New Sigma 150-600 Sport

jeetsukumaran wrote in post #17240436
But tougher to sell, I think. .....

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

I think all of what you say above applies to most reasonably priced zooms.
I do not think any of it applies to a specialized lens in this market.
Once you are looking for 600mm and willing pay to these prices, you know enough to know what you want and that a zoom aint so important.

ei: I agree with you in general, I do not agree that it applies here in THIS market at all.

As pointed out earlier, the staying power of the Canon 400mm 5.6 (and 300mm f/4 to some extent) are examples of this.

Another example is the SIGMA 120-300mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/4 vs. 300mm Primes.
As good as the 120-300mm is, it does not outsell the much more expensive Canon prime.
The 100-300mm f/4 was one of the best 300mm zooms ever made by a big margin. and yet, it was so out sold by f/4 primes and other competition that it was dropped from the line.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17240440
That said, this review and the results look very promising indeed!

I thought people had seen this review but with my limited understanding of all the chart whatnots the center frame chart leeds me to believe that at 6.3 the Sigma is beating the Tamron and on par with the Canon 100-400L at 400mm and 5.6. (If I am reading it all correctly). How much of a difference it all makes in real world stuff I dont know.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17240440
That said, this review and the results look very promising indeed!

Am I reading the review correctly. The sharpness of sigma at 400- 600mm is only slightly better than the tamron. We are talking a few ticks on the MTF5O scale. At 150-400, the sigma lens is noticeably better. Maybe 5 ticks better.

The image stabilization is worse than the tamron. Only 3 stops vs tamrons 3.5 stops.

So what about AF.? I did not read if it's faster or not.

From my first reading, the sigma isn't worth twice the price. Perhaps the build might be worth it to some.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17240443
I think all of what you say above applies to most reasonably priced zooms.
I do not think any of it applies to a specialized lens in this market.
Once you are looking for 600mm and willing pay to these prices, you know enough to know what you want and that a zoom aint so important.

ei: I agree with you in general, I do not agree that it applies here in THIS market at all.

As pointed out earlier, the staying power of the Canon 400mm 5.6 (and 300mm f/4 to some extent) are examples of this.

Another example is the SIGMA 120-300mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/4 vs. 300mm Primes.
As good as the 120-300mm is, it does not outsell the much more expensive Canon prime.
The 100-300mm f/4 was one of the best 300mm zooms ever made by a big margin. and yet, it was so out sold by f/4 primes and other competition that it was dropped from the line.

I think when comparing the sales of Sigma zooms to the Canon primes, the issue is that you cannot separate the brand name effect from the prime-appeal effect, i.e., there is an huge, huge, huge, tendency to go with Canon, even at a much higher price point.

However, I agree with you wrt to the 400 f/5.6: the staying power of the 400 f/5.6 when lots of choices with zooms are there does speak to some sort of inherent appeal of (good) primes sufficient to support a stable market.

jeetsukumaran wrote in post #17240442
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.

I don't know about that. I agree with Canon_Lover above that the people buying this lens are not buying it for the short(er) focal lengths. They're all buying it for that 600mm. I know I would.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17240519
I don't know about that. I agree with Canon_Lover above that the people buying this lens are not buying it for the short(er) focal lengths. They're all buying it for that 600mm. I know I would.

The fact that Canon puts out a 200-400 zoom for $12K that sells relatively well is a testament to the market for long-reach zooms.

Well, since we are all freely speculating here on what people are buying and why, I would suggest that the community on these forums represent just a subset of the broader market targeted by Sigma. And even if in practice many of those folks will end up using the zoom at the longer lengths (i.e., almost as a prime), that does not mean that they do not consider the zoom useful enough to want.

My point is not that there are no or even few folks who would prefer a quality prime over a useless zoom. I know that to be false, if nothing because I am one of those folks, and so are most people in this discussion and, for that matter, most folks looking at these lenses on the online forums that I frequent. My point is, despite all of this, I am not confused/bemused why no manufacturer is tapping into a screaming open market of people who want affordable long-reach primes. I wish they were, but I am not surprised that they are not. I am not surprised because I am not projecting the homogeneity of opinion of what is a rather niche community onto the universe at large, and constructing a wishful-thinking market out that.

i'd rather have the zoom than a 600mm f6.3 prime...will most of the shots be done at the long end...yeah, but there are many times i use the shorter lengths as well

if the prime was at least faster, then maybe there'd be a tougher decision to make...but if it's faster, it's going to be more money

jeetsukumaran wrote in post #17240544
The fact that Canon puts out a 200-400 zoom for $12K that sells relatively well is a testament to the market for long-reach zooms.

