Sigma 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM SPORTS owners thread

I was considering a Nikon 80-400 later in the year, looking at the quality of the pics being posted here , I'm reconsidering, looks a stellar performer. I've had good and bad sigma lenses, had a 150-500 which was brill, now got a 120-300 which is unreliable. If these are as reliable as the optics are superb then its a no brainer
 
micloi said:
Lovely.
It's good a certain pal from the states did not discover this thread ;)
Click to expand...
theres two now mic ,just been fired a broadside good enough to sink the bismark :banana::banana::banana::banana:
 
One from today, I have to say though that the lack of contrast with the lens is troubling me ... I am having to add quite a bit to get decent IQ.
Also, anything fairly close comes out nice and sharp but stuff further away can be very hazy/soft unlike my Pentax mount 50-500mm OS. I want to like this lens as the build quality is fantastic but I'm seriously thinking about returning it and paying the extra for a MKII 100-400mm.

Will try and get to Marwell zoo one day next week and then go from there.


Reed Bunting by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Mike.P said:
One from today, I have to say though that the lack of contrast with the lens is troubling me ... I am having to add quite a bit to get decent IQ.
Also, anything fairly close comes out nice and sharp but stuff further away can be very hazy/soft unlike my Pentax mount 50-500mm OS. I want to like this lens as the build quality is fantastic but I'm seriously thinking about returning it and paying the extra for a MKII 100-400mm.

Will try and get to Marwell zoo one day next week and then go from there.


Reed Bunting by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,as follows is the start of a reply I was going to post earlier,and I quote " Been watching this thread with interest,with the exeption to the Gull shots and any large subject such as a dog,owl or goose.The majority of shots here appear to have a softness to them.Not sure if this is" And that was as far as I got as I decided perhaps it was just me.Just like on Trev`s Tammy thread,perhaps it is a case of getting everything to work together,and that includes editing as well.And no this is not just aimed at any pictures in this thread,I have looked at numerous sample images of this lens,and to be honest I have seen very few that have jumped out at me.Like you say a lot of the better shoits seem to be more of the close up shots.It would be better if any useful info was supplied like distance of subject,also perhaps a link to where the image is hosted as you will always get the "Images suffer after being uploaded to TP" comments.

Edit.The Magpies are pretty good though :)
 
Last edited:
hmm yes agree its possibly a tad less contrasty than some mike ,but not to the point where it bothers me .i like to use a older generation 1D3 which at only 10mp may give a slightly softer image than something like a 7d2 as well .its a hard one to quantify i also don't think that u.k light has been in our favour for the past couple of weeks and atmospherics could be playing a part in it as well .like anything new its a learning curve and i think a bit of a marmite lens .i can't see any reason to sell mine it grows on you
i.e same bird as yours different scenario and lighting View attachment 33227
 
the black fox said:
hmm yes agree its possibly a tad less contrasty than some mike ,but not to the point where it bothers me .i like to use a older generation 1D3 which at only 10mp may give a slightly softer image than something like a 7d2 as well .its a hard one to quantify i also don't think that u.k light has been in our favour for the past couple of weeks and atmospherics could be playing a part in it as well .like anything new its a learning curve and i think a bit of a marmite lens .i can't see any reason to sell mine it grows on you
i.e same bird as yours different scenario and lighting View attachment 33227
Click to expand...


So what is the exif on this one then Jeff and what sort of distance? As whilst the colours and lighting look good it is still lacking sharpness.If this was taken at a distance that you would have had no chance of getting with a 400mm + TC for example then I can understand the extra bit of reach is worth it.
 
