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



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 26, 2015)

```
<p>Friend of the site Dustin Abbott has completed his review of the brand new Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS Sport lens.</p>
<p>Dustin initially wrote this lens off saying:</p>
<blockquote><p>I had pretty much written off the new Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM SPORT lens before I reviewed it. I saw the specs (including the heavy weight and increased size over the Tamron 150-600 VC), and the MTF charts and early shots didn’t seem to be a lot better than the Tamron.</p></blockquote>
<p>However, after using the Sigma, Dustin came away quite impressed by the mix of build quality, performance and value.</p>
<blockquote><p>All in all I consider this lens to be a smashing success for Sigma. It has some shortcomings (its vignetting, particularly slow aperture, and heavy weight), but the tradeoff for that weight is a beautifully constructed lens that really feels like a match for some of Canon and Nikon’s best made lenses. It has great optical performance that is going to make a lot of photographers very happy with the images they bring home (this would be an amazing safari lens!) That focal length is really quite incredible, and the fact that you can use the lens wide open at all focal lengths without hesitation is very empowering. The price may seem high in comparison to the Tamron, but after using this lens I feel that the price is actually extremely reasonable for what you are getting, and would probably still be a decent value if it were $1000 more.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-review/" 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>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (May 26, 2015)

Thanks for the review, I was wondering if the price of this lens is warranted compared to Tamron which is significantly cheaper.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 26, 2015)

The problem with the Sport is....the Contemporary.

The C version is less than the Tamron, better optically and better focusing than the Tamron, about a kilogram lighter than the S version, and just as good optically at f/7.1 as the S is at f/6.3, and the same from f/8 on up.

So, if you don't care too much about the extra third of a stop for the same sharpness, and don't plan to use yours as a wheel-chock for your 747 in a rain storm, the C is a very good deal.

If you need to shoot in very harsh conditions, the S is a very inexpensive solution compared to the 200-400/4L IS.


----------



## candc (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> The problem with the Sport is....the Contemporary.
> 
> The C version is less than the Tamron, better optically and better focusing than the Tamron, about a kilogram lighter than the S version, and just as good optically at f/7.1 as the S is at f/6.3, and the same from f/8 on up.
> 
> ...



From what I have seen the tamron is better optically than the c version but I don't think there is any significant difference between any of the 150-600's or either of the 100-400's. The new canon has the best af and is but optically they are all good.


----------



## pknight (May 27, 2015)

Full disclosure: I am a Tamron 150-600 owner. I am impressed with this review of the Sigma Sport lens, but I really think that the comparison that we are all interested in is with the Contemporary. Having said that, a couple of things stand out in this review.

First, there is the repeated opinion that among these lenses (including the Canon 100-400 II), image quality is so close that it should not be a determining factor in making a choice. This is based on taking actual photos, not lab tests, and since most photographers do more of the former than of the latter, I think that this should be comforting, especially for Sigma and Tamron owners. Of course, there are other factors to consider, but IQ has to be a major consideration for anyone buying any lens.

Second, for me, was the conclusion that the Sigma Sport would be difficult to hand-hold for an extended period of time. I know that some users will not have a problem with the weight, but people are different, and if the reviewer noticed enough of a difference handling these lenses to make this comment, it will probably be an issue for many shooters. I could carry my Canon 100-400 all day, and I have had no problems with the Tamron so far, but I wouldn't want it to be any heavier.

It is too bad that the Sigma C was not included in the comparison, as that is the real price/performance competition with the Tamron. Clearly, based on earlier posts to this thread, there is no consensus on which of these two is superior optically. I will say that, in my experience, the firmware update for the Tamron, which is shipping with new copies, improves the AF performance noticeably.

I think that what we are seeing is third-party lens makers catching up with the OEM offerings. Perhaps this is due to technological advances, or perhaps to efforts to improve quality, but for whatever reason, third-party lenses are getting better, which is great for those who are willing to consider these options.


----------



## Isaac Grant (May 27, 2015)

I owned the Tamron for over a year and sold it for the Sigma C. I use the lens only for shooting birds. Here are the reasons that to me the C is a much better lens than the Tamron. 

First and foremost it is sharper. As already stated, in field use, not a lab, the lens is sharper. I was told over and over that I had a really sharp copy of the Tamron and I can tell you that the Sigma is a good bit better to me. Put my Tamron on ebay shortly after using the C. The fine feather details from the C are just better than the Tamron. I did side by side tests of the same bird in the same light with the same camera on many occasions and every time the C was sharper and had better color and contrast to my eye. Tamron went in for a cleaning and then was sold on ebay.

Focusing is equal to the Tamron.

The OS is better on the Sigma. One of the side by side tests I did was a Mallard resting on the shoreline in high wind. Shots were handheld with same ISO and settings. The OS on the Sigma in every shot produced sharper pics. in custom settings you can change the focus priority as well as the OS settings. I find that Dynamic OS and focus priority produce an extremely high number of sharp shots. And although it slows down the focus a tiny bit, it is still plenty fast enough to lock on to fast flying BIF. If you want to restore the factory settings you just turn the custom settings off.

The focal length locks are great and I use them all the time.

It is also slightly lighter than the Tamron.