Well, since we are all freely speculating here on what people are buying and why, I would suggest that the community on these forums represent just a subset of the broader market targeted by Sigma. And even if in practice many of those folks will end up using the zoom at the longer lengths (i.e., almost as a prime), that does not mean that they do not consider the zoom useful enough to want.

My point is not that there are no or even few folks who would prefer a quality prime over a useless zoom. I know that to be false, if nothing because I am one of those folks, and so are most people in this discussion and, for that matter, most folks looking at these lenses on the online forums that I frequent. My point is, despite all of this, I am not confused/bemused why no manufacturer is tapping into a screaming open market of people who want affordable long-reach primes. I wish they were, but I am not surprised that they are not. I am not surprised because I am not projecting the homogeneity of opinion of what is a rather niche community onto the universe at large, and constructing a wishful-thinking market out that.

The 200-400mm is a top of the line Canon lens that not too many people can afford or justify buying. And those that can and do, usually also have one or two of the long white primes to complement it and probably also a 1DX.

These new Tamron and Sigma lenses are not targeted at the people who can afford the above. They're targeted at people who can not afford the big whites. For them the 150-600mm lenses are their only way of getting a 600mm lens.

I am aware of course that we here, at POTN, are a relatively small community and that what we think, may not be what the world at large thinks but, well, I don't know, I just don't see why anybody would buy a 150-600mm zoom if not for those 600mm.

DreDaze wrote in post #17240572
i'd rather have the zoom than a 600mm f6.3 prime...will most of the shots be done at the long end...yeah, but there are many times i use the shorter lengths as well

if the prime was at least faster, then maybe there'd be a tougher decision to make...but if it's faster, it's going to be more money

But isn't it the 600mm you bought the lens for? Aren't there better options for 200mm, 300mm, 400mm? Instead of a big and heavy 150-600mm zoom?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17240627
But isn't it the 600mm you bought the lens for? Aren't there better options for 200mm, 300mm, 400mm? Instead of a big and heavy 150-600mm zoom?

true, a 600 5.6 I'de definitely favor over a 150-600 zoom. The tamron 150-600 was a bit too cumbersome for my taste, and the sigmonster jr significantly bigger.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17240627
But isn't it the 600mm you bought the lens for? Aren't there better options for 200mm, 300mm, 400mm? Instead of a big and heavy 150-600mm zoom?

it'd be the whole package...there may be better at 200mm, but it doesn't go to 600mm...there may be better at 400mm...but it doesn't go wider

i don't have a 150-600mm though...i've got the 120-300mm, that i pair with 1.4X, and 2X...i'd say right now i use it half the time at 120-300mm, and half with the 2X at 240-600mm

there is a difference with that, as a large part of why i'm using it at 120-300mm is the aperture though

but shooting things like air shows, when i had my 150-500mm, i was using it at all types of focal lengths...i couldn't imagine just having 600mm, i'd miss a lot of shots

For wildlife I love having 600mm but at the same time I still need a zoom for those days I'm going after big game so a 600mm prime wouldn't do it alone for me. A 600mm would be great for birds but it would have to focus as fast as the 400 5.6 for me to replace that lens and I just don't see that happening from Tamron or Sigma.

DreDaze wrote in post #17240687
i couldn't imagine just having 600mm

I could. But I'm primarily a prime shooter to begin with.

I have not been impressed with most of the Sigma's sample images, to be honest.

This one, however, did impress me:

http://www.digitalcama​ralens.com …aleria/Muestra%​208194.htm

More here:

http://www.digitalcama​ralens.com …150-600%20S%20Galeria.htm

Super zooms for full frame and APS-C are last decade's hot fashion. The lens manufacturers putting out these 50-500 and 150-600 type zooms are behind the curve in this market segment by 4 years.

The enthusiast market today wants super sharpness, decent AF, and decent build at a reasonable price. Everything else is secondary in priority. Sigma has proven without a doubt that this is true with their latest Art line of lenses.

You can carry the still best in class Canon 70-200 F4 L IS, with a TC or not to cover the short range at a low weight. Then a 5.6 or 6.3 tele-prime that can also take the TC. That's the type of kit people would do for cheap, VERY sharp, and light.

The main argument for long primes over long zooms is weight, if all else being equal. The Canon 200-400 is a tank compared to faster primes that are longer. It has to be in order to also zoom and keep the stuff sharp. It also costs more than my truck brand new.

Cheap, Light, Zooms, Sharp

Pick 3.

.
.
.
Edit: Another good reason the Canon 200-400 is appealing, is because of outdoor environments. Changing lenses often in the Arctic or sandy desert could be a problem for a wildlife photographer. A fully sealed system with a built in TC make lens changes go away completely. There is a price to pay in back pain and bank account depletion.