i simply cannot work it out its at a sharpness level that appeals to me lynne ,simple as that .its NOT a 500mm f4 ,or a 400mm f5.6 or any other expensive prime its purely and simply a lens that covers most situations without the cost of the big primes .i really don't know what to add if i sharpend it up further then someone would pop out of the woodwork declaring themselves to be the critic of the year and say its over sharpened .i go out and take photos of wildlife in natural surroundings its what i like to do to keep me happy in my retirement i put them on here and other places to give people pleasure that are hard at work 5 or 6 days a week and don't see these things themselves ,i'm not picasso ,or monet or david bailey .if you like what you see and were thinking of buying one of these lenses then go for it ,if not then look and pass on by ,lifes to short to worry over whether someone else photo is sharp /soft /contrasty of whatever your pet foible is this week .
as i have stated many times. personally i,m on a learning curve with this lens i,m not even sure which camera suits it out of the two i own ,or whether my settings can be improved ,or if the lens settings need adjusting i will get it right eventually either on my own or with help .o.k
 
the black fox said:
i simply cannot work it out its at a sharpness level that appeals to me lynne ,simple as that .its NOT a 500mm f4 ,or a 400mm f5.6 or any other expensive prime its purely and simply a lens that covers most situations without the cost of the big primes .i really don't know what to add if i sharpend it up further then someone would pop out of the woodwork declaring themselves to be the critic of the year and say its over sharpened .i go out and take photos of wildlife in natural surroundings its what i like to do to keep me happy in my retirement i put them on here and other places to give people pleasure that are hard at work 5 or 6 days a week and don't see these things themselves ,i'm not picasso ,or monet or david bailey .if you like what you see and were thinking of buying one of these lenses then go for it ,if not then look and pass on by ,lifes to short to worry over whether someone else photo is sharp /soft /contrasty of whatever your pet foible is this week .
as i have stated many times. personally i,m on a learning curve with this lens i,m not even sure which camera suits it out of the two i own ,or whether my settings can be improved ,or if the lens settings need adjusting i will get it right eventually either on my own or with help .o.k
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to fully extend it to 600mm to knock the chip of your shoulder instead then.Nobody is asking why you take pictures or what your artistic talents are comparable to. This thread was started as an open discussion on the lens,I think I have just as much right to ask questions and express my opinion as much as you or anybody else.
 
u8myufo said:
Perhaps you need to fully extend it to 600mm to knock the chip of your shoulder instead then.Nobody is asking why you take pictures or what your artistic talents are comparable to. This thread was started as an open discussion on the lens,I think I have just as much right to ask questions and express my opinion as much as you or anybody else.
Click to expand...
not a chip lynne you just copped it for someone else who's been having a dig ,sorry mate i apologise .anyway i do listen to what people say and i have just been having a little play ,to see if i could improve things and i think the problem might weirdly enough lay on the shoulders of the way photoshop treats the image ,i am going to post two photos below one done purely in p.s.6 the other done in a mixture of aperture initially and just finished off in p.s.6 .while not super sharp it does show what i mean ,and having done another from today as well there is definitely work needed and it does need looking into View attachment 33230View attachment 33231
 
the black fox said:
not a chip lynne you just copped it for someone else who's been having a dig ,sorry mate i apologise .anyway i do listen to what people say and i have just been having a little play ,to see if i could improve things and i think the problem might weirdly enough lay on the shoulders of the way photoshop treats the image ,i am going to post two photos below one done purely in p.s.6 the other done in a mixture of aperture initially and just finished off in p.s.6 .while not super sharp it does show what i mean ,and having done another from today as well there is definitely work needed and it does need looking into View attachment 33230View attachment 33231
Click to expand...

Now those are way more like it and have now renewed my interest in this lens (y)
 
from my experience, (I only started taking bird shots 2 years ago with a 70 300mm f4.5/5.6 Nikon zoom, then move to 300mm f4 prime, 300mm f2.8 prime and now a 600mm prime ......and use TC's with all primes), I have the following comments on bird shots and the progression into longer lens, :

Results can vary significantly from day to day and from situation to situation
The longer the lens the more work you have to put in to get good shots ....... camera setting, technique etc., ...... this situation can frustrate many
Just because it's expensive means nothing ...... the reverse can be true .......good and improved shots take practice and skill .......beginners and improvers should take this on board ..... just buying a f2.8 or 600mm lens is not going to immediately or even quickly improve your shots
You cannot hand hold and expect consistant sharpness
Primes will always beat zooms and 600mm is a big ask anyway

I can see what Rich means about (ultimate) sharpness, but you cannot compare them with the Nikon/Canon 400mm f2.8, 500mm and 600mm BUT looking at the Tamron and Sigma shots posted on here, both lens are amazing value for money, particularly the Tamron, and (maybe) far better value than the Nikon 80 400mm
I just hope both companies can produce constantly good copies.

