New Sigma 150-600 Sport

the lenstip suggests that this is an impressive lens and better in every measured way against the tamron except vignetting and weight. They even went so far as to call the tamron a good walk around lens. Not sure that is the description I would give it, but it is their creative license - not mine. If indeed the 100-400 II (or whatever they will call it) comes out in November/December - it will be indeed interesting to see the comparisons: IQ vs IQ, weight vs weight, price vs price and native 150-600 vs 100-400 + x1.4 TC III etc etc. the next couple of months have the potential of being very interesting.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17239546
the lenstip suggests that this is an impressive lens and better in every measured way against the tamron except vignetting and weight. They even went so far as to call the tamron a good walk around lens. Not sure that is the description I would give it, but it is their creative license - not mine. If indeed the 100-400 II (or whatever they will call it) comes out in November/December - it will be indeed interesting to see the comparisons: IQ vs IQ, weight vs weight, price vs price and native 150-600 vs 100-400 + x1.4 TC III etc etc. the next couple of months have the potential of being very interesting.

<10% improvement where it counts? 200% or so price? +1 kg of weight?

The 18-35 f1.8 Sigma is an example of what Sigma is capable of. Everything about it is worth the price in money and weight. Insanely sharp and fast for less than $1000. And on top of that it is being priced when there is no competitor even close.

Either Sigma just sucked this attempt for price vs. performance, or Tamron engineers just managed to find some magical formula which allowed great optics for a crazy low price. In which case, it would be hard to fault Sigma too much. It's probably hard to produce a 150-600 mm zoom in this price range.

It's not Tamron doing magic. It's just diminishing returns, that's all. The curve gets steep fast with optics. Small improvements come at large expense. Big fluorite costs big money, etc. Chances are the Sigma C version, will be priced near or the same as Tamron, and will be "as good".

But a little bit better, costs a lot more. The way it usually is with any optics.

- DAA

Oh, put me down for one of those sub $2K Sigma or Tamron 600/6.3 primes, too. Put everything into sharp at 600 wide open and good AF and eliminate the rest. I'd be all over that.

- DAA

Got an update from Bristol Cameras saying that Sigma now says that in UK they will only be available sometimes in December

When I pre-order they had said the first week of November ... darn it

I don't know if we will every see a new f5.6 prime in the 400-600mm range. Actually I don't think anyone has created a new version of such a lens since the film era. Manufacturers have decided to replace these lenses with zooms whether we like it or not.

With increasing pixel densities maybe the 300mm f4 will one day become that lens. Tied to a 40mp APS-C sensor it could become a lighter lens alternative.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #17239428
From that review, this part sounds good,

"The focus finding is flash-quick (less than 0.3 of a second) and even at 600 mm everything seems to be in perfect working order."

But, "those problems disappear when you use the 10 meters-infinity focus limiter option".

Still sounds better than the Tamron at 600 potentially.
But I don't like the heavy vignette the Sigma gets.

Still have to see more. Although right now, It's looking more likely I'll keep the Tamron.

Sounds similar to the quote from the Tamron review.

"Of course you can employ a focus limiter, narrowing the range to a distance from 15 meters to infinity – after that even at 600 mm the focusing time is shortened to an excellent result of about 0.3 of a second."

i wouldn't hold your breath for anyone to come out with an f6.3 prime...

DreDaze wrote in post #17240279
i wouldn't hold your breath for anyone to come out with an f6.3 prime...

Still, it is kind of odd. Wouldn't a 600mm f/6.3 prime be cheaper to build than a 150-600mm zoom?

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17239568
<10% improvement where it counts? 200% or so price? +1 kg of weight?

I guess its where people can draw the line.

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM.

Dont know how much improvement on the Sigma at 600 mm (Ok F4 instead of 6.3). 6 times the price also +1 kilo in weight. Is it worth the extra 10 grand ? I´d love to own one but will never be able to afford one.


