Posted by Nate Chappell on November 14, 2015 at 4:07 PM
I posted this topic in the Bird Photography Discussion Forum also because I figured it would be widely used for birds. I have written a review of the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens on my website. In summary I think it's a very nice walk around lens, especially for the price. It works well with both the Canon 7D2 and 5D3, you get a bit of vignetting with full frame cameras but I prefer the image quality when used with the 5D3. You can buy it for Nikon bodies as well. I find it is not as sharp at 600mm so I routinely back it off to 560mm. To be able to walk around with a lens which weighs only 4.3 pounds but has such a huge focal range is great. The lens retails for less than $1,100 so it's a very good value for the cost. To read the full review with more images see LENS REVIEW
The image is a Green-headed Tanager photographed in the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil with this lens
Canon 5D3 Sigma 150-600 at 531mm 1/800 F6.3, iso 1600
Posted by Wayne Jones on November 16, 2015 at 12:01 AM
THANKS NATE! I have been researching this lens online, and as usual found conflicting reports. Due to reports of AF problems, I had decided to wait for a sale/rebate on the Canon 100-400 II (and sell my original Canon 100-400, which has been good for me (I have an excellent copy of it), but I like the even better IQ of the new one, as well as better AF and IS. However, now after reading your review I am thinking of keeping it for use in my canoe and wet weather, and getting the Sigma to use at other times. So your report comes at a great time for me; I am now very close to buying the Sigma 150-600 C again. Before I order it, I do have 3 questions:
1. Glad to hear about AF performance! My question is, did you have more shots where the Sigma C hunted or missed the mark than with other lenses? A Youtube reviewer had AF problems with this lens tested on a Canon 6D and 70D, both of which have weaker AF systems than the 5D3 and 7D2 (which you and I both use). He found the Tamron 150-600 had better AF. That review is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLXocpM5xno . However, other tests show the Sigmas have better image quality than the Tamron at long focal lengths, so it looked to me that the new Canon 100-400 and the Sigma Sport version of the 150-600 ($1,999) were the best choices. But of course you already mentioned the the massive Sigma sport version is not useful as a "walk-around" lens.
2. Did you get the dock? If so, was it really useful?
3. I would love to hear the experiences of other NPN members using the Sigma 150-600 lenses.
Posted by Nate Chappell on November 16, 2015 at 7:34 AM
Hi Wayne,
To answer your questions
1) No I have not had more shots where the AF hunted or missed the mark than with other lenses. It was a surprise to me how well the AF did. I used this lens more often than my 500F4 when I was photographing for a month recently in Thailand, if I had been having problems attaining focus I would have just used the 500F4 which I can handhold (but it's over 8 pounds so a lot more work). You may be right that part of the difference is the improved AF systems in the 5D3 and 7D2. I would note that I usually use the AF grid with the 9 center points (center zone) activated rather than just the single point or 5 points activated. I find that these cameras do really well in most situations using that center zone. I would also note that I have the Sigma 150-600 Sport (I need to sell it) and I don't see a difference in image quality or AF performance between the Contemporary and the Sport. My opinion regarding the options is that if you are going to be photographing mostly below 400mm than the newer Canon 100-400 is a better option but if you are photographing mostly 400-560mm then the Sigma 150-600 is a better option, especially when considering the price.
2) I did not get the dock so I can't speak to that.
3) I know Dennis Plank has this lens so hopefully he will chime in.
4) As always when purchasing a new lens (or camera for that matter) purchase it when you have a lot of time to try it out and if you don't like it return it before the expiration of your return date. This is because as it sounds like you realize there are good and bad copies of lenses (and cameras).
Posted by Wayne Jones on November 16, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Thanks again, Nate! Looks like I'll be ordering this lens.
Still would be nice to hear from Dennis Plank and Phil Hodgkins, and anyone else with experience with this lens.
Posted by Dennis Plank on November 16, 2015 at 2:37 PM
Hi Wayne & Nate:
My experience with the 150-600 C has been excellent thus far. I've been using it almost exclusively in place of my 500 and 300 Canon f4s since I got it, but that's not because it's a better lens-I'm just trying to get really used to it for an upcoming trip. I like it's portability a lot and I haven't had the problems some reviewers mentioned with the tube extending on it's own. Image quality has been excellent for me. I really can't find a significant difference between the results from it and from my Canon primes, though I'm sure the numbers say there are some. Nate mentioned that his seems a bit soft at 600mm, so he backs downa trifle. I've shot with it at 600 and posted some of those shots and my copy seems tack sharp even at that focal length.
Autofocus has been good for me. I'm also shooting with the 5D3 and 7D2, mostly the latter with this lens thus far. Since it is 5.6 wide open, it's a little slower to lock on than my primes, but nothing that bothers me and it seems to track very well. However, I haven't had an opportunity to do too much bird-in-flight photography with it.
I bought the dock, but haven't taken it out of the box. While it's nice for firmware updates, I haven't heard about any since I got the lens. It's other purpose is for fine-tuning the autofocus. As far as I've been able to tell from my images, my copy of the lens doesn't need adjustment for that.
I hadn't used a zoom in a long time (my Canon 100-400 was not a good copy, but it took me a long time to realize that I wasn't going to get a long with it, so I traded it in for the 300 f/4 and was very happy with the trade).