I would really be interested to see a comparison with the NEW Nikon 300mm f4 PF VR + TC14Elll .....cropped Tamron/Sigma image versus (same size) image from the Nikon setup

some very good shots on this thread
 
Last edited:
I think it is fair to say that this lens cannot compete with long primes,fair comment?

However, it is superbly adaptable and has a great focal range,is significantly cheaper though it pays for that in IQ.

It is still a very tempting lens. Before anybody kicks off, I had a siggy 3-800,weighed it in for a 500 F4. Yes, I miss the focal range of the zoom, but the prime kills it for IQ. It appears that this latest offering, whilst ok, is not as good as the long primes.

I don`t think anyone would expect it to be so.
 
BillN_33 said:
BUT looking at the Tamron and Sigma shots posted on here, both lens are amazing value for money, particularly the Tamron, and (maybe) far better value than the Nikon 80 400mm
Click to expand...

How on Gods earth can you come to that conclusion whilst viewing images/pics/photies posted at 1024 max longest side.

Sorry Bill, that is nonsense. Any old crap can look good at that resolution, as is proved in the bird section on a regular basis.
 
fracster said:
How on Gods earth can you come to that conclusion whilst viewing images/pics/photies posted at 1024 max longest side.

Sorry Bill, that is nonsense. Any old crap can look good at that resolution, as is proved in the bird section on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Download the image samples from the web .. that's generally how I look at lens

start here - he is not a great bird photographer but (some) images are larger than on here

https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-150-600mm-f5-6-3/5

you can also go to a couple of other forums with bigger images

then look at other sites .............. "old crap" is "old crap" and never looks good at any resolution ........ and I would disagree with your comments about images on here ........ it's a pity that you feel that way about the bird section, what have you done to help others to improve?
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
I think that looks far better to be honest. Do you have to PP the shots more with this lens Jeff?
Click to expand...
for whatever reason ade there seems to be something going on with using pure PS6 to process the shots from this lens ,which ever camera i use .to many comments re-lack of contrast on mine and other peoples shots .all i have done is go back to older method of p.p using aperture 3 to do the initial RAW editing and then finish off with noise reduction and layering and sharpening in P.S.6 ,have re-done several tonight and the difference is chalk and cheese ,i will be taking this up with sigma tomorrow at the show .see what they have to say .heres another the new way View attachment 33235

Edited by Staff to remove comment no longer needed after thread clean up
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe I never put it across correctly, but I am just trying to understand the lens a bit. I still need to satisfy myself that this is indeed a lens for me,just like anyone else makes a choice with their kit. I can afford it,but what I cannot afford to do is buy it and then find out it`s a bit of a mistake. I need to determine why I will be purchasing one, I guess most people do that anyhow :D Will I be purchasing one purely for the long focal length of 600mm, or perhaps because of the short and long focal lengths and everything in between? I guess that if my decision is based purely on the long reach then perhaps I would be better off getting a prime and TC, or look into the contempory version at a bit of a saving.Would be good to see some real life samples from the "C" version,does anybody know of any?
 
As far as I am aware the 'C' version isn't out yet Rich so for 'joe public' images it's unlikely you will see any.
As an owner of the Tamron 150-600 my reason for purchase was strictly the 600mm reach at a price and carrying weight that was a steal. It never occurred to me that I could get the same IQ as a 600mm prime so that was never an aspiration - used well and with good PP I believe that the lens can provide good results ... better than I can achieve.
For a similar reach and better IQ starting point I would need a 300mm f4 and 2x and I'm not certain I would be any better off with that ... anything above that and I'm back into big money/weight, (of course I am speaking Nikon ... Canon may have other options).
 
