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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 2, 2015)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS Sport lens.</p>
<p>From The-Digital-Picture:</p>
<blockquote><p>Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens sets the bar high for build quality, performance and for range of features among the 150-600mm lenses available at review time. With optical performance just a bit shy of the most elite zoom lenses, and with an incredible range of very long focal lengths available, sports and especially wildlife photographers along with many others will find this lens to be a very useful tool in their kits. This lens can bring home imagery that many others cannot.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082152-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS Sport at B&H Photo</a></p>
```


----------



## lescrane (Jun 2, 2015)

very well put together review by Bryan Carnathan.

It looks like he is in process with the "C" version of the lens, I am curious about how that will stack up. As an owner of the Tamron 150-600, I;m looking for a little more sharpness at 600mm but am not willing to deal with the extra 1lb. I also notice that both sigmas have a panning mode IS setting whereas the Tamron does not.

Thanks again to Digital Picture for easy to follow, comprehensive review.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2015)

And this is what Bryan says versus the 100-400mm II.

"The Canon easily bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm and the two lenses have similar image sharpness. The extended Canon lens has a narrower max aperture at 560mm (f/8.0 vs. f/6.3), but the Canon has wider native apertures than the Sigma has. The Canon has a significantly higher MM (0.31x vs. 0.20x). The two lenses are similarly priced (without an extender factored in), with the Canon having a smaller size and lighter weight." 

Which says it all for me. I don't want to hump around a huge, heavy lens, with an enormous lens hood, which would occupy most of my hand luggage allowance on a flight, too heavy for extended hand holding and requiring a tripod, when for not much more money I can get (and did get) a much lighter, smaller and better Canon lens.


----------



## candc (Jun 2, 2015)

lescrane said:


> very well put together review by Bryan Carnathan.
> 
> It looks like he is in process with the "C" version of the lens, I am curious about how that will stack up. As an owner of the Tamron 150-600, I;m looking for a little more sharpness at 600mm but am not willing to deal with the extra 1lb. I also notice that both sigmas have a panning mode IS setting whereas the Tamron does not.
> 
> Thanks again to Digital Picture for easy to follow, comprehensive review.



There is a firmware update available for the lens. Itk adds automatic panning detection and vc on the perpendicular axis. Sounds good, i will send mine in for the update.

http://www.tamron-usa.com/about/updates_canon.php


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I would see it as a sports lense for those who must have 500-600mm focal length (surfing, skiing etc) but for most other uses the Canon would be more suitable. Would be pretty difficult to track and properly frame a heavy 500 - 600mm on fast moving field sports for example, especially with a crop body. 400mm is more than enough in most situations and background distractions need more blur than 6.3 will give you. If I got this lense it would principally be for wildlife/safari use where added focal length can be paramount.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jun 3, 2015)

For birding and astronomical shots, this 600mm length would be quite handy, no? I'm curious as to how the Contemporary compares to the Sport. Why does the Sport version cost a lot more?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> For birding and astronomical shots, this 600mm length would be quite handy, no? I'm curious as to how the Contemporary compares to the Sport. Why does the Sport version cost a lot more?



www.lenstip.com has reviewed both, as well as the Tamron. The S is sharper at 600mm in particular, as well as much better built. The Tamron is significantly sharper in the centre at 600mm, but much poorer at the edges than the C. I would still go for the Tamron over the C as centre is usually what counts at 600mm when you are straining for every bit of reach. The TDP comparisons are consistent with Lenstip.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Jun 3, 2015)

Disappointing at 600 mm.
Whereas the best resolution of this lens is placed around 150-200 mm, the sharpness at 600 mm is disappointing. 
Considering the size and weight of this lens, there are better choices available if you want to cover the lower end of the 150 to 600 mm range.
Since Sigma is capable of producing excellent optics, I wish that Sigma had produced a 400-600 mm lens with optical emphasis on the upper range.
Personally I would welcome a top notch 600 mm prime lens from Sigma.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jun 3, 2015)

AlanF said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > For birding and astronomical shots, this 600mm length would be quite handy, no? I'm curious as to how the Contemporary compares to the Sport. Why does the Sport version cost a lot more?
> ...



Thanks for the insightful response!


----------



## jmeyer (Jun 3, 2015)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Disappointing at 600 mm.
> Whereas the best resolution of this lens is placed around 150-200 mm, the sharpness at 600 mm is disappointing.
