# Sigma Announce a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport Lens



## EdB (Sep 6, 2014)

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


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 6, 2014)

```
<p>Sigma to announce a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport lens for Photokina. We’re still waiting for the press release to show up on Sigma’s official web site.</p>
<p><strong>Specifications

</strong></p>
<ul style="color: #000000;">
<li>Construction: 24 elements, 16 groups (20 elements, 13 groups)</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 105 mm</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance: 260 cm</li>
<li>Dimensions: 121 x 290.2 mm</li>
<li>Aperture blades: 9, rounded</li>
<li>Maximum magnification: 1:5</li>
<li>Weight: 2860 g / 100.88 oz.</li>
<li>Available mounts (at launch): Canon, Nikon, Sigma (Canon, Nikon, Sony)</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-additional-details/" target="_blank">SR</a>/<a href="http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-monster-lens-form-sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-weather-sealed-sport-zoom/" target="_blank">SAR</a>] via [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 6, 2014)

Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 6, 2014)

Of course, everybody has spare > 10,000 USD, which can spend on Canon 600 mm lenses  Think thirst before you write  

From specs it seems that these lenses will be in direct competition with very popular Tamron lenses. Real pros will be using expensive Canon lenses, but general public will be satisfied with affordable and very high quality lenses. Currently Tamron and Sigma are stealing show.... Canon is sleeping....


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 6, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.



If you're that close to the sun, an f16 lens will do.


----------



## slclick (Sep 6, 2014)

I agree. Being astonished that a new offering doesn't match a product 2-4x it's price is infantile. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Steve (Sep 6, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.



"Sport" is just Sigma's term for their higher quality super telephotos. Part of the rebranding kick they've been on for the last few years. This lens is for the amateur wildlife/bird enthusiast on a budget, just like the Tammy. Considering how good the latest Sigma offerings have been, this should be pretty great. I can't wait to see the comparison reviews between this and the Tammy. 

Also, like I said in the other thread in the other subforum for third party gear, I'm curious about whether this will take a 1.4x TC and still AF on f8 focusing bodies. The announcement suggests that it is optimized for the new line of TC's they are releasing soon. The 105mm filter size is quite a bit larger than necessary for 6.3 at the long end and could suggest it may be a bright 6.3 (hopefully).


----------



## dhr90 (Sep 6, 2014)

Will be interesting to see how it compares to the Tamron, especially at the long end which seems to be a bit of a weakness for Tamron.


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.
> ...



+1000


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

The age of the 150-600 has begun. I wonder what that spells for Canon's 100-400. Will we see a 100-400 II replacement? Or will Canon join in the fun with a 150-600 as well...


----------



## SoullessPolack (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> The age of the 150-600 has begun. I wonder what that spells for Canon's 100-400. Will we see a 100-400 II replacement? Or will Canon join in the fun with a 150-600 as well...



I think it's very possible that Canon does not join in on the fun in order to not cannabilize sales of their 600mm supertelephoto. Now, my sample size is rather small, but there's a couple guys in my local photo club who do photography as a hobby, but also have good jobs, and both had the Canon 600mm. When the Tamron came out, those two gentlemen both sold their Canons for the Tamron. To some, I guess they don't need the absolute best quality, but rather the ease of getting 600mm. I'm sure there are others who once having experienced the superiority of the Canon would absolutely not go down to a Tamron, but the issue remains that more affordable versions can take sales away from the top of the line models. I suspect if for whatever reason Canon did decide to enter this field, their lens would outperform the Tamron. At that point, you even more have the possibility of a very good lens, and more versatile, taking sales away from a great lens.

Having said all that, I truly DO wish Canon would make a copy of the Tamron. I'm very impressed by Canon quality lately (as well as Sigma). I don't use 600mm enough to warrant paying 5 digits for a lens, nor do I have that much disposable income, but I certainly would buy a 150-600 from Canon even if it cost 3k, possibly even 4k. 

I guess that's why these large companies have market research teams. Weighing the options of people like me, vs people like those in my photo club. Which makes them more money in the long run.


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the 150-600 has begun. I wonder what that spells for Canon's 100-400. Will we see a 100-400 II replacement? Or will Canon join in the fun with a 150-600 as well...
> ...



Well, owning the EF 600mm f/4 L II myself, I honestly having a VERY hard time believing anyone who owned one would ever sell it for the Temmy 150-600. If you've ever used a lens of the same caliber as the Canon 600...there is simply no alternative. You usually use such a lens on a tripod...so it isn't like weight is really a concern. I could see ADDING the 150-600 for use while traveling, but I just cannot imagine anyone selling the 600...not unless they had serious financial concerns and were forced to.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Sep 6, 2014)

I really hope they are right about the price because if it is anywhere near what the Tamron costs, I will be kicking myself for getting the Tamron.


----------



## Tiosabas (Sep 6, 2014)

Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable. I'd like to see how it compares to the 120-300 S+2x both at 600mm and both at F8.
I currently use the Sigma 300+2x which is alright at F8. I would prefer Sigma to update that lens and I hope they do or else a 400 F4 OS would be very sweet.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Sep 6, 2014)

Tiosabas said:


> Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable. I'd like to see how it compares to the 120-300 S+2x both at 600mm and both at F8.
> I currently use the Sigma 300+2x which is alright at F8. I would prefer Sigma to update that lens and I hope they do or else a 400 F4 OS would be very sweet.



Here is the tamron 150-600 vs the sigma 120-300. Tamron is sharper in the center but the sigma is better in the corners. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=4


----------



## lux (Sep 6, 2014)

at f 11 the sigma is sharper across the board…i wonder if the f8 is a mistake


----------



## KitsVancouver (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I don't have the 600 f/4, but I bought the 200-400 to shoot photos of my (then) 4 year old son. I've used it all summer to take photos of my son in soccer and just can't imagine selling it unless I have serious financial hardships so much that I can't even pay my mortgage. Even if I don't use it much, I'm going to keep it in the closet for when I do. 