Bought my Tamron as i cant hide shoot so every shot is from walk about,i have no idea what or where my next subject will be,ime not chasing the cracking sharpness any more just after nice images,the extra sharp ones are a bonus.
 
u8myufo said:
Maybe I never put it across correctly, but I am just trying to understand the lens a bit. I still need to satisfy myself that this is indeed a lens for me,just like anyone else makes a choice with their kit. I can afford it,but what I cannot afford to do is buy it and then find out it`s a bit of a mistake. I need to determine why I will be purchasing one, I guess most people do that anyhow :D Will I be purchasing one purely for the long focal length of 600mm, or perhaps because of the short and long focal lengths and everything in between? I guess that if my decision is based purely on the long reach then perhaps I would be better off getting a prime and TC, or look into the contempory version at a bit of a saving.Would be good to see some real life samples from the "C" version,does anybody know of any?
Click to expand...

Hi Rich I looked at one yesterday at the photography show, the size and weight difference is very noticeable, it really does feel a lot lighter, I will have a look to see if any of the pics I rattled off are acceptable. Will check later on, waiting for an electrician atm.
I was very impressed with the af on it.
 
michael23 said:
Hi Rich I looked at one yesterday at the photography show, the size and weight difference is very noticeable, it really does feel a lot lighter, I will have a look to see if any of the pics I rattled off are acceptable. Will check later on, waiting for an electrician atm.
I was very impressed with the af on it.
Click to expand...


Cheers Michael much appreciated. I just did not want it to come across as a comparison to a prime for IQ,more a case of what is best for my needs.As we all have diferent needs and expectations I need to just look and read as many varied opinions as possible. I seen earlier about Amazon, am I right in thinking they do not have either a Canon or Nikon fit with them? I cannot see anything mentioned in their listings.
 
u8myufo said:
Cheers Michael much appreciated. I just did not want it to come across as a comparison to a prime for IQ,more a case of what is best for my needs.As we all have diferent needs and expectations I need to just look and read as many varied opinions as possible. I seen earlier about Amazon, am I right in thinking they do not have either a Canon or Nikon fit with them? I cannot see anything mentioned in their listings.
Click to expand...

Just had a quick look at the pics on the camefa and there should be some useable test ones. There was only one (i think) at the photography show and that was a canon fit. Not seen any other listings for it. Off out for a bit now so will pop them up later.
 
I think I need to give the lens a bit more time tbh ... I'm not looking for major sharpness (I have my 300mm f2.8 IS and 2x for that) but I sold my Canon mount 50-500mm OS a few months back because this lens was on the way and I thought it would give me at least the same IQ with a little more reach. It's not doing that though, especially on distant subjects but at 3kg with a gripped 7D on I also believe it's verging on too heavy for me to hand hold for any length of time. The images may be suffering a little because of that (trouble id I detest tripods/monopods) so maybe I would be better off with the contemporary version, especially as my intended use for it is air shows which involves pointing the lens upwards 99% of the time for long periods.

Would be interested to see what Sigma say though.
 
Mike.P said:
I think I need to give the lens a bit more time tbh ... I'm not looking for major sharpness (I have my 300mm f2.8 IS and 2x for that) but I sold my Canon mount 50-500mm OS a few months back because this lens was on the way and I thought it would give me at least the same IQ with a little more reach. It's not doing that though, especially on distant subjects but at 3kg with a gripped 7D on I also believe it's verging on too heavy for me to hand hold for any length of time. The images may be suffering a little because of that (trouble id I detest tripods/monopods) so maybe I would be better off with the contemporary version, especially as my intended use for it is air shows which involves pointing the lens upwards 99% of the time for long periods.

Would be interested to see what Sigma say though.
Click to expand...