> Considering the size and weight of this lens, there are better choices available if you want to cover the lower end of the 150 to 600 mm range.
> Since Sigma is capable of producing excellent optics, I wish that Sigma had produced a 400-600 mm lens with optical emphasis on the upper range.
> Personally I would welcome a top notch 600 mm prime lens from Sigma.



What are you disappointed with? I rented this lens a couple weekends ago, and was quite impressed. I went in with low expectations and was hoping I didn't waste a whole day out. I shot 2500 pictures at 600mm, and the sharpness was almost as good as the EF 400mm F5.6. I will say, it definitely needs good light and carrying it with a tripod for 10 hours, makes for some sore shoulders. Here are a couple of examples at 600mm.


----------



## Monchoon (Jun 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> jmeyer said:
> 
> 
> > Bengt Nyman said:
> ...



And so what was your thought of this lens, did you use it for bif or just sport photos. Or have you actually used it


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Sorry you found it necessary to insult someone you don't remotely know. I am not a professional, but if I didn't "get out and shoot sporting events" I wouldn't have expressed a view. A personal one. Enjoy your photography.
phillipallaway.zenfolio.com


----------



## sanj (Jun 3, 2015)

At 600mm. Slight crop. ISO 400. f6.3. 1/200 FF camera.


----------



## Click (Jun 3, 2015)

Lovely shot. Well done sanj.


----------



## sanj (Jun 3, 2015)

dslrdummy said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > dslrdummy said:
> ...



Now it is your turn to ask dilbert for samples of his sports photography. dilbert? dilbert?


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 3, 2015)

AlanF said:


> And this is what Bryan says versus the 100-400mm II.
> 
> "The Canon easily bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm and the two lenses have similar image sharpness.



If Sigma/Tamron's zooms at 600mm don't create higher sharpness than Canon's 100-400 cropped, then I really wonder why anyone would lug around all that extra weight.


----------



## sanj (Jun 3, 2015)

Click said:


> Lovely shot. Well done sanj.



Thank you Click.  Some more here http://greypartridgefilms.com/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-review/


----------



## lescrane (Jun 3, 2015)

candc said:


> lescrane said:
> 
> 
> > very well put together review by Bryan Carnathan.
> ...



Thank you for posting this. Great to get this good info amongst all the nasty,pointless arguments in this thread. I will send my Tammy in to get the upgrade.


----------



## lescrane (Jun 3, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > And this is what Bryan says versus the 100-400mm II.
> ...




I can't speak for the rest of the world, but the answer to "why would anyone" is usually that different buyers have different opinions on any product, otherwise, everyone would buy the same thing. Specifically, 1000.00 is a lot less than 2400.00. (100-400II+ TC approx). Cost counts for me. The weight difference is not a mountain. Personally, I would rather have one lens than a lens and converter combo, all things being equal. I'm sure that the Canon is a great lens and has many happy customers.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 3, 2015)

Whereas 18 months ago, the super telephoto zoom field was limited to expensive or older options, it is now very interesting with a number of good options. I consider the 150-600 sports to be one of those good options, especially if you want something that goes out to 600 mm.

Most of these where shot mid-day, so maybe not the most artistic of shots, but I think do illustrate what the lens can do. BTW, the GBH chick shot is a ~100% crop, the others are also heavily cropped, but not approaching 100%.


----------



## Cory (Jun 3, 2015)

While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?


----------



## lescrane (Jun 3, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Whereas 18 months ago, the super telephoto zoom field was limited to expensive or older options, it is now very interesting with a number of good options. I consider the 150-600 sports to be one of those good options, especially if you want something that goes out to 600 mm.
> 
> Most of these where shot mid-day, so maybe not the most artistic of shots, but I think do illustrate what the lens can do. BTW, the GBH chick shot is a ~100% crop, the others are also heavily cropped, but not approaching 100%.



very sharp, nice Bokeh.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2015)

Cory said:


> While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?



The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.


----------



## Cory (Jun 3, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The 150-600s don't perform well at greater than 400mm on the 70D (or 7DII). The 100-400 II is excellent and is the one to go for if you need the extra length over the 300L.



Thanks.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 3, 2015)

Cory said:


> While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?



