Sigma 150-600mm contemporary

Roy C said:
I once owned the Canon 300/2.8 IS mkI and that was a superb lens, still regret selling it :(
Click to expand...
I am on the verge of a 7Dmk2 and had convinced myself that a 400 f5.6 was going on the business end, I am more than happy with the prime as I have been using one on a borrowed 7d mk1 I want it for coastal birds mainly, particularly Kestrals, Hobbies, Buzzards and Peregrines, all within walking distance of my home on Portland, however I am getting a bit nervous now that the new siggy could be the answer .... Help
 
shotshog said:
I am on the verge of a 7Dmk2 and had convinced myself that a 400 f5.6 was going on the business end, I am more than happy with the prime as I have been using one on a borrowed 7d mk1 I want it for coastal birds mainly, particularly Kestrals, Hobbies, Buzzards and Peregrines, all within walking distance of my home on Portland, however I am getting a bit nervous now that the new siggy could be the answer .... Help
Click to expand...

Wish I could Bro. I feel your pain. Same dilemma here. Will be resolved next week..
 
Tomorrow I'm heading to port Lympne, for the first Time and taking my 70d with me and my new sigma 150-600 c, which I will be getting tonight when I get home. By time I get home and un box it is going to be dark so not really going to be able to have a play etc.. Is there anything people suggest I change with the dock tonight, regards to the settings etc for first use tomorrow, or is it a case or use it and see if any problems then change settings that way?
 
I still have mine on the original settings, which seem to work fine.
I would give the lens a few tries, and then fine tune it if you are not happy with anything.
 
Lens hood for Sigma 150-600 found

And I expect some honesty as well! :D

Yesterday morning (24/05/15), walking the cliff tops between Thornwick and Bempton, the missus found a lens hood for the above.

Its a bit of a long shot. but if you lost one, get in touch :)
 
shotshog said:
I am on the verge of a 7Dmk2 and had convinced myself that a 400 f5.6 was going on the business end, I am more than happy with the prime as I have been using one on a borrowed 7d mk1 I want it for coastal birds mainly, particularly Kestrals, Hobbies, Buzzards and Peregrines, all within walking distance of my home on Portland, however I am getting a bit nervous now that the new siggy could be the answer .... Help
Click to expand...
I also have the 400/5.6 as well as the Sigma 150-600 C. If you are range limited then the Sigma at 600mm will yield better results than either the 400/5.6 + 1.4 x tc OR cropping the bare 400mm shots to the same FOV as the 600mm. If you are not range limited then the 400/5.6 is a cracking good lens - I must have taken more that 100,000 shots with a 400/5.6 over the years and still think it is a superb lens as long as you can get an adequate shutter speed if hand holding, I have solved the problem by keeping both lenses.
 
Last edited:
simonm8 said:
Tomorrow I'm heading to port Lympne, for the first Time and taking my 70d with me and my new sigma 150-600 c, which I will be getting tonight when I get home. By time I get home and un box it is going to be dark so not really going to be able to have a play etc.. Is there anything people suggest I change with the dock tonight, regards to the settings etc for first use tomorrow, or is it a case or use it and see if any problems then change settings that way?
Click to expand...
If nothing else I urge you to try the Dynamic OS setting via the dock - you will notice right away that the image stabilizes a lot quicker than the default OS setting. It takes just a few minutes to set-up and cost you nothing if you have the dock , when you set-up a custom mode via the dock you can readily switch the custom mode off via the lens switch so it is very strange to me why anyone with the dock should not even try the different modes. Other modes which could be useful is custom focus limiters where you determine the focal range of the limiter.
NOTE: when you set any custom mode via the C1 or C2 lens switches then the on Camera focus limiter switch is deactivated (this does not bother me as I tend to use the full range anyway but I thought I would just mention it).
 
Well managed to get a quick play with the lens today at Port Lympne Zoo.. Wasn't ideal, didn't get to use camera as much as i wanted, with a 2 year running about and pulling on me.. Here is a few, all hand held taken on my 70d, will load up a few more later, these are straight out of camera JPEG... Must say to IS impressed me loads. when on the safari vechile being bounced around constant, trying to hand hold at 600mm on a crop camera. got some decent images, nothing great but was impressed with the is and sometime i was being bounced round so much it was near impossible..
18135626245_0d39d5506f_z.jpg


Seagull 1 by Simon Mordecai, on Flickr
IMG_1010 by Simon Mordecai, on Flickr
IMG_0886 by Simon Mordecai, on Flickr
 
Roy C said:
If nothing else I urge you to try the Dynamic OS setting via the dock - you will notice right away that the image stabilizes a lot quicker than the default OS setting. It takes just a few minutes to set-up and cost you nothing if you have the dock , when you set-up a custom mode via the dock you can readily switch the custom mode off via the lens switch so it is very strange to me why anyone with the dock should not even try the different modes. Other modes which could be useful is custom focus limiters where you determine the focal range of the limiter.
NOTE: when you set any custom mode via the C1 or C2 lens switches then the on Camera focus limiter switch is deactivated (this does not bother me as I tend to use the full range anyway but I thought I would just mention it).
Click to expand...

I didn't see this till i had got home, will try this when i can get out next with the lens
 
Here are a few more Stonechat snaps with the 'C'. Stonechats are great posers and are very approachable but the biggest challenge with photographing them, especially in sunlight, is to avoid 'bowing' the white collar. The best approach I find is to expose for the white collar (which often means dialing in some - EV compensation) and then lift the darker areas of the bird in processing. All these were taken at the full 600mm with the 7D2 and are cropped a fair bit.
View attachment 38331

View attachment 38332

View attachment 38333
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for posting super pictures from their Contemporary lens! :) ..The feedbacks from everyone are great informations, I'm glad to read both the Sport and Contemporary settings from the usb dock are the same. But I'm dissapointed to read the Sigma's 1401 tele doesn't work well, but am glad the Canon's 1.4x works great. I'm still waiting for my Nikon version of the Contemporary, and will need to see perhaps Nikon's 1.4x will work good with it.

Cheers, John
 
I've been paying attention to the comments on here, especially from Roy C on performance relative to other lenses, but tbh while there are some startlingly good images given the focal lengths involved I mostly seem to notice the image rather than the bird (if you see what I mean). Are there any standout pics at say 400 or 500mm and not majorly cropped? Or perhaps the forum is just crushing uploads?
 
Last edited:
guess&press said:
I've been paying attention to the comments on here, especially from Roy C on performance relative to other lenses, but tbh while there are some startlingly good images given the focal lengths involved I mostly seem to notice the image rather than the bird (if you see what I mean). Are there any standout pics at say 400 or 500mm and not majorly cropped? Or perhaps the forum is just crushing uploads?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Not sure what you mean?
Click to expand...
Which bit? :)

There are a lot of pictures on here which are amazing technical feats but they show artefacts of one sort or another (mainly being a bit soft, but there are others). God knows it's understandable--600mm plus, and hand held to boot, are obviously extreme lengths