New Sigma 150-600 Sport

Yeah.... I may have to rent the Canon 400 5.6 again. See if it's worth while.

I wish that 500 F/4 L IS v1 wasn't so expensive.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #17274036
Yeah.... I may have to rent the Canon 400 5.6 again. See if it's worth while.

I wish that 500 F/4 L IS v1 wasn't so expensive.

You have the new Canon 100-400 II + 1.4xIII ($2649). I'm thinking about the new 100-400II, I should have my 100-400v1 sold tomorrow.

eeeeh... yeah.... I'll have to see how it performs. From the specs, I thought some guys said it was very much the same as the Sigma 150-600?

Lookin at the DigitalPicture site, the Tamron 150-600 vs. the Canon 400 5.6 and Canon 100-400 v1 at 400, they all look almost identical.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #17274088
eeeeh... yeah.... I'll have to see how it performs. From the specs, I thought some guys said it was very much the same as the Sigma 150-600?

Information reductionism at its very best.

The only basis for comparison right now between the 100-400 II and the Sigma is the MTF charts. And those (a) should not be compared across different manufacturers and (b) do not tell the whole story. I am fine using them as indications/suggestion​s (and certainly, if one of the MTF's were dramatically different/worse than the other it might be worth taking this difference more seriously), but to take that as in any real way being "very much the same" is very misleading.

On the other hand, Roger Cicala has done a thorough comparison of a bunch of this tele-zooms, including the Tamron 150-600 and the EF 100-400, and that might be worth reading for actual information. Unfortunately, not only does it not include the Sigma 150-600 Sport, it also does not include the EF 400 f/5.6 ...

7D mark II + 100-400mm mark II + 1.4x mark III TC would be really nice to have. I think would be the best for hobbyist like me. I met someone yesterday with 7D2 and EF500 mark 1 and 2.0x TC and according to him it does AF using center focus point on 7D2 and the IQ is still very good. For now I will keep the Tamron 150-600mm and I will add the 7d2 next year. I am good to go while I save for ef500mm.

peteg1 wrote in post #17273869
I'll put this out there, I shot the Sigma 150-600 Sport for a couple days now and it went back today (Samy's Camera). The build quality is excellent and AF is quicker than my Tamron 150-600. From 150 to 400 IQ is very good but at 600mm where I will be using it, was equal or a little softer compared to the Tamron.

I did not put a bunch of test samples together to post, I did my own test (tripod) with 7DII, 5DIII and used my Sony a7r using manual (focus peaking) to element any AF errors and like I said the Sigma was equal or just a little softer at 600mm (my copy). But if I never had the Tamron I would have thought 600mm on the Sigma was fine. Don't know if there is copy variances or not, because some samples on the net looked very good at 600mm to me.

Also handholding both lenses (no problem with weight, but Tamron is lighter) the VC on the Tamron was just better. I ordered the Sigma after seeing some very good samples at 600mm (Nikon).
I don't what no one to think I disliked the Sigma. It's a fine lens.

Thanks for sharing Pete. Same thing with me if I did not have the Tamron I will also consider this sigma but again the price is 2k and a couple more thousands you can get a canon telephoto like the EF500mm mark 1 prime, so I might ended up not getting the sigma because of the price.

peteg1 wrote in post #17273869
I'll put this out there, I shot the Sigma 150-600 Sport for a couple days now and it went back today (Samy's Camera). The build quality is excellent and AF is quicker than my Tamron 150-600. From 150 to 400 IQ is very good but at 600mm where I will be using it, was equal or a little softer compared to the Tamron.

I did not put a bunch of test samples together to post, I did my own test (tripod) with 7DII, 5DIII and used my Sony a7r using manual (focus peaking) to element any AF errors and like I said the Sigma was equal or just a little softer at 600mm (my copy). But if I never had the Tamron I would have thought 600mm on the Sigma was fine. Don't know if there is copy variances or not, because some samples on the net looked very good at 600mm to me.

Also handholding both lenses (no problem with weight, but Tamron is lighter) the VC on the Tamron was just better. I ordered the Sigma after seeing some very good samples at 600mm (Nikon).
I don't what no one to think I disliked the Sigma. It's a fine lens.

Thanks to you peteg1.....really helpful to me as am having and using the Tammy for last 7+ months,and apart form the AF speed and reliability...have not much to complain about form a $1069:600mm lens.So the words ' AF is quicker than my Tamron 150-600' was like holy bells ringing to my ears.......but 'was equal or a little softer compared to the Tamron' pumped all my GAS out.....
Actually I'll be using it mostly @ 600mm end for shooting small and fidgety birds...who don't cooperate with you at all.
.....It seems another long 'wait and watch' season coming my way......

Thanks again.

PIXPHATIC wrote in post #17274315
Thanks to you peteg1.....really helpful to me as am having and using the Tammy for last 7+ months,and apart form the AF speed and reliability...have not much to complain about form a $1069:600mm lens.So the words ' AF is quicker than my Tamron 150-600' was like holy bells ringing to my ears.......but 'was equal or a little softer compared to the Tamron' pumped all my GAS out.....
Actually I'll be using it mostly @ 600mm end for shooting small and fidgety birds...who don't cooperate with you at all.
.....It seems another long 'wait and watch' season coming my way......

Thanks again.

+1000 same here. . I just went out again today with my Tamron and got some really sharp images of the Killdeers.