Anyone who shoots at 600mm and is worried about IQ, is going to use some sort of support. I've shot at 560 without support but only because I needed to swing around real quick or I didn't yet have my lens mounted. Once you have the lens mounted, weight really isn't an issue. The only time weight is an issue is when you are transporting it. I can see myself buying a "budget-minded" long lens for travel but even in that case, I would never sell my 200-400. 

I'm not saying no one would ever sell a 600mm f/4, but I do have a hard time understanding why one would do so except for financial reasons.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 6, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.


Sports action isn't stopped by aperture, it is stopped by shutter speed. If the shutter speed isn't fast enough, just raise the ISO. I'm pretty sure that is what Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4x users do when using their 200-400 lenses with a 1.4x TC.


----------



## CanonOregon (Sep 6, 2014)

> Well, owning the EF 600mm f/4 L II myself, I honestly having a VERY hard time believing anyone who owned one would ever sell it for the Temmy 150-600. If you've ever used a lens of the same caliber as the Canon 600...there is simply no alternative. You usually use such a lens on a tripod...so it isn't like weight is really a concern. I could see ADDING the 150-600 for use while traveling, but I just cannot imagine anyone selling the 600...not unless they had serious financial concerns and were forced to.


I don't own the Canon 600mm and I can't imagine that either! Especially at 600mm. I rented the Tammy for a trip to Malheur Wildlife Refuge and wasn't that impressed- I'll try to rent the Sigma though as I don't see my budget ever getting to the 600mm. I do wonder if any of them have considered a crop sensor long lens- would that be considerably less expensive to build...and market... and would there be enough demand? Say, a fixed 500mm?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 6, 2014)

Tiosabas said:


> Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable.



+1. I dislike f/6.3 zooms but could use something longer than my 100-400.... For motorsports, an f/6.3 maximum aperture is fine, by the way.


----------



## Steve (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, owning the EF 600mm f/4 L II myself, I honestly having a VERY hard time believing anyone who owned one would ever sell it for the Temmy 150-600. If you've ever used a lens of the same caliber as the Canon 600...there is simply no alternative. You usually use such a lens on a tripod...so it isn't like weight is really a concern. I could see ADDING the 150-600 for use while traveling, but I just cannot imagine anyone selling the 600...not unless they had serious financial concerns and were forced to.



I can definitely see someone selling off a 600 f4 entirely because of weight. Sure, you'll probably have it tripod mounted while actually shooting, but what about hiking it in to the shooting location? Especially when you consider just how many people doing this kind of thing are elderly retirees? I just ran into a guy a couple days ago when shooting shorebirds who was talking about ditching his 1DIV and 500 f4 because it was too heavy and hard to move around. Something like the Tammy/Siggy 150-600 is great for older folk doing bird photography or airshows or whatever for fun.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Sep 6, 2014)

Better than the 1.4X extender on the 100-400 ??...??...??

APS-C 100-400=160-640
Full Frame 100-400 w 1.4X=140-560

If Sigmas 150-600 is anything like their lenses of late...then its a 1-2 punch in the face of Canons new missing in action 100-400...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2014)

I can't be the only one who uses a super tele (albeit slightly lighter than the 600) almost exclusively handheld? The idea you'd always have it on a tripod is a bit perplexing. For sport sure, I seen photos of the sidelines of football matches etc. But for wildlife... I find it rare that the things I want to photograph are static enough that I could set up and use a tripod :-\


----------



## RomainF (Sep 6, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I can't be the only one who uses a super tele (albeit slightly lighter than the 600) almost exclusively handheld? The idea you'd always have it on a tripod is a bit perplexing. For sport sure, I seen photos of the sidelines of football matches etc. But for wildlife... I find it rare that the things I want to photograph are static enough that I could set up and use a tripod :-\



I've never used a tripod, even a monopod, with my 600 (version I) and I can't even understand how one can work that way… On the side line of a soccer/rugby game, maybe, but that's all. It ain't that heavy, and IS + ISOs these days make it easy for us to shoot handheld.
Twice a week, i work in the parliament, handheld, with the IS i can get down to 1/125 (but that's the definitive limit).

Well……if I may say so……when I watch the pictures shot by the people on this forum who tend to only work with a tripod……I think that they really should try to shoot handheld...


----------



## Steve (Sep 6, 2014)

I shoot my 300 2.8 + 2x TC almost exclusively handheld _when hiking_. My Sigma 300-800 f5.6, not so much, although I _can_ handhold it. To get really good wildlife/bird shots though you have to use a hide and attractor or sit still for a long period of time and wait for the wildlife to come to you, in which case a tripod/support is ideal. I just laid in the mud for hours the other day until the shorebirds I wanted to shoot got comfortable enough with my presence to come within my minimum focusing distance. I got nice, full frame, eye-level photos of the birds, with prey. No way I could handhold a 300-800mm lens while laying fully prone without my ground pod. BIF shots, handheld is often better, but I found it to be much easier to track flying pelicans with a tripod and gimbal while using the Sigmonster.


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 6, 2014)

Not a birders lens with that weight, size, aperture. The large question is would a 400mm 5.6 still be better cropped to the same reach at 600mm. If so Most would take the lighter, smaller, affordable and sharper Canon for birds.


----------



## GaryJ (Sep 7, 2014)

Tried shooting my 600LII handheld,I am in my sixties and after a hard life mI just don't have the strength to hand hold for longer than a couple of minutes,please remember all photogs aren't weightlifters,more power to you who don't use a tripod, unfortunately I need to.