Of coarse it needs time Mike,as I mentioned in Trev`s Tamron thread,with a new lens such as this and perhaps people using it on a new camera such as the 7DMkii there is bound to be much more tweaking needed to get the best from it all,it is like two steps forward and ten steps back :D
 
I,m a month into it Mike and I,m still on a learning curve with mine .i think with some lenses such as the 400mm 5.6 prime you can bolt it on and it's right ,with this one with the reach ,the zoom the programming etc you have to ensure that everything is totally right first ,tried the C today and I think it's going to be a super choice ,but this version will produce better overall quality long term
 
Right, here are the pics I took yesterday with the "c" version, of course these are not scientific, iso's were all over the place, but hopefully it will give some sort of idea and are ok, oh and it was close to the end of the day as well, all with a 70d, raw file just converted to jpeg in dpp, nothing done with them at all, exif and view full size available on flickr to view.

1,

DPP_0001 by scilly puffin, on Flickr

2.

DPP_0002 by scilly puffin, on Flickr

3,

DPP_0003 by scilly puffin, on Flickr

4,
DPP_0004 by scilly puffin, on Flickr

5,

DPP_0005 by scilly puffin, on Flickr
 
The second and the last one possibly show us this could be a good lens
 
A classic case of "you get what you pay for", their is no free lunch when it comes to long lens image quality and thats why people pay £6K+ for the top quality gear.
To me it looks like good VFM.
 
Neil B said:
A classic case of "you get what you pay for", their is no free lunch when it comes to long lens image quality and thats why people pay £6K+ for the top quality gear.
To me it looks like good VFM.
Click to expand...

I think the results look very good all in all. I'm just wondering if I can justify the expense.
 
u8myufo said:
Cheers Michael much appreciated. I just did not want it to come across as a comparison to a prime for IQ,more a case of what is best for my needs.As we all have diferent needs and expectations I need to just look and read as many varied opinions as possible. I seen earlier about Amazon, am I right in thinking they do not have either a Canon or Nikon fit with them? I cannot see anything mentioned in their listings.
Click to expand...

Rich, there's a thread on the BirdForum discussing this lens. As you get deeper into the thread (18 pages in total) theres some good questions and comparisons over the Tamron 150-600 by Hosesbroadbill. I'm considering one or other, but waiting for the Sigma C to hit the shelves before deciding.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290558
 
as has been said earlier the sigma sport is NOT a 600mm prime .its a super compromise though and at roughly 4.5k cheaper is super VFM .after a month with one i'll be the first to admit its a steeper learning curve than i thought but one thats falling into place day by day .i have had a few super sessions with it where everything has fallen into place and a few where its fallen apart ,generally i have to admit to my own silly user errors and not checking histograms etc .as much as i like to use it as a walk around lens i do feel the best results come when its supported either via bean bag or mono/tripod .its most definitely not a point and shoot like the 400 f5.6 prime you really have to think it out but when you do the results are above acceptable as in the photo below .yes it could be improved on with a better prime but if i can get results like this 50% of the time i'll be happy
View attachment 33352
 
Swanseajack said:
Rich, there's a thread on the BirdForum discussing this lens. As you get deeper into the thread (18 pages in total) theres some good questions and comparisons over the Tamron 150-600 by Hosesbroadbill. I'm considering one or other, but waiting for the Sigma C to hit the shelves before deciding.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290558
Click to expand...

Cheers Simon,I have taken a look in there :D Just come across this one also if it is of any use to those considering.A few full sized images to view as well as RAW to download. http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...n-preview-of-sigmas-latest-massive-sigmonster
 
My Sigma is packaged up ready to go back to Amazon. Shame as I wanted to like it but at the end of the day I couldn't justify the cost vs performance. I'm pretty sure I could get better results if I started used a monopod/tripod but all my photography is done hand held and I'm not going to change now.

Maybe the Contemporary version will be more up my street. :)
 
Mike.P said:
My Sigma is packaged up ready to go back to Amazon. Shame as I wanted to like it but at the end of the day I couldn't justify the cost vs performance. I'm pretty sure I could get better results if I started used a monopod/tripod but all my photography is done hand held and I'm not going to change now.

Maybe the Contemporary version will be more up my street. :)
Click to expand...

Interesting ... is that due to weight presumably?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top