Sigma 150-600mm

[GordonM]

Has anyone got a Sigma 150-600mm in use on an R6? If so how do you find the animal af? If you use one with a 1.4x converter is it still capable of decent af performance?

 

[dmiller68]

I have it but I only have the RP and R... It works flawlessly even with the 1.4x.

 

[Emoto]

How is the image quality compared to a Canon lens? I like the idea of the Canon 100-500, but the $2899 price is a bit steep.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

How is the image quality compared to a Canon lens? I like the idea of the Canon 100-500, but the $2899 price is a bit steep.

I had the Sport when I shot Nikon. Nice lens, but I felt like I needed a month or two of cross-fit before I could handhold it for any length of time. I realize the Contemporary is smaller and lighter, but I prefer the IQ of the Sport. That said, the 100-500mm is smaller, lighter, and sharper than both, and you don't need to use the adapter. Expensive? Yes. But what I've found is that good glass is less expensive when you just bite the bullet instead of working your way up to it by buying cheaper and then hitting on the shortcoming.

Granted, this was a lesson I learned over 8 years growing up Nikon. In that journey I started my wildlife rig with a 150-500mm, which I was happy with but I now look back on the images and cringe a bit. Then the 150-600mm came out and I shot the Contemporary and Sport side by side and the Sport focused faster and had better out of focus areas, so I bought that and remained happy until I tried the 300mm f4 PF and finally realized why people shoot long primes. I shot with that until the 500mm f5.6 PF came out, which I purchased and sang the praises of for 18 months. And then someone put an R5 and 100-500mm in my hands.

I say all this to acknowledge that photography is a personal journey and as much as we ask for and heed the advice of others it's ultimately our own decisions that we'll learn the most from. I desired the flexibility of a zoom for the first 8 years of my journey and was willing to compromise IQ and keep some money in my pocket - which is important. But I hit a stage where I knew I was at the limit of my equipment and "better" would require spending more. I did, and I was happy. What I found in the Canon rig is that their 100-500mm, while it cost me a stop at the long end, it offered far greater flexibility (no changing lenses), identical sharpness, and near identical IQ in out of focus areas than I got from my 500mm, which cost several hundred dollars more.

If you're just a hobbiest then you'll probably be happier with the Sigma Contemporary (if you're spending on the Sport then just spend the extra on the Canon). Until you're not - which may never happen. If price is the only thing that's kicking at you then get to a store or a club outing and try them both if you can, in a way that allows you to make objective comparisons. If you can't see a difference then you've saved some cash. If you can you'll have to determine if it's worth waiting and paying more.

 

[Emoto]

You wrote:
"100-500mm is smaller, lighter, and sharper than both"

This is what I was looking for. How long ago was your time with the non-sport Sigma 150-600, and do you think it is unchanged from then?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

You wrote:
"100-500mm is smaller, lighter, and sharper than both"

This is what I was looking for. How long ago was your time with the non-sport Sigma 150-600, and do you think it is unchanged from then?

Had them side-by-side at the CPC show in NYC just after they were announced. I don't really track gear I pass on so I can't tell you if the Contemporary changed or not. It's not that it was a bad lens. For me focus speed is critical and that's where the Sport excelled. It was all around sharper too, but I was shooting a D500 so I was getting the sweet spot on both so edge sharpness didn't come into play so much on my evaluation. Were I to consider it I'd want to side-by-side with the Tamron 150-600mm II as I've heard good things about that, but I'd get a second 100-500mm before getting any of them.