----------



## weixing (Sep 7, 2014)

Hi,


RomainF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I can't be the only one who uses a super tele (albeit slightly lighter than the 600) almost exclusively handheld? The idea you'd always have it on a tripod is a bit perplexing. For sport sure, I seen photos of the sidelines of football matches etc. But for wildlife... I find it rare that the things I want to photograph are static enough that I could set up and use a tripod :-\
> ...


 Not sure how you guys management to handheld the 600mm f4 for an extended period of time... 

Anyway, I had seen more than 20 people using 600mm f4 and never seen one handheld it... not even the 500mm f4... all are use on a tripod.

Have a nice day.


----------



## lescrane (Sep 7, 2014)

100 oz. Sigma, 68 oz Tamron.


Sigma may be "better" but we're talking heavy here, w/more elements for same speed, focal length.

Personally, not an option. Hope it works for the younger stronger photographers. 

(now I would love to see canon w/more DO lenses, but don't think it will happen)


----------



## Khufu (Sep 7, 2014)

lescrane said:


> (now I would love to see canon w/more DO lenses, but don't think it will happen)



Isn't there a new 400mm DO rumoured for this months announcements, or has that gone the way of the 100-400?!

Also, I'm quite happy hand-holding my 400mm f/5.6L, apparently that's not so impressive in this thread though 

400mm f/5.6L and the SL1/100D is a nice, lightweight pairing - though the shape and weight distribution can be a little odd. I had fun trying it out for a while alongside the 5D3, pretty much as a "1.6x Crop Digital Back" to grab out my bag as necessary and throw back in again, that thing really is "Super Light" - but ultimately I've been re-wooed by the 70D, with it's flippy-floppy screen, 1/3-stop selectable ISOs, weight, bells, whistles et al... Anybody in the UK needing to buy an SL1/100D?


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 7, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.



Sometimes we play sports during the day, here on Earth. Daytime is often about 7 stops brighter than nighttime under the lights. So, unless you have a sports lens that's about 7 stops faster than f/6.3 I guess you can't shoot night sports.

I shot all day today at f/6.3, and I was getting around 1/1000th at ISO 200. That was in leas than perfect weather. Guess what? 1/1000th is often enough but where it isn't my camera does produce usable images at higher ISOs.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 7, 2014)

Tiosabas said:


> Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable. I'd like to see how it compares to the 120-300 S+2x both at 600mm and both at F8.
> I currently use the Sigma 300+2x which is alright at F8. I would prefer Sigma to update that lens and I hope they do or else a 400 F4 OS would be very sweet.



Even I would love a 400mm f4 lens with 1.4tc for photographing lizards and occasional birding. I am using the 400mm f5.6L right now for that purpose. A 500mm f5.6 lens also would sell like hot cakes amongst birders who are just starting out.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> I shoot my 300 2.8 + 2x TC almost exclusively handheld _when hiking_. My Sigma 300-800 f5.6, not so much, although I _can_ handhold it. To get really good wildlife/bird shots though you have to use a hide and attractor or sit still for a long period of time and wait for the wildlife to come to you, in which case a tripod/support is ideal. I just laid in the mud for hours the other day until the shorebirds I wanted to shoot got comfortable enough with my presence to come within my minimum focusing distance. I got nice, full frame, eye-level photos of the birds, with prey. No way I could handhold a 300-800mm lens while laying fully prone without my ground pod. BIF shots, handheld is often better, but I found it to be much easier to track flying pelicans with a tripod and gimbal while using the Sigmonster.



Interesting. I sometimes wonder if I'm missing a trick by not doing this, but it just doesn't seem feasible where I go. Maybe it's simply that - the environments we shoot in. I have a portable hide, and a tripod, but they almost never come out with me (extra weight for one thing!). I tend to range around for a few miles, and photograph what I encounter, rather than staking species out. As for waders... we have a lot here, but I don't think lying on the mud would be an option. It's either inaccessible (without a boat!), or too dangerous to go onto.



GaryJ said:


> Tried shooting my 600LII handheld,I am in my sixties and after a hard life mI just don't have the strength to hand hold for longer than a couple of minutes,please remember all photogs aren't weightlifters,more power to you who don't use a tripod, unfortunately I need to.



Oh sure, I get that. I wasn't trying to sound superior - I absolutely appreciate some people would find it too heavy. I thought I'd need a monopod at least when I first got it. But I just got used to the weight. I never thought of myself as strong though. Like I say, I'm genuinely surprised by the suggestion that _most_ people wouldn't hand hold it though.



Khufu said:


> Also, I'm quite happy hand-holding my 400mm f/5.6L, apparently that's not so impressive in this thread though



Haha, when I got the 400 5.6 I found it depressingly heavy and awkward to begin with. A few weeks after getting the 500 I was used to it. I guess you just get used to what you have. It's not a competition though!


----------



## canon1dxman (Sep 7, 2014)

Only a minor point, but an important one. That hood on the new Sigma looks like the one off the 120-300 Sport. Mine was forever falling off. seems like it's a feature of the model. Hope they've fixed it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 7, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Tiosabas said:
> 
> 
> > Having owned the 150-500 OS I swore I'd never buy a budget telephoto zoom again. And lets face it even if this Sigma costs 2K its still a budget telephoto zoom in terms of the focal lenght and features you are getting for your money. I will watch this one closely as I expect the image quality of this lens will be very acceptable.
> ...



The biggest issue with 6.3 zooms is that using them at 6.3 usually yields less than adequate iq. You still need to stop them down to f8 or more to clean up the contrast lines. By then you dont have much to work with when its overcast or late in the day/evening. You end up with a fair weather only lens.


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 7, 2014)

It is an interesting proposition. 

Love the Canon 300mm F/2.8 IS II, and found the 100-400 marginal. I did find when using either the 1.4 of 2 III teleconverters I really noticed the built in delay in AF / Shooting.