As far as the S goes, the lens is just too heavy to hand hold. Just about every pic I have seen from the S suffers from motion blur except those taken from a tripod and that is not how I would use the lens. Some shots from a full frame are good as well but again with photographing small birds, I do not use a full frame. I use the 7d2.

Here are a few shots I got with the C. All hand held.

600mm, f8, ISO 400, SS1/640


Prothonotary Warbler by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm, f8, ISO 400, SS 1/1000


Yellow-rumped Warbler by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm, f8, ISO 400, SS1/800


House Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## Isaac Grant (May 27, 2015)

A few more with the C which to me of the 3 lenses is the way to go.

531m, f8, ISO 400, SS1/2000


American Oystercatcher by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

335mm, f8, ISO 400, SS1/1250


Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## heptagon (May 27, 2015)

To me it seems that you pretty much get what you pay for comparing between the Tamron 150-600, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sports and the Canon 100-400L II + 1.4 Extender.

If your camera focuses at f/8 all of the above combinations work fine but considering all factors and provided enough mony is in the bank, for most people the Canon solution would be best and most flexible overall.


----------



## candc (May 27, 2015)

heptagon said:


> To me it seems that you pretty much get what you pay for comparing between the Tamron 150-600, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sports and the Canon 100-400L II + 1.4 Extender.
> 
> If your camera focuses at f/8 all of the above combinations work fine but considering all factors and provided enough mony is in the bank, for most people the Canon solution would be best and most flexible overall.


You don't need a camera that focuses at f/8 with the tamron or sigma. They are 6.3 but focus as if 5.6.


----------



## Isaac Grant (May 27, 2015)

heptagon said:


> To me it seems that you pretty much get what you pay for comparing between the Tamron 150-600, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sports and the Canon 100-400L II + 1.4 Extender.
> 
> If your camera focuses at f/8 all of the above combinations work fine but considering all factors and provided enough mony is in the bank, for most people the Canon solution would be best and most flexible overall.



Do not agree. As stated the Tamron is not as good as the C for many reasons. For me and my needs the S is too heavy and when stopped down is no better than the C. So has no benefit. As for the Canon, while the bare lens is sharper, the lens plus 1.4x according to many is not as sharp as the C alone. In addition you lose all the focus points but 5. I would not be so quick to write off the Canon as the best option. If you only need 400mm, or need the close focus than sure. If you need the 600mm and all focus points than I think the C is the way to go. It is much better than it should be for that price.


----------



## heptagon (May 27, 2015)

candc said:


> You don't need a camera that focuses at f/8 with the tamron or sigma. They are 6.3 but focus as if 5.6.



Let's rephrase that: "If your camera only focuses down to f/5.6 the Tamron and Sigma lenses provide significant extra practical value over the Canon+Teleconverter combination."


----------



## heptagon (May 27, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > To me it seems that you pretty much get what you pay for comparing between the Tamron 150-600, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sports and the Canon 100-400L II + 1.4 Extender.
> ...



The Tamron also is quite a bit cheaper... so it's give and take here.

Over at the digital picture the Canon+1.4 at 560mm and f/8 is much sharper at the edges than the alternatives at 500/600mm. The center is sharp on any lens, so that's hard to compare from those pictures. But if you fill the frame the Canon combo is the way to go in my opinion. But you have to compare the image quality with your budget, your camera focusing options and with real world experience which may differ a lot from the lab tests. If I had the money I'd pay a lot for a small and light lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 28, 2015)

heptagon said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need a camera that focuses at f/8 with the tamron or sigma. They are 6.3 but focus as if 5.6.
> ...



Even on the 7D2 it gives you access to most of the other focus points beyond the 5 center ones.


----------



## Isaac Grant (May 28, 2015)

heptagon said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > heptagon said:
> ...



On a crop sensor camera, the benefit of the edge sharpness is lost, especially since just about every bird pic needs to be cropped as well. 

The Tamron is cheaper than the S but only $20 cheaper than the C.

I would also argue that if you fill the frame with the Canon combo then you are at a major disadvantage because you only have 5 focus points to use. So it will be very hard to frame the picture and get the focus points on the eye with only the center focus point and 4 surrounding.


----------



## candc (May 28, 2015)

If you are using the canon with the 1.4xiii it is [email protected]/8 if you have it on a 1dx,5diii, or 7dii then you have af on the center point. Orher canon bodies, no af.

The tamron and sigma's are 600 f/6.3 I know with the 7dii and 70d that all the center 1/3 (large zone) points work. Afaik you will have af on all canon bodies.


----------



## sanj (May 28, 2015)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25368.0

Some more pictures and thoughts here.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2015)

Why is Dustin Abbott always described as a "friend of the site"? Is a Facebook friend or does he buy the mods a beer when he sees them, or what?


----------



## candc (May 28, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Why is Dustin Abbott always described as a "friend of the site"? Is a Facebook friend or does he buy the mods a beer when he sees them, or what?



they are all pretty chummy up there in the great white north.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 29, 2015)

candc said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Dustin Abbott always described as a "friend of the site"? Is a Facebook friend or does he buy the mods a beer when he sees them, or what?
> ...


Yep, it's a very small country, you know. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


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


Eh. ;D


----------

