Full Frame Sigma 150-600 vs RF 100-500 vs RF 200-800

[BasilFawlty]

What to do? Or do nothing? Thinking of three possible options where I limit myself to spending under $2k out of pocket. This is more or less a stream of consciousness which may spark discussion that may or may not be helpful to others.

A. I currently have the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 contemporary which I shoot with an adaptor on my R5. I have applied Duade Paton's suggested settings in the lens and the camera which helps reduce e she of the pulsing issues this combo has (especially with close up subjects). This combination is pretty darn good, but not what I would call excellent. This option is to just keep the Sigma and be happy, then spend the money on something like the Canon R7.

Pros: 1. The lens is just about 4 lbs, which is at least a pound lighter than the RF 200-800
2. The cost is a non-issue since I already own it.
3. Compared to the RF 100-500, it is a third stop brighter on the long end
4. The long end is 100mm more than the RF 100-500
5. Can be used with extenders through the full range
6. Keeping this lens and getting an R7 would: give me effective 240-960mm reach, I could also put 1.4x on my RF70-200 with R7 and get nearly 500mm at f/5.6!
7. Assuming I got an R7, this option would mean a second body...can come in handy often.
Cons: 1. The lens, at 4lbs, is a pound heavier than the RF 100-500.Still hand holdable but gets tiring sooner.
2. The IQ, while good, I'm sure isn't as good as either of the RF options. Ditto the AF.
3. The minimum focus distance on the Sigma is over 9 feet compared to 3 feet with the RF100-500 and even better 2.6' for the RF200-800. So the Sigma is essentially useless for anything relatively close.
4. Filter size in 95mm, which is very expensive to buy filters (only filter I have this size is an Eclipse filter). The RF100-500 used 77mm filter, of which I have many.
5. Not weather sealed.

B. This option would be to sell the Sigma and put the money towards the RF 100-500. I could sell the Sigma for enough such that my out of pocket would be less than $2k

Pros: 1. IQ and AF likely better. The RF100-500 is getting rave reviews and is made for the RF mount. Extra functionality.
2. It is lighter than the Sigma by a full pound, thus easier to hand-hold for longer periods
3. More compact, thus easier to transport
4. Filter size is 77mm and I have several filters for that size already
5. Can be used with extenders (this is both a pro and a con since it will only work at 300mm and beyond with the RF100-500 lens)
6. Minimum focus distance is much better than Sigma (3ft vs 9ft) so filling the frame for small subjects that are close is easier.
7. Weather sealed! Not that I shoot in bad weather, it's still nice to know the lens isn't going to go TU if caught on a downpour.
Cons: 1. Cost. I would have to sell the Sigma to justify getting this lens and still fork out close to $2 grand additional.
2. Focal length is 100mm shorter
3. F-stop is 1/3 stop less bright and would be at f/10 with a 1.4x extender if you needed more than 500mm
4. Extender is unusable at the wide end. Only good for 300mm and beyond.

C. This option would be to keep the Sigma but also buy the RF 200-800 for under $2k

Pros. 1. This option would provide more reach when needed (in good light). 800mm is pretty good!
2. RF mount doesn't need extender
3. IQ and AF likely better than Sigma but I've read that quality drops off some on the long end.
4. I'd still have the Sigma if I needed wider f-stop (late afternoon, sunset conditions).
5. f-stop is as good as the 100-500 (f/7.1) all the way to 455mm and only slightly less (f8) all the way to 637mm. After that it's f9
6. Extender can be used throughout the full range.
Cons: 1. Cost, even though I'd keep the Sigma, I'd still fork out close to $2 grand.
2. Filter Size. This also has a 95mm filter size so my extensive 77mm filter collection would not work.
3. f-stop is only f9 on the long end
4. Not weather sealed

I do like the Sigma / R5 combo, but I think I'm leaning towards selling it and getting the RF 100-500, but maybe not right away (Option B). The things that stand out about this option: Less size and weight to carry around; the filter size is compatible with a lot of filters I have already; IQ is probably going to be better, as is AF.

Anyone else have the Sigma? Are you contemplating a change or addition? Love to hear others' thoughts.

 

[Chris Summers]

I own both the Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens and the RF 800mm f/11. I plan to get the RF 200-800mm lens when it becomes more available, I will most likely sell the 800mm. But I will also keep the Tamron lens because I find it produces good images, acts as an additional long zoom for my second camera body and I most likely would not make much on it as it looks quite used at this point.

But I will be honest, I have a thing for lenses and now own 22 different ones for my R and M cameras in a mix of RF, EF-M and EF mounts. Some are oddball 3rd party ones like my LensBaby Composer or my new Venus Optics Laowa 9mm f/2.8. I use my 100mm macro lens once or twice a year when flowers are in bloom but I do like it for it's superb sharpness. Maybe there is a 12 step program for people like me!

 

[Arbarthisti]

My Sigma Sport 150-600 paired with an R7 got me some fine images, however the drawbacks are super heavy and the focus issue. I decided to sell the Sig, and bought RF 100-500, man this lens is incredible, super sharp and quite light. Handholding is quite easy, especially after the Sigma. I frequently use the 100-500 on my R5 as I have the grip, shooting portrait is som much easier. I switch to the 1.6 crop mode quite often. I don't have any issues with the crop on the R5 as I find I can supersize the image in Photoshop with very good results. The only downside to the RF 100-500 is the issue with the converter at the wide end.

 

[Dcweather]

I get it. For me, the compactness and performance of the 100-500 + 1.4x makes it the best choice for versatility. It’s easy to handhold, wicked sharp and travels well. The ISO performance of the R series cameras and NR capabilities of today’s software really don’t make the f/7.1 an issue. Last summer I scored a reservation with Bold Coast Charters out of Cutler Maine to photograph the puffins and others on Machais Seal Island. The 100-500 compactness let me travel with a smaller backpack and the smaller form factor was appreciated when moving around in the tight blind on the island. The Sigma is a great lens but heavy, especially the Sport version. I’ve never shot the 200-800 and while the reach interests me, the size and weight do not.

Here’s a few from the trip after Lightroom processing.

View attachment 25665

View attachment 25666

View attachment 25667

 

[Dcweather]

I pretty much agree with your summary and have to make that exact same choice soon. I only have experience of the 150-600mm C on my Nikon D500. It is a fine lens but as you say, bulky and heavy. I currently have the RF 100-400mm which is excellent value and ridiculously light - almost too light for stability. AF could probably be better in some circumstances but it is pretty sharp. I am angling towards the 100-500mm RF because it is the best compromise of weight vs size and in the end has the best AF and IQ. I think you can ignore the 1/3rd stop slower than the Sigma - with today's software and sensor it is insignificant. But in the end, as your thoughts and analysis seem spot on, only you can decide really.