So the question almost becomes if the Canon 100-400 is f/4-5.6 and adding a 1.4 makes it a F/5.6 - 6.3 and 140-560, the resolution seems similar, the Canon probably sharper, but also a built in delay of 40% in shooting.

That can be a significant delay in trying to capture a moment. I also noticed a delay in burst

Now the 200-400 looks like an absolutely sweet lens, one I covet, but at the price?

Obviously the 300, 400 and 600s are going to be sharper lenses.

I have really debated the Tamron as a fill in lens. Images look decent but not superb, but for a lot of things that extra reach can be nice.

The Sigma I expect to be 20% maybe 30% higher, and if it is sharper, may be one I bite on. Not nearly as good at the Canons, but the trade off is perhaps the Sigma, the 7D MKII and some extra compared to what the Canon offering is going to cost way more... To get close, have to sacrifice IS 

And more I look at it, I can upgrade my backup 5D MKII to the 5D MKIV, buy the 7D MK II and the new Bigma for probably the same amount as a used 600 MM f/4 IS, and still have cash left. 

Canon lens hands down better, but two new bodies and long lens which is decent but not great is a fairly nice compromise


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 7, 2014)

Hello
www.500px.com/Vgramatiokov

So i`m wildlife boy. Now i`m using 70d/400 5.6L/200 2.0L
300 2.8 and 600/4 in tha past.

I prefer cheaper, lighter equipment now. 
Before two days i tested the Tamron on 40d and it was quite good. Nex week i will test it with 70d.

Sigma surprise me!!! 
Seem optical design of the sigma is better. Bigger front element , more elements, special glasses and of course is near 1kg more than the Tamron. May be twice the Tamron price.

MTF`s show better performance than Tamron. At 600mm far better.

So we know that Tamron is good. Sigma have to be much better in 400-600mm range straight from max aperature in order to make me feel better.

So we speak about long slow lens. So AF and sharpness from max aperature is critical!!! 

Both lens with this reach will force users to switch to FF cameras such as Nikon d750.
Because thay have the reach and this max f/stop with FF is not problem any more ))

If you want really big reach you may decide to stay with crop camera. But shooting at 600/6.3 is limited by the iso performance, bigger speed needed and of course smaller resolving power of smaller sensor.

400mm is 600 equiv on FF camera. So if we go backwards 150-600mm 5-6.3 lens on FF camera is something like 100-400mm 3.3-4.2 on crop camera. So lens like this is will be much better on FF camera as resolution, overall quality and bokeh.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 7, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> It is an interesting proposition.
> 
> Love the Canon 300mm F/2.8 IS II, and found the 100-400 marginal. I did find when using either the 1.4 of 2 III teleconverters I really noticed the built in delay in AF / Shooting.
> 
> ...



The 100-400 wide open at 400 suffers from some coma which affects a camera's ability to phase detect focus. I found that the 100-400 hunted more for focus than a 300 with 1.4xiii.... even more than the 70-200 with a 2xiii.

If I were making a purchase decision, the 100-400 would be at the bottom of my list (if cost was not a major driving issue). All things aside, a used 300mm F2.8L IS (old version) with a 1.4xiii is the best "low" cost choice and still get tack sharp images wide open.

300mm F/4L or 400mm F5.6L would be my next choice.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Sep 7, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.
> ...



Only if your sport is done in Venus orbit or in some fancy floating city high in the Venus atmosphere. Actually, the surface light level on Venus is very low:

"The cloud cover is such that very little sunlight can penetrate down to the surface, and the light level is only around 5,000–10,000 lux with a visibility of three kilometres. At this level little to no solar energy could conceivably be collected by a probe. Humidity at this level is less than 0.1%.[36] In fact, due to the thick, highly reflective cloud cover the total solar energy received by the planet is less than that of the Earth."

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus)

SCNR


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Sep 7, 2014)

Is it just me, or do the weight and filter size specs not sound a bit over the top compared to the Tamron with the same maximum aperture and focal length range?
Or is Sigma doing what they did with their 50mm Art, i.e., sacrificing weight and size (and therefore also cost) to get a boost in IQ that would not be possible with a lighter design? 
In IT, we call this KIWI (kill it with iron). 

Nonetheless, this announcement is exactly what I had been hoping for after the Tamron turned out to be a bit of a let-down for APS-C users in particular on the long end.
If Sigma can deliver the same level of quality of all their recent Sports and Art lenses with this lens as well, and if the price stays well south of 2k€, I might be interested.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> So the question almost becomes if the Canon 100-400 is f/4-5.6 and adding a 1.4 makes it a F/5.6 - 6.3 and 140-560, the resolution seems similar, the Canon probably sharper, but also a built in delay of 40% in shooting.



FYI adding a 1.4x extender to an f/5.6 lens makes it f/8 (one stop narrower).


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 7, 2014)

CanonOregon said:


> > Well, owning the EF 600mm f/4 L II myself, I honestly having a VERY hard time believing anyone who owned one would ever sell it for the Temmy 150-600. If you've ever used a lens of the same caliber as the Canon 600...there is simply no alternative. You usually use such a lens on a tripod...so it isn't like weight is really a concern. I could see ADDING the 150-600 for use while traveling, but I just cannot imagine anyone selling the 600...not unless they had serious financial concerns and were forced to.
> 
> 
> I don't own the Canon 600mm and I can't imagine that either! Especially at 600mm. I rented the Tammy for a trip to Malheur Wildlife Refuge and wasn't that impressed- I'll try to rent the Sigma though as I don't see my budget ever getting to the 600mm. I do wonder if any of them have considered a crop sensor long lens- would that be considerably less expensive to build...and market... and would there be enough demand? Say, a fixed 500mm?



