Dropped my sigma 150-600 sport, now have 2100 insurance money. What to buy?

So my question is, should I replace it with the same lens or go with the 60-600 sport or maybe just go with the C version or something different altogether? I do like the weather sealing though as I have been caught in the rain multiple times and no issues. Both the 150-600 and the 60-600 are on sale right now all though not sure how long the sale lasts. I won't have my check they said until 7-10 days. I am not sure how the two lenses compare to each other as far as image quality. I have been happy with my 150-600. It's no prime but I get nice stuff with it.

Do you find yourself using the entire focal range? If not, you could look into a prime lens at the length you shoot at most.

If you don't want to replace it with the same lens, I would consider a used Canon 300/2.8 and a teleconverter.

I do use the whole focal range at times and have gotten shots I never would have gotten if I had a 600 prime. But most of the time it is at 600 or just under. A 600 prime is way out of my budget. I would give up some zoom with a 300 and tele but most likely better image quality. I have a 100-400 II and I tried it with the version 3 tele and I just couldn't get the image quality that I got with my 150-600 and it got worse in low light which is where I probably shoot most because I like to shoot wildlife. I am using a 5D4 for my camera and sometimes my 7d2.

I ended up buying the 60- 600 sigma sport. That's a big range. I hope I didn't make a mistake.

I have not read anything really glowing about the 60-600 lens, but please share your experiences after you have had time with the lens.

I have both the 150-600 and 100-400II with III TCs and have found them to be quite close in IQ to the point I keep thinking about getting rid of the Sigma. However, I can get 840mm and 1200mm with the Sigma that I cannot with the 100-400, so I keep it for that aspect alone.

Nascar Nut wrote in post #18987670
I ended up buying the 60- 600 sigma sport. That's a big range. I hope I didn't make a mistake.

If there is any money left over, get yourself a really good strap of some sort. I remember that back in July, your 5DIV fell while on a tripod.

I figure I have 30 days to use it and keep it or send it back to B&H. I found mixed reviews but not many said it was worse then the 150-600 and i was happy with that lens as i can't afford a big prime lens. My 150-600 was used mostly at 600 but I had a number of times when 150 wasn't wide enough to capture the image the way I wanted. I will post back my thoughts after I get some use with it.

John from PA wrote in post #18987676
If there is any money left over, get yourself a really good strap of some sort. I remember that back in July, your 5DIV fell while on a tripod.

Yes it did. You have good memory. I have never damaged any of my gear before and now have had two instances in the past year. I have already been looking at straps as well as a new tripod.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18987673
I have not read anything really glowing about the 60-600 lens, but please share your experiences after you have had time with the lens.

I have both the 150-600 and 100-400II with III TCs and have found them to be quite close in IQ to the point I keep thinking about getting rid of the Sigma. However, I can get 840mm and 1200mm with the Sigma that I cannot with the 100-400, so I keep it for that aspect alone.

I tried the 100-400 ll and lll Tc and with wildlife be evening and early morning mostly I just couldn't get as good of results as my sigma. I was always having to turn up the iso to get enough shutter speed due to low light. My 100-400 is my hiking and kayaking lens. One thing though the 100-400ll is faster and more accurate at focus.

Can't wait to see your thoughts on the 60-600. The 50-500 OS was a very good lens, and I had high hopes for the 60-600.

Here is the 100-400 with 2x on the M50, which would have required the 1.4xIII on the Sigma. I also did side by side testing of the 100-400 and 1.4x next to the Sigma in the past, and determined that they were very nearly identical, which almost led to the sale of the Sigma.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18987694
Can't wait to see your thoughts on the 60-600. The 50-500 OS was a very good lens, and I had high hopes for the 60-600.

Here is the 100-400 with 2x on the M50, which would have required the 1.4xIII on the Sigma. I also did side by side testing of the 100-400 and 1.4x next to the Sigma in the past, and determined that they were very nearly identical, which almost led to the sale of the Sigma.

Very nice! I have read plenty of threads from people with the same thoughts or even better then the sigma. I just couldn't get it with mine. In good light I got nice images but when the sun was setting my sigma one out. So both lenses have a place in my bag. I wish canon would make a 150-600. They are missing out.

Nascar Nut wrote in post #18983792
I do use the whole focal range at times and have gotten shots I never would have gotten if I had a 600 prime. But most of the time it is at 600 or just under. A 600 prime is way out of my budget. I would give up some zoom with a 300 and tele but most likely better image quality. I have a 100-400 II and I tried it with the version 3 tele and I just couldn't get the image quality that I got with my 150-600 and it got worse in low light which is where I probably shoot most because I like to shoot wildlife. I am using a 5D4 for my camera and sometimes my 7d2.

Just remember that the shorter zoom range is optically going to be better across its range than a long zoom range. 4:1 zoom (150-600) will be better than 10:1 zoom (60-600).

You sacrifice more in having a one-lens solution to cover wide range of FL. Notice how lens tests who conduct objective tests of performance on lenses generally do not bother to test the superzooms?! A review of superzoom bridge cameras summarizes

"But if you like to pore over every fine detail of your images at 100 percent magnification, you’ll be disappointed every time; buy an affordable mirrorless camera instead. With a superzoom, you’re paying for the convenience of leaving a bunch of lenses at home, not for pro-level image quality."

Admittedly, testers were generally impressed with the 10:1 zoom's performance, exceeding the expectations most had of superzoom based particularly upon historic patterns of performance.

Perhaps you can cancel the order for 60-600 and tell the retailer you changed your mind before it arrives.
Then you could bring along a 24-105mm to complement the 150-600mm...you would not mist the 105mm - 150mm 'gap' much at all. Or a 70-200mm so there is overlap with the 150-600mm to reduce the amount of lens changing.

Wilt wrote in post #18987747
Just remember that the shorter zoom range is optically going to be better across its range than a long zoom range. 4:1 zoom (150-600) will be better than 10:1 zoom (60-600).

You sacrifice more in having a one-lens solution to cover wide range of FL. Notice how lens tests who conduct objective tests of performance on lenses generally do not bother to test the superzooms?! A review of superzoom bridge cameras summarizes

"But if you like to pore over every fine detail of your images at 100 percent magnification, you’ll be disappointed every time; buy an affordable mirrorless camera instead. With a superzoom, you’re paying for the convenience of leaving a bunch of lenses at home, not for pro-level image quality."

Admittedly, testers were generally impressed with the 10:1 zoom's performance, exceeding the expectations most had of superzoom based particularly upon historic patterns of performance.

Perhaps you can cancel the order for 60-600 and tell the retailer you changed your mind before it arrives.
Then you could bring along a 24-105mm to complement the 150-600mm...you would not mist the 105mm - 150mm 'gap' much at all. Or a 70-200mm so there is overlap with the 150-600mm to reduce the amount of lens changing.

Unfortunately I received the lens a couple of days ago from B&H. So I am going to try it out and see. I didn't find a whole lot of reviews on this lens but most of the ones I did find said it was equal to the 150-600 at 600mm which is most important to me. I figured maybe new technology in the lens. I am sure I made the wrong choice as that is how my luck goes.

I have seen that that the wide side of the lens is a bit soft and fringing is very pronounced. But you don't have 60 on the 150-600 so perhaps that is forgivable.