the 150-600 + 1.4x converter. 

Weather seal, dust is a good point on the subject of shooting wildlife. There are lots of spots where dust is a concern. I haven't had any problems with the Contemporary, though, and some of my favorite birding spots are quite dusty.

About the switches: Yeah, they move like crazy, including the Lock switch, which is almost pointless, because it's just so easy to turn it off. Two other relatively minor complaints about the Sigma 150-600C - the lock would be much better if you could use it at zoom levels other than 150, and the tripod foot on the collar would be much, much better if it had a safety pin or a second screw hole. I find that on tripod, it will eventually loosen.

My final gripe about the lens, especially compared to the Canon 100-400 II is the focus ring. It's just too stiff and too thin to easily manually focus.

But hey, the price is absurdly good, the range is amazing -- especially on APSC, and the IQ, when you get everything right, is just fantastic. So despite all of my bellyaching, I think this is an awesome lens and an awesome buy. Being spoiled by the 100-400 II, which is triple the price if you throw in a Canon 1.4x extender, doesn't diminish its incredible value.


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 3, 2017)

Here is a shot from with my copy of the 150-600C. ISO 100, 1/20, f8. So I could get the streaks of snow.

I was laying on the ground similar to how one would shoot a rifle. So there was a fair bit of support, but definitely not mounted. Plus I was on uneven ground in the snow. I took a look at some of my recent photos, and they usually stop at 1/320 as well for completely handheld. 

The photo posted as well, I was waiting for about 15 minutes in the snow for the Heron to move, or switch positions, take off etc. but It was too cold, and I was in the street clothes, with no gloves or boots. Myself, lens and camera were completely soaked with an inch of snow layered over them both. I have many times taken it in the rain with no issues yet either.

The switches do move a lot, but I assumed it was the way I hold the tripod mount when I hold the lens since I don't carry it with a shoulder strap or anything. I guess its not just a problem for me. 

I agree Talys, the manual focus ring is a joke. 

Over all I have been very impressed with it.



1DX_2425-Edit by Ryan Kelly, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Sep 4, 2017)

600mm amplifies shake nearly 2x relative to 400mm (don't tell me 600/400 = 1.5, shake goes up faster than focal length in practice). I have gone down as low as 1/80s fully hand held on a 5DSR, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29874.msg674826#msg674826 but I wouldn't recommend it - the faster the better at long focal lengths. If you can't get a sharp shot below 1/500s, then send it back to Sigma.


----------