I have the tamron and I find image quality acceptable but not great. I closely followed reviews for the tamron for about six months. There was one universal claim, "for the price it is a great lens." If the sigma has 10% better IQ and costs 50% more than it needs something else to justify the price. So far I haven't seen any pricing mentioned.


----------



## Steve (Sep 7, 2014)

RodS57 said:


> So far I haven't seen any pricing mentioned.



Sigma Rumors mentioned $2k but qualified it by saying they don't believe that's accurate.


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> RodS57 said:
> 
> 
> > So far I haven't seen any pricing mentioned.
> ...



It could get interesting for sure. One can assume the sigma will generate as many forum posts as the tamron did. Reading the release the sigma does have some features missing from the tamron. (Ie: ability to lock at any focal length and two stage IS/OS.)

As some else noted, with a 105mm front element vs 95 for the tamron maybe it is a faster F6.3


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 7, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> The 100-400 wide open at 400 suffers from some coma which affects a camera's ability to phase detect focus. I found that the 100-400 hunted more for focus than a 300 with 1.4xiii.... even more than the 70-200 with a 2xiii.
> 
> If I were making a purchase decision, the 100-400 would be at the bottom of my list (if cost was not a major driving issue). All things aside, a used 300mm F2.8L IS (old version) with a 1.4xiii is the best "low" cost choice and still get tack sharp images wide open.
> 
> 300mm F/4L or 400mm F5.6L would be my next choice.



LOL Lets see all and all I prefer the Canon 1Dx to the 5D MKII

That is pretty much your comparison almost. 300MM F/2.8 IS (1st version) is a $6500 lens ($12K retail)

I am assuming the new Bigma will be more like the Tamron, but better build all and all, so expecting more $1500 or so. 

Part of the attraction with a Telephoto zoom is range. I have used the 300mm /f2.8 IS. Loved it. At the same time though, hated it as well when shooting sports because often I only had a small field to shoot in, where as having a range, I could continuously shoot action coming towards me and get a dozen shots of an approaching athlete over a few seconds versus a smaller segment of time.

No doubt a 5.6 - 6.3 is limited, but a fair amount of the time when I was shooting the 300MM I was shooting at 5.6 - 8 anyways

This will not be a nighttime or overcast lens, but for daylight, very serviceable.

As well... there is also 200mm of reach more.

Other part of performance... Again... AF.... When using the teleconverters either 1.4 or 2 the AF is deliberately slowed by that same factor as well. 

Having a tack sharp image but just a smidge too late can be useless as well. 

Depends on what you are shooting. 

For sports and action I want to hit the shutter and CLICK and not wait wait click. Now if Canon introduces a version IV of the Teleconverters where AF not slowed, then that could be a different matter.


----------



## pknight (Sep 7, 2014)

I have used a 100-400 for years, and have had the Tamron 150-600 for a few months. It took me a few weeks to hone my style and camera settings for the Tammy, and during that time I was concerned. Now, I have gotten used to how it handles, and with some MFA I am getting very sharp shots at 600mm, despite the rumors of problems at that length. Given this experience I am skeptical of reviews from short-term users,

Indeed it is a lens that needs lots of light or high ISOs, just as the Sigma will, so if you can't deal with that neither of these lenses are for you.

Looking at the sharpness and detail I am getting now, I am not sure what the Sigma would provide that would justify the additional weight, or any additional cost. Certainly not substantially higher costs. But I will keep an open mind. I never thought I would see a lens like the Tammy for under $1100, so I am open to surprises.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 8, 2014)

As a 100-400 user I bought the Sigma 120-300mm OS as the only "non-$5000+" upgrade from that lens combined with TCs. It's not the strongest thing around with the 2x TC (nothing ever is short of those fancy super teles) but it is "good enough" too though I prefer using it as a faster 420mm instead where possible. When the Tamron was announced I was keen as it was a native lens and surely would have better IQ and AF when not hobbled by a TC. Sadly the rumoured front end specs (95mm) and lowish price were true and it wasn't much of an upgrade from my current set up was disappointing. Though I can not deny they did a fantastic price/performance lens ... just not useful for people like me who own this current set up.

This Sigma looks like it is doing it properly and if they really cater the IQ to the long end I might be tempted to sell and step up, if it is a big increase from my current lens, and dare I dream to say comparable to say the old Canon IS Mk1s?

In terms of the 100-400 discussion I don't think anything will change.
1. Canon has never cared about 3rd party lol. Brand name and red ring
2. I even rebought my 100-400 after selling it because I missed the fact it packs into 70-200 size. Extremely handy for travelling and having a "mounted camera ready to go"
3. An updated 100-400 will no doubt be super-sharp like all of Canon's new lenses and it will compete well


----------



## Arkarch (Sep 8, 2014)

Not so worried about stopping action (though a very legitimate concern) - but more wanting to blur out the background. You want your subject to stand-out from the crowd - not be able to read every shirt and hat.
But for the reach, I can see many getting it just to capture action. And 150-600 could be handy.

For my game, motorsports, the 300mm f/2.8 II is great for breaking out the action, light enough for effective pan shots; and if I need the reach, works super well with the 1.4 (420/4) and oddly well with the 2.0 (600/5.6). Of course that means the 600/4 has suddenly appeared on my wish list  But now we are again in epic financial impact land again.


----------



## pknight (Sep 8, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Sadly the rumoured front end specs (95mm) and lowish price were true and it wasn't much of an upgrade from my current set up was disappointing. Though I can not deny they did a fantastic price/performance lens ... just not useful for people like me who own this current set up.



Just making sure I understand. It doesn't sound like you have the Tamron, and that you were disappointed with the size of the front element and the low price. Interesting.

I do understand that there would be little incentive to upgrade if your current setup is satisfactory for you. In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC, so the Tamorn's extra reach and IQ that is _at least_ equivalent to that of the 100-400 have brought me to selling the Canon (although, unlike some, I waited to see if the Tamron would work for me before deciding to sell).