As an aside, I attended a meeting of the Nature Photographers of the Pacific Northwest a week ago and the guest speaker was one of Sigma's sponsored photographers (Roman Kurywczak). He has both the Contemporary and the Sport. He doesn't see any difference in performance between the two, so he usually uses the contemporary in decent weather and uses the Sport when he's going to be out in equipment abusing conditions (apparently it's really well sealed).
Personally, I think this lens, the Sport and the Tamron are going to really open up wildlife/bird photography to a lot of people who couldn't afford it and probably save a few marriages of those who pushed their credit limits to buy big glass in the past.
Hope this helps, Wayne.
Posted by Wayne Jones on November 16, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Thanks Dennis. I'm very happy with my old Canon 100-400. Comparisons have shown me that it's better than most, but not as good as the new Canon; and the tests I have seen indicate that the Sigma IQ is on the same level as the NEW Canon 100-400, so I think the Sigma is the right move for me.
Discussion
5 repliesThe image is a Green-headed Tanager photographed in the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil with this lens
Canon 5D3 Sigma 150-600 at 531mm 1/800 F6.3, iso 1600
1. Glad to hear about AF performance! My question is, did you have more shots where the Sigma C hunted or missed the mark than with other lenses? A Youtube reviewer had AF problems with this lens tested on a Canon 6D and 70D, both of which have weaker AF systems than the 5D3 and 7D2 (which you and I both use). He found the Tamron 150-600 had better AF. That review is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLXocpM5xno . However, other tests show the Sigmas have better image quality than the Tamron at long focal lengths, so it looked to me that the new Canon 100-400 and the Sigma Sport version of the 150-600 ($1,999) were the best choices. But of course you already mentioned the the massive Sigma sport version is not useful as a "walk-around" lens.
2. Did you get the dock? If so, was it really useful?
3. I would love to hear the experiences of other NPN members using the Sigma 150-600 lenses.
To answer your questions
1) No I have not had more shots where the AF hunted or missed the mark than with other lenses. It was a surprise to me how well the AF did. I used this lens more often than my 500F4 when I was photographing for a month recently in Thailand, if I had been having problems attaining focus I would have just used the 500F4 which I can handhold (but it's over 8 pounds so a lot more work). You may be right that part of the difference is the improved AF systems in the 5D3 and 7D2. I would note that I usually use the AF grid with the 9 center points (center zone) activated rather than just the single point or 5 points activated. I find that these cameras do really well in most situations using that center zone. I would also note that I have the Sigma 150-600 Sport (I need to sell it) and I don't see a difference in image quality or AF performance between the Contemporary and the Sport. My opinion regarding the options is that if you are going to be photographing mostly below 400mm than the newer Canon 100-400 is a better option but if you are photographing mostly 400-560mm then the Sigma 150-600 is a better option, especially when considering the price.
2) I did not get the dock so I can't speak to that.
3) I know Dennis Plank has this lens so hopefully he will chime in.
4) As always when purchasing a new lens (or camera for that matter) purchase it when you have a lot of time to try it out and if you don't like it return it before the expiration of your return date. This is because as it sounds like you realize there are good and bad copies of lenses (and cameras).
Still would be nice to hear from Dennis Plank and Phil Hodgkins, and anyone else with experience with this lens.
My experience with the 150-600 C has been excellent thus far. I've been using it almost exclusively in place of my 500 and 300 Canon f4s since I got it, but that's not because it's a better lens-I'm just trying to get really used to it for an upcoming trip. I like it's portability a lot and I haven't had the problems some reviewers mentioned with the tube extending on it's own. Image quality has been excellent for me. I really can't find a significant difference between the results from it and from my Canon primes, though I'm sure the numbers say there are some. Nate mentioned that his seems a bit soft at 600mm, so he backs downa trifle. I've shot with it at 600 and posted some of those shots and my copy seems tack sharp even at that focal length.
Autofocus has been good for me. I'm also shooting with the 5D3 and 7D2, mostly the latter with this lens thus far. Since it is 5.6 wide open, it's a little slower to lock on than my primes, but nothing that bothers me and it seems to track very well. However, I haven't had an opportunity to do too much bird-in-flight photography with it.
I bought the dock, but haven't taken it out of the box. While it's nice for firmware updates, I haven't heard about any since I got the lens. It's other purpose is for fine-tuning the autofocus. As far as I've been able to tell from my images, my copy of the lens doesn't need adjustment for that.
I hadn't used a zoom in a long time (my Canon 100-400 was not a good copy, but it took me a long time to realize that I wasn't going to get a long with it, so I traded it in for the 300 f/4 and was very happy with the trade).
As an aside, I attended a meeting of the Nature Photographers of the Pacific Northwest a week ago and the guest speaker was one of Sigma's sponsored photographers (Roman Kurywczak). He has both the Contemporary and the Sport. He doesn't see any difference in performance between the two, so he usually uses the contemporary in decent weather and uses the Sport when he's going to be out in equipment abusing conditions (apparently it's really well sealed).
Personally, I think this lens, the Sport and the Tamron are going to really open up wildlife/bird photography to a lot of people who couldn't afford it and probably save a few marriages of those who pushed their credit limits to buy big glass in the past.
Hope this helps, Wayne.