I'd have to agree with Alan, the 100-400L would be a good general purpose telephoto zoom. As would the 70-300L. They are two good options. One key differentiator would be price (100-400 II is $2,200 USD and the 70-300L is $1,350 USD). The other keys are the focal lengths and size/weight. I would lean toward the 70-300L if your general purpose zoom only goes to 55 mm, and if size/weight matter. The 100-400 II otherwise. 

I am a Sigma 150-600S owner (on a 5DIII). The real reason to get one of the 150-600 mm zoom lenses is if you really want the 400-600 mm range. Since you are shooting APS-C, which already applies the 1.6x crop factor, I suspect that 300 or 400 mm would be enough for most general purposes. 

EDIT---another way of stating the comparison of the 70-300L vs 100-400L is that, if money is not an issue, you should consider which is more important to you, 70-100 mm (15.3 to 21.7 degrees angle of view) or 300-400 mm (3.8 to 5.1 AOV).


----------



## traveller (Jun 3, 2015)

Anyone else think that Bryan's samples from the Sigma 150-600 C look just as good, if not better than the 150-600 S (at least up to 500mm)?


----------



## docsmith (Jun 3, 2015)

traveller said:


> Anyone else think that Bryan's samples from the Sigma 150-600 C look just as good, if not better than the 150-600 S (at least up to 500mm)?



Yep...up to ~400 or maybe 500 mm at TDP. Lenstip show them similar at 150mm, close at 300, but the S pulling away at 450 and 600. Ephotozine shows a similar trend as well. 

But, honestly, I think you buy these lenses for 500-600. Otherwise, buy the 70-300L, 100-400 II, etc.

Also, and I am watching this and want to see more before making the final conclusion, I think the "S" has better bokeh and contrast. At least in some of the images I've seen so far. Like I said, I will want to see a few more side by side comparisons before finalizing that observation.


----------



## jmeyer (Jun 4, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > While on the subject, if it were you, for all things outdoors (including high school marching band) would you opt for the Canon 70-300L, 100-400II or Sigma 150-600 C (with a Canon 70D)?
> ...



It performs great on the 50D, and I just showed you examples on the first page. Not quite sure why you're pushing the 100-400 II so much. It was heavy, it's long, and it requires good light, but sharpness was on par with the 400 5.6. What more do you want from it?


----------



## traveller (Jun 4, 2015)

docsmith said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else think that Bryan's samples from the Sigma 150-600 C look just as good, if not better than the 150-600 S (at least up to 500mm)?
> ...



True about 500-600mm usage,, but I still don't see that much difference here. I'd like to see some real world comparison before making my final judgement. From what I've seen, the difference between the Sigma and the Tamron is quite slight, even at 600mm. The Sigma C version seems to test similar, if not a little better than the Tamron at the long end.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2015)

jmeyer said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...



Here are some comparative shots from my last outing 2 or 3 weeks ago with it. A robin in the car park obliged me with a sitting target, while I was waiting for my wife. So, I decided to compare the 100-400 II on different bodies. The top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6, the middle with 560 at f/8, and the bottom the 5DIII at 560mm and f/8. (These are all 100% crops, ie 1 pixel = 1 pixel of the original).


----------



## docsmith (Jun 4, 2015)

traveller said:


> True about 500-600mm usage,, but I still don't see that much difference here. I'd like to see some real world comparison before making my final judgement. From what I've seen, the difference between the Sigma and the Tamron is quite slight, even at 600mm. The Sigma C version seems to test similar, if not a little better than the Tamron at the long end.



I own the Sigma 150-600S and have shot the Tamron 150-600 both on the 5DIII. The sharpness is very similar at f/8. Bokeh and AF are better with the Sigma 150-600S. Also, I intentionally shot the Tamron at 600 f/6.3 and deleted all those shots in my normal first cut of images where I just scroll through the images looking for good sharpness, etc. So, apparently, I do not like the IQ of the Tamron at 600 f/6.3, but at 600 f/8 the sharpness between the Sigma and Tamron are similar.

So there are differences, but they are subtle. I can absolutely understand people buying the Tamron. I was impressed. But there are some reasons to get the Sigma "sport" such as more consistent AF and better bokeh. 

I haven't used the "C" yet.


----------



## jmeyer (Jun 4, 2015)

AlanF said:


> jmeyer said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I expect the canon lens to be very sharp and based on your pictures it is. I'm just wondering what you don't like about the sigma? You say it performs bad on the 70D and 7D II, but on my older 50D, it performed better than my expectations.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2015)

jmeyer said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > jmeyer said:
> ...