I suspect that the Sigma 150-600 will be very good. I really like what they have been doing lately, and have had excellent results with the 30mm f/1.4 Art. I just don't expect that any difference in IQ is going to be enough to convince me to haul around another kilo of weight and pay what is likely to be a sizable premium compared to the Tamron.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 8, 2014)

pknight said:


> In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,



This is a 100% crop from a 100-400L with two 1.4x TCs stacked on a T2i (18MP).


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 8, 2014)

Arkarch said:


> Not so worried about stopping action (though a very legitimate concern) - but more wanting to blur out the background. You want your subject to stand-out from the crowd - not be able to read every shirt and hat.
> But for the reach, I can see many getting it just to capture action. And 150-600 could be handy.
> 
> For my game, motorsports, the 300mm f/2.8 II is great for breaking out the action, light enough for effective pan shots; and if I need the reach, works super well with the 1.4 (420/4) and oddly well with the 2.0 (600/5.6). Of course that means the 600/4 has suddenly appeared on my wish list  But now we are again in epic financial impact land again.


I have the same set up and love the 300+extenders, but sometimes miss my 400 f/5.6 which was a whole lot more portable. I've been watching the Tamron threads for a while and will do the same for the new Sigma. I sure wish these options had existed when I first got into wildlife shooting!


----------



## pknight (Sep 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> pknight said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,
> ...



I am happy for you.  My mileage certainly was different.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2014)

The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs


----------



## KitsVancouver (Sep 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> pknight said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience the 100-400 is a dog with a TC,
> ...



That's a 100% crop? I'm surprised the moon image isn't much larger. With a 200-400, I shot some of the moon with the built in 1.4 and an external 2x and the image was quite a bit larger.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 8, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs



Sorry but no, look at all the color shifts :


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 8, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs



I hope you were kidding. Your SX50 shot is noisy, over-sharpened, full of halos and artifacts, and full of CA. Make sure you click on my shot to see it at full size.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs
> ...



The SX50 shot has a fair bit less detail, too. Compare certain craters and mountainous areas. The 100-400 is clearly superior (incidentally, this is very impressive!)


----------



## Steve (Sep 8, 2014)

Arkarch said:


> Not so worried about stopping action (though a very legitimate concern) - but more wanting to blur out the background. You want your subject to stand-out from the crowd - not be able to read every shirt and hat.



You can get some really good subject isolation with 600mm at 6.3. On my 300mm 2.8, I usually stop down a hair with the 2x TC to 6.3 or 7.1 to preserve some IQ and, as long as there is good subject-to-bg distance, it will happily blow out the background. There's not really anything you can do if you're shooting field sports and the action is right up against the stands, but f4 isn't really gonna save you there either, so...


----------



## Lyle Krannichfeld (Sep 8, 2014)

I was totally in for this lens (barring any bad reviews) until I saw the weight :'( Can't handhold a 6 pound lens for 8 hours a day, 3 or 4 days a week...that 100-400 replacement needs to hurry up already!


----------



## Steve (Sep 8, 2014)

Do you really handhold _any_ lens for 8 hours a day? What kind of shooting do you do?


----------



## jrista (Sep 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs
> ...



*This post is for the benefit of everyone here.*

Moon detail is very dependent upon seeing. You can have phenomenal seeing as though your looking through crystal clear, perfectly still water, and you can have seeing so bad that it looks like your looking through a vat of boiling water.

As for the halos and artifacts and whatnot, it depends on how the image was processed...if it is an OOC JPEG, then it's a flawed comparison.

Here are two full size moon photos of mine...same equipment, 840mm (600/4 + 1.4x TC), different nights. On one night the seeing was pretty bad, and on the other the seeing was very good. You can see the differences...certain surface features in the image with great seeing aren't visible at all in the image with poor seeing (namely, small craters, nuanced surface features, etc.) 

Bad Seeing






Good Seeing





Unless your comparing moon images taken on the same night with the same seeing, then they tend to be a poor guage of relative camera quality, as seeing can vary so widely, and is generally the dominant force affecting sharpness and detail.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Yes, this is worth pointing out.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 9, 2014)

pknight said:


> Just making sure I understand. It doesn't sound like you have the Tamron, and that you were disappointed with the size of the front element and the low price. Interesting.



Nope just to clarify I currently own the Sigma 120-300mm + TCs combo (but yes also a 100-400 for travel purposes lol). And the Tamron certainly took it up to the Sigma combo for half the price, but since I already own the former I'll obviously stick to that.

Things like 105mm front element seem minor, but like the price all _rumour_ to the Sigma not cutting as many corners as the Tamron and hopefully leading to a better quality lens that they are charging extra for; and going off recent releases and this rumour I reckon it's a good chance this will be noticeably better than the Sigma 120-300 combo with the 2x TC.

I do like having the 420mm/4 option (well more realistically f/4.5~5 for a sharpness kick) but if the 600mm holds up really well at say f/7.1 (even better if wide open) then that could be convincing enough for me to side step.

So to relate it back to what I was saying with the Tamron; it's good for the price but in the end (Obi Wan voice) is not the native 600mm lens I was looking for.


----------



## pknight (Sep 9, 2014)

dufflover said:


> pknight said:
> 
> 
> > Just making sure I understand. It doesn't sound like you have the Tamron, and that you were disappointed with the size of the front element and the low price. Interesting.
> ...