I'm just hoping the Sigma is capable of delivering much more reliable results than the Tamron. The Tammy certainly CAN deliver good, sharp images; but when I can get similar results, more reliably, from shooting the 100-400, cropping a bit and uprez-ing the image then the Tamron's really not doing much for me. If I'm shelling out for a lens this long and heavy, it should be able to return images that are notably better than the uprez'ed 400mm shots AND do it with nearly every shot rather than every once in a while. Once I sell the Tamron, I'll give this Sigma a try and see what the result is.

At the current price point, though, I'm afraid even this monster is going to run into some serious competition from the updated 100-400 when images from it are uprez'ed. Especially when size, MFD and all are factored in.

....or there is another way of looking at it....since I had no other options 7 months back other than the Tammy 150-600mm,and after using it for 7+ months...coming to know it's faults.....willing to explore other/newer options.But my conditions remain the same....must be better than the Tammy @ 600mm &/@f6.3 &/better AF......any two from the wishlist......or all of the above.....
..............as the $1000 cost and 1kg of extra weight does matter.....

Snydremark wrote in post #17274332
I'm just hoping the Sigma is capable of delivering much more reliable results than the Tamron. The Tammy certainly CAN deliver good, sharp images; but when I can get similar results, more reliably, from shooting the 100-400, cropping a bit and uprez-ing the image then the Tamron's really not doing much for me. If I'm shelling out for a lens this long and heavy, it should be able to return images that are notably better than the uprez'ed 400mm shots AND do it with nearly every shot rather than every once in a while. Once I sell the Tamron, I'll give this Sigma a try and see what the result is.

At the current price point, though, I'm afraid even this monster is going to run into some serious competition from the updated 100-400 when images from it are uprez'ed. Especially when size, MFD and all are factored in.

This is EXACTLY why I cancelled the Sigma pre-order and decided I should just wait things out a bit.... then the updated Canon was announced!

I've had the same experience: More reliable AF results just even using the 70-300 L vs the Tamron. So I'm not going to roll the dice again.

Obviously the sigma, tamron, and both versions of the 100-400 will get you excellent results for static subjects. This is going to come down to really the subject matter each photographer has in mind. I'm betting the updated Canon will still yield the best results for BIF with non blue sky/boring backrounds. The sigma will probably the best overall/all purpose lens with slightly better AF than the tamron, while the Tamron will be the best budget all around/all purpose/portable...

From personal experience: I've had better results cropping a 300mm image from the Canon 70-300 on the 70d for BIF vs. the 5dmkiii on the Tamron 150-600.

Once you're into a scenario where there's a confusing backround, on both the 5dmkiii and the 70d, the majority of the images end up lackluster using the Tamron.

It's similiar to owning a fast car, with bad tires. In theory it's going to hookup and take off, but in reality, it just spins the wheels most of the time. The Canon is simply more consistent, and I expect the 100-400 vii will yield the same level of consistency while giving another 100mm.

To me it seems like the best option: portable, weight makes sense, image quality and AF will be the most consistent. Can use for BIF, landscape duty, hiking/long walks.

In the end: 500mm F4 L II or bust!!!! + who cares if you don't have a vision/compelling idea, no lens is going to make up for that. A better investment in my mind is to take a painting class: I learned more doing that than any lens of any quality can deliver.

peteg1 wrote in post #17273869
I'll put this out there, I shot the Sigma 150-600 Sport for a couple days now and it went back today (Samy's Camera). The build quality is excellent and AF is quicker than my Tamron 150-600. From 150 to 400 IQ is very good but at 600mm where I will be using it, was equal or a little softer compared to the Tamron.

I did not put a bunch of test samples together to post, I did my own test (tripod) with 7DII, 5DIII and used my Sony a7r using manual (focus peaking) to element any AF errors and like I said the Sigma was equal or just a little softer at 600mm (my copy). But if I never had the Tamron I would have thought 600mm on the Sigma was fine. Don't know if there is copy variances or not, because some samples on the net looked very good at 600mm to me.

Also handholding both lenses (no problem with weight, but Tamron is lighter) the VC on the Tamron was just better. I ordered the Sigma after seeing some very good samples at 600mm (Nikon).
I don't what no one to think I disliked the Sigma. It's a fine lens.

Any chance you can post some samples comparing the two lenses? I'm deciding between the two of them and it would really help me out.
Thank you.

AF is a recurring issue for people who own the Tamron, and so on that note I'm not particularly sure the 100-400 II may hold up even if the raw IQ is decent, as with 1.4x TC the AF mechanism only has the f/8 level light to work with. So even if no one would use the Tamron/Sigma wide open, they at least have more light to work with pre-shot and I suspect the Sigma would have a slight edge in amount of light too as the Tamron has the smaller front element.

peteg1 wrote in post #17273869
I'll put this out there, I shot the Sigma 150-600 Sport for a couple days now and it went back today (Samy's Camera). The build quality is excellent and AF is quicker than my Tamron 150-600. From 150 to 400 IQ is very good but at 600mm where I will be using it, was equal or a little softer compared to the Tamron.

I did not put a bunch of test samples together to post, I did my own test (tripod) with 7DII, 5DIII and used my Sony a7r using manual (focus peaking) to element any AF errors and like I said the Sigma was equal or just a little softer at 600mm (my copy). But if I never had the Tamron I would have thought 600mm on the Sigma was fine. Don't know if there is copy variances or not, because some samples on the net looked very good at 600mm to me.

Also handholding both lenses (no problem with weight, but Tamron is lighter) the VC on the Tamron was just better. I ordered the Sigma after seeing some very good samples at 600mm (Nikon).
I don't what no one to think I disliked the Sigma. It's a fine lens.

I read that the sigma is much sharper at further distances, but as soft as tamron at shorter distances such as 10 meters. Is there any truth to this claim?