I haven't used the Sigma 150-600mm's. But, I have used the Tamron 150-600mm extensively on the 5DIII and the 70D. According to the www.objektivtest.se and lensfreak sites, the Tamron and the Sigmas have weak MTF performance and softness at greater than 400mm. Here is my experience using a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on a 5DIII (bottom) versus the Tamron 150-600mm at 428mm on a 70D (top) of a greenfinch taken from the same spot. By itself, the Tamron looks OK. But, compare it with the Canon lens on the 5DIII you can see the differennce.


----------



## jmeyer (Jun 4, 2015)

AlanF said:


> jmeyer said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I guess that's my point, because your saying that the sigma is bad, but you haven't used it. I used it and it was really good. Also, comparing one of the best canon lens made on the 2nd best canon body made with a tamron on a crop camera is a terrible comparison, imo. Here are the mtf charts I've seen, maybe they are different from what you've seen.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2015)

The MTF charts you have just quoted are not relevant to the points I am making about the performance on crop sensors. The Canon ones are computationally generated for a full frame sensor and the Sigma are measured for their particular design of FF sensor. I have been virtually screaming that the 150-600mm lenses are great on FF but in contrast that are weaker above 400mm on APS-C. You need to look at the MTF charts for APS-C to see this, not the ones you have posted. The MTF charts are posted in the Swedish websites for which I posted the links. However, here they are for APS-C.
First the Tamron 150-600mm on APS-C
http://www.lensfreaks.com/lens-reviews/tamron/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd-review/
Then the Sigma 150-600mm Sport from 
http://www.objektivtest.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/[email protected]png

If you go to those sites you can see how much better the lenses are on FF. Those values at greater than 400mm on APS-C are weak.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 4, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I haven't used the Sigma 150-600mm's. But, I have used the Tamron 150-600mm extensively on the 5DIII and the 70D. According to the www.objektivtest.se and lensfreak sites, the Tamron and the Sigmas have weak MTF performance and softness at greater than 400mm. Here is my experience using a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on a 5DIII (bottom) versus the Tamron 150-600mm at 428mm on a 70D (top) of a greenfinch taken from the same spot. By itself, the Tamron looks OK. But, compare it with the Canon lens on the 5DIII you can see the differennce.



All lenses take a bit of a hit on crop. The question really is "how much?" As I digression, Alan, I believe you were the one to calculate that the true "reach" of crop bodies was ~1.16-1.19x and not 1.6x by looking at different resolution test results. That alone indicates that resolution results take a hit due to the crop sensor when compared to FF. So, I am not surprised that a >$6k lens on a FF body produced better results than a ~$1k lens on a crop body. That is exactly the result I would expect.

That said, I continue to see some very nice images taken with different crop bodies and the 150-600S. Maybe at some point I will hook up my M to the 150-600S and test it out myself. But...you know...time.

What I really hope that Bryan/TDP does look at the 150-600's on the 7DII so we can do some direct comparisons of different telephoto options for crop cameras. As that is really what is relevant, as all lenses take a hit on crop, what is the comparative hit taken by one lens over another and ultimately finding the combination that works for you.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2015)

That's right Doc. The Swedes have the 300 mm f/2.8 II data on lensfreak.com, and that ultrasharp lens takes only a small hit on crop, as seen also on Bryan's TDP site. As I wrote elsewhere, the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC gives spectacular results at 420mm on crop.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2015)

Bryan on TDP has compared the Contemporary with the Tamron 150-600mm, and finds that on stopping down to f/8 the C slightly beats the Tammy in the centre (as well as clearly at the edges). Interestingly, he now has the C data for the 7DII (but not the Tammy). The Canon 100-400mm II at 560mm f/8 beats the Sigma C at 600mm and f/6.3 hands down on the 7DII. On stopping down the Sigma to f/8, it improves greatly. However, the Canon is still sharper at the centre. This is seen most clearly when looking at the arcs of circles on the top left of his pictures and toggling back and forth.

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


----------



## noncho (Jun 19, 2015)

I had a chance to try 150-600S and it's a very good performer. Problem for me is that it's heavy for walking around and shooting for more time without a tripod/monopod.
Examples:












P.S. Pictures are taken with 7D mark II and I had no issues with focus accuracy.


----------