Gotcha. When birding (which is why I have such a lens) I keep the Tamron at f/8 with the shutter between 640 and 1000 and auto ISO limited to 3200. That 2/3-stop makes a great difference in IQ. I am happy with it set like this (though I am hoping for some improvement in high-ISO IQ with the 7D replacement). Like another poster here, I spend my time tromping through the brush looking for birds, and the additional weight of the Sigma (if accurately reported) would be a deal-breaker. I sure do understand that for some it would not be so.


----------



## Azathoth (Sep 10, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.



Rarely? I shoot surf at f8.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 + 2 x 1.4TCs doesn't look any better than the SX50, which costs less than 2 TCs
> ...



Oops, I uploaded a version I was playing around with to increase contrast and vibrance. Here is the original, and one from the same night using the 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC on 5DIII for comparison (SX50 above, both through 1 round of DxO + 0.9 USM at 100%).


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 10, 2014)

The image Lee Jay posted is significantly better than either of those, just look at the clarity on the ridges.

Not that I could do any better, but the stacked TC's seem to do pretty well.


----------



## jrista (Sep 10, 2014)

Azathoth said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Really F6.3 being marketed as a sports lens? Maybe on the planet Venus. Rarely is F6.3 enough to stop sports action.
> ...



With what lens, though? Remember, lenses AF at max aperture. AF at f/6.3 is very slow. Even f/8 AF with a body that supports it is rather slow. Compared to AF at f/5.6, which is ok, or f/4 and f/2.8, which is wicked fast. 

You may shoot at f/11 or f/16 for your sports...it doesn't really matter, though...as AF is always performed wide open. When it comes to Canon bodies, their AF points offer different capabilities at different apertures. By f/5.6, most Canon AF units only support basic line AF. At f/4 you get full cross type for many points, but the high precision double cross type points require f/2.8.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Azathoth said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



He's talking about stopping motion, by which I assume he means exposure time, not AF.


----------



## jrista (Sep 10, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Azathoth said:
> ...



Sure...but it doesn't matter if he stops motion when the subject isn't in focus. That's the difference, for sports, between an f/6.3 max aperture lens and an f/4 or f/2.8 max aperture lens. The f/6.3 is going to be forced to focus more slowly, and the hit rate is going to be lower. You'll get the minimal capabilities out of each AF point, which is usually either just horizontal or vertical phase detection, if that. You are also going to lose the ability to use a lot of AF points. 

An f/4 lens will be able to use all AF points, and many of them will be single-cross-type. An f/2.8 lens is going to be able to use all AF points, and use them all in their most precise mode. With a 5D III or 1D X, you get full use of the center five points at f/2.8. 

Slow AF can be a sports or action photography killer. I've been shooting at 1200mm f/8 more often these days for birds...but that's effectively killed off my ability to do BIF...I simply cannot focus on birds in flight anymore...the lens just hunts and even if the bird is dead on the center point, it usually cannot lock. That is in stark contrast to f/4, where lock is almost guaranteed.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Slow AF can be a sports or action photography killer. I've been shooting at 1200mm f/8 more often these days for birds...but that's effectively killed off my ability to do BIF...I simply cannot focus on birds in flight anymore...the lens just hunts and even if the bird is dead on the center point, it usually cannot lock. That is in stark contrast to f/4, where lock is almost guaranteed.



I shoot 200+mph R/C airplanes with an f/5.6 lens (with a 2x TC) all the time, and it will track them.


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Slow AF can be a sports or action photography killer. I've been shooting at 1200mm f/8 more often these days for birds...but that's effectively killed off my ability to do BIF...I simply cannot focus on birds in flight anymore...the lens just hunts and even if the bird is dead on the center point, it usually cannot lock. That is in stark contrast to f/4, where lock is almost guaranteed.



Well, a 2x tc slows AF considerably on its own, by 50% iirc. Add that to f8 center point only and, yeah, BIF is gonna be tough. A native 5.6 or even 6.3 will probably be much more successful.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 11, 2014)

9VIII said:


> The image Lee Jay posted is significantly better than either of those, just look at the clarity on the ridges.
> 
> Not that I could do any better, but the stacked TC's seem to do pretty well.



You have missed jrista's post - the clarity etc depends dramatically on conditions so you can't compare from one day to the next or from different locations. I posted these because they can be compared as they were taken at the same time. I also did one with the 100-400mm L on the 5DIII but without TCs. Here it is. If they were done in a less misty atmosphere they would be better.


----------



## jrista (Sep 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Slow AF can be a sports or action photography killer. I've been shooting at 1200mm f/8 more often these days for birds...but that's effectively killed off my ability to do BIF...I simply cannot focus on birds in flight anymore...the lens just hunts and even if the bird is dead on the center point, it usually cannot lock. That is in stark contrast to f/4, where lock is almost guaranteed.
> ...



A native 5.6 is a bit more successful, although still limited (line points only, no cross types). At f/6.3, it's a tossup whether your body will AF successfully with it or not. Something like the 5D III/1D X are going to have more luck than a 7D or 70D, the latter may not lock at all, and if they do, they are not guaranteed to actually have the best focus.

True "sports" lenses have native apertures of f/4 or faster, and maybe f/5.6 with a TC (i.e. the 200-400).


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> A native 5.6 is a bit more successful, although still limited (line points only, no cross types). At f/6.3, it's a tossup whether your body will AF successfully with it or not. Something like the 5D III/1D X are going to have more luck than a 7D or 70D, the latter may not lock at all, and if they do, they are not guaranteed to actually have the best focus.
> 
> True "sports" lenses have native apertures of f/4 or faster, and maybe f/5.6 with a TC (i.e. the 200-400).



