SIGMA 150-600-S review -Ephotozine.

http://www.ephotozine.​com …-sports-lens-review-26786

Leigh

Thank-you! This is one of the first non-Canon lenses I'm taking a look at.

kinda disappointing, @600, looks like the difference is fairly negligible compared to the tamron 150-600

also too bad that they couldn't add to the comparison the 100-400 II with and without TC.
I mean, I know that these three have been on my comparison list for a long time.

Look at 300mm. Much bigger difference wide open. At 8 seems about the same..

I'm just wondering if the Sigma Sport is worth $1000 more than the Tamron? I know the Sigma is built like a tank and has vast weather sealing...but still....

I wouldn't say it is twice as good for twice the price, but that is not the way it works. Hard to quantify such things.
I also would like to see comparisons with the new 100-400 + Extenders. Could be interesting, though 560mm/8 is certainly going to be harder to focus than 600/6.3. But an IQ comparison would certainly be interesting.

There is not a lot of room for the IQ from the Sigma Contemporary lens to drop below the Sport without dropping below the Tamron as well.

Most people buy these lenses for the long end and the only thing you loose with the Tamron over the sport is lower edge sharpness when wide open. Otherwise they are equal for sharpness.

hoodlum wrote in post #17383957
There is not a lot of room for the IQ from the Sigma Contemporary lens to drop below the Sport without dropping below the Tamron as well.

Most people buy these lenses for the long end and the only thing you loose with the Tamron over the sport is lower edge sharpness when wide open. Otherwise they are equal for sharpness.

and even then, it's not quite straight forward. wide open @600, the tamron has better center and weighted average. @f8, sigma has better center, but tamron has better weighted average. @ F11, again, tamron is better.

maybe the copy of the tamron is very good while sigma, not so good. Either way, looks like I may repurchase the tamron after this review. It's a stupid good value, and arguably best optics for the range.

Strange that the negative point mentioned is lens creep downwards especially as the reviewer says, quote,

"The zoom ring is smooth to operate too, although it does have a tendency to creep forward when pointed downwards. A switch to lock the lens at 150mm during transport is provided, but a system to hold the lens at the desired zoom setting will also be a good addition."

Strange as you can soft lock the lens at all the marked (on the lens) focal lengths and a twist of the zoom unlocks it. So it does in fact have a system to stop lens creep.

It isn't all about sharpness though obviously it should at least match or better the Tamron, but is there a difference in AF performance, that justifies the addition cost of the Sigma. If AF performance is equal it would on the face of it be difficult to justify the higher cost.

The other big advantage from my point of view for the Sigma is the two mode OS. The Tamron VC will not work while panning at slow shutter speeds. This is important when the majority of the time one is trying to shoot passing through an angle of 180 degrees at shutter speeds of 1/160 or slower. You would get better results with the VC off on the Tamron, but I still think you would be down under 30% success rate with the Tamron. At least here in the UK the Sigma Sport is only about 60% more expensive than the Tamron, not the 100% it seems to be in the USA.

Alan

artyman wrote in post #17384373
It isn't all about sharpness though obviously it should at least match or better the Tamron, but is there a difference in AF performance, that justifies the addition cost of the Sigma. If AF performance is equal it would on the face of it be difficult to justify the higher cost.

The AF of the sigma better be spectacular because the tamron is pretty good, certainly good enough for me.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17384396
The other big advantage from my point of view for the Sigma is the two mode OS. The Tamron VC will not work while panning at slow shutter speeds. This is important when the majority of the time one is trying to shoot passing through an angle of 180 degrees at shutter speeds of 1/160 or slower. You would get better results with the VC off on the Tamron, but I still think you would be down under 30% success rate with the Tamron. At least here in the UK the Sigma Sport is only about 60% more expensive than the Tamron, not the 100% it seems to be in the USA.

Alan

this is a bigger issue than the AF issue IMO. I didnt shoot many pans while I had the lens, however, I can see this being a big annoyance if you do it a lot.

I talked with a couple of guys with the Tamron 150-600, and they said essentially what Alan said. They both just leave the VC turned off all together as they felt they were getting sharper pictures without it. The Sigma IS system seems to be better, and that alone would be a deal breaker for many.