I can however afford the Sigma,just about, and if its the better option for around about 2000€ I am getting it rather than getting The Tamron ( all things considered build quality, autofocus, Sigma dock even mount changes if I decided to go Nikon etc) and wondering all the time if I would have been better off getting the Sigma. The only thing I do wonder about is if croping a Canon 400l 5.6 would be a cheaper and better option.

http://www.lenstip.com …mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html

Finally a review of the lens.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17239470
For all the praise Sigma has gotten for 3-4 of their newest lenses, they still seem to missing the bus on some attempts.

If you are going to NOT offer a 600mm f6.3 prime, then people are going to buy a 150-600 zoom to use as a 600mm prime. Only an idiot would buy this lens to use at 150 most of the time and have 600mm for rare needs.

So, for your top model of this lens with the S designation, why is every focal length besides the long end been optimized?

Make it rock like a star at 600mm and then make whatever sacrifices need to be made on the lower end of the zoom range.

We're willing to take slower glass as it is cheaper and lighter most of the time. The first company to make a full range of telephotos above 300mm with f5.6-6.3 with excellent sharpness and AF, they are going to sell many lenses.

The fact that Canon's 400 f5.6 L has not been challenged and still sells after 20+ years, is evidence that there is a huge need for these lenses, but the manufacturers are so far too stupid or clueless to cash in on it. This market of buyers is never going to pay $10,000 for a lens no matter what. Ever. Just like many people wanting a 7D would never buy a 1Dx level of pricing.

Great post, and so spot on!
I shoot my primes FAR more than my zooms for many reasons including those listed above.
The 400mm f/5.6 is a grand, it's so affordable and offers the same IQ as lenses costing 5x+ and better IQ then ALL of these zooms (again some costing 3X+)

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17240322
Still, it is kind of odd. Wouldn't a 600mm f/6.3 prime be cheaper to build than a 150-600mm zoom?

But tougher to sell, I think.

Yes, all of us who prioritize quality and reach at an affordable cost will recognize that a prime makes the most sense economically and technically. But we are a small market.

If you shoot for a living and what you shoot needs the reach of >= 500 mm, then the $8-$12 K investment in the industry-standard 500 f/4, 600 f/4 etc. is what you are going to do.

If you are a hobbyist or a weekend-warrior type photographer then you probably cannot justify $1-3K on lenses, and if you can, then that zoom is going to appeal to you a lot more because you don't know or care about any extra quality for the prime.

Add to them the large market out there comprising folks who actually do prefer the convenience and flexibility of a zoom as long as quality is sufficient for, e.g., web and (small) print such as for the few newspapers that still exist or non-full-page image for magazine spreads: sports and other photojournalism.

Also add the folks who use the term "zoom" when they mean "telephoto", and in fact characterize reach in terms of "my Gillette camera has 10x zoom, I want that for my Canon", and have never heard of the term prime, and quite content to take a full-auto shot of Eurasian tree-finch occupying the middle 5% of the frame sitting on the telephone line at the end of the yard under an overexposed sky and over suburban dreck, a.k.a. the marketing folks primary targets, who would be happy to drop $2K for their hobby glass as long as it has lots of features like a zoom and DX-RGG-WOWZA coatings and hyper-ultrasonic-focusing and crystal-good-vibration stabilization.

Compared to all of the above, we are a relatively small, niche group, the impression given by the dominance of our presence in these forums non-withstanding): folks who need the reach, and have the technical know-how to recognize the trade-offs between a zoom and a prime and still prefer the latter, and cannot justify the expense of a high-end 500/600 f/4).

And, so you can see, from a marketing/selling perspective the zoom makes so much more sense of the prime.

Especially since, when it comes down to it, the overwhelming majority of us will end up buying one of these zooms anyway given that nobody is going to make use the 600 f/6.3 we want due to the calculus described above!!!

snake0ape wrote in post #17240430
http://www.lenstip.com …mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html

Finally a review of the lens.

That said, this review and the results look very promising indeed!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17240322
Still, it is kind of odd. Wouldn't a 600mm f/6.3 prime be cheaper to build than a 150-600mm zoom?

Another way of looking at it, while, everything else being equal, a 600 f/6.3 prime might be cheaper to design and build than a 150-600 zoom, at the same price point manufacturers are going to sell a whole lot more of the latter than the former.