Yeah, I don't know. You're comparing your experience with a 2x TC at f8 with native apertures. My 300 2.8 with 2x TC is slower focusing than my 300-800 5.6 even though they are the same effective aperture. I don't have a Tammy but I've not seen anyone who's reviewed it saying that it has difficulty focusing on any camera body or that it limits the number of focus points. I mean apart from the FUD types who think any non-Canon/Nikon lens is worthless garbage, that is. Ideally, yeah, you'd want to shoot sports with the largest aperture possible but a lot of newspaper types shoot with 70-300 non-L variable aperture lenses and get printable shots.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> My 300 2.8 with 2x TC is slower focusing than my 300-800 5.6 even though they are the same effective aperture.


If memory serves, that's because Canon has opted to reduce AF speed when a 2X teleconverter (at least the latest Mark III version) is attached.

jrista's posts are right on the money here - I do a lot of shooting with the 120-300 f/2.8 at f/5.6-6.3 but the teleconverter makes quick subject acquisition a problem. I do like the idea of having f/2.8 available, but it's rare that I even carry along the teleconverter lens caps, let alone have something I'd opt to shoot at f/2.8. Maybe someday, but I'm leaning towards selling this major component of my gear (the 7D, the TC and the 120-300) and moving up to a 7D Mark II (whenever that appears, that is) might be the better move.

I like the 120-300, but it's a specialized lens and those of us using it for birds (let alone flying birds) are really asking it to do something it wasn't designed for, and which it isn't capable.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A native 5.6 is a bit more successful, although still limited (line points only, no cross types). At f/6.3, it's a tossup whether your body will AF successfully with it or not. Something like the 5D III/1D X are going to have more luck than a 7D or 70D, the latter may not lock at all, and if they do, they are not guaranteed to actually have the best focus.
> ...



I spent some good time with the EF 300 f/2.8 L II (I rented it twice...once on StackExchange's dime, as I won a contest, and once myself). I used it at 300/2.8, 420/4, and 600/5.6. On my 7D and on a rented 5D III. Even on the 7D, that puppy locked focus fast enough to get a lock on a BIF at 600/5.6. It wasn't particularly fast, and the lock was sometimes not solid (the bird might not actually be fully in focus at first, then clean up a few frames in...that was one of the 7D's long-standing problems). On the 5D III, focus lock was not really an issue at 600/5.6, but again, not super fast. It was wicked fast at 420 and 300...absolutely no issues, and tracking is extremely precise...precise and consistent to a degree I've never seen at f/5.6 on any lens. That's the key difference...the added capabilities of Canon's AF points at f/4 and f/2.8. At f/5.6, you lose those extra capabilities, which give you increased accuracy and precision. 

I'm curious what 300 f/2.8 you were using. The original, or the Mark II? Or even a different brand? (Different brands are a different story...they don't necessarily communicate right with the camera, so you might get different results...for example, my Kenko 1.4x TC lies to the camera, makes it think it's faster than it is...the camera tries to focus faster...but it's precision and accuracy drop.) The Mark II superteles have advanced AF firmware. That firmware works well with the 7D, but exceptionally well with the 5D III. Roger from LensRentals has some good articles on how and why and what the differences are.

I'm not against third party lenses. I believe there are certain risks you take when you use them, and they are usually not compatible with Canon's full SDK, but they can be definite money savers, and they can often get the job don well. That's beside the point, though. You don't generally call an f/6.3 lens a "Sport" lens. Sports professionals look for f/4 and faster because it's not just the AF unit and firmware in the camera that gets the job done. At least in Canon systems, the lenses also have AF firmware, and the two work in concert to determine what capabilities of the AF points can be utilized, and faster lenses can be significantly faster, more precise/accurate, and more consistent in how and where and when they focus or track than lenses that are f/5.6 and slower. You also gain the ability to use more focus points, and more of them as cross type or double cross type, at faster apertures. 

That's something reviewers often seem to either ignore, or they simply don't know about. I've seen reviewers using f/5.6 lenses, then complain about the 1D X AF system's performance. Well duh!  Of course it isn't going to perform as well, your using single-line AF points. To really fully and properly test out the 61pt AF system, you need to use fast glass. The differences are quite significant, and its at those apertures that Canon's whole system REALLY shines.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 12, 2014)

f/6.3 zooms have been around for ages from Sigma; they know what they're doin'.
Whilst it doesn't defy the laws of physics when light starts to drop off, I don't think there'll be any issues in general.

But like mentioned above the 2x TC slows things down and it is more than just because of the aperture. A native 600mm should be sharper and AF faster since it's not hobbled by a TC.


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm curious what 300 f/2.8 you were using. The original, or the Mark II?



Canon 300mm f2.8 non-IS and Canon 2x TC mark II. I can't really complain about the AF on my 1DIV, to be honest, just that with the TC its not as fast as the native 5.6 of my Sig 300-800. Without the TC, or even with the 1.4, the original 300 2.8 is blazing fast. Its hard to imagine a 300 2.8 IS II being even quicker although I know it is.



Edwin Herdman said:


> If memory serves, that's because Canon has opted to reduce AF speed when a 2X teleconverter (at least the latest Mark III version) is attached.



That's exactly true. Canon reps have said they slow the AF by 50%/75% for the 1.4/2x, respectively. It's readily apparent why they did that if you tape off the contacts and try to use it. The AF bounces back and forth because it can't find a lock.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious what 300 f/2.8 you were using. The original, or the Mark II?
> ...



I'd be willing to bet that the Sigma is kind of faking out the camera firmware similar to how my Kenko TC does. That's probably how they are achieving the faster AF. In some ways, Canon's AF speed throttling is artificial. It does have it's benefits, though, as it tends to guarantee a good lock more often than if they tried to focus faster. The PDAF line sensors used for the lower light stuff are not as precise. The pixels of each line are larger...to make them more sensitive. But being larger, you cannot divide them as finely, so phase detection is coarser. By throttling, Canon gives the firmware more time to accurately evaluate the information coming in from the AF unit as they more slowly shift focus. They could just try to make one single AF move to lock focus, but with the coarser phase detection, that one move wouldn't always produce the best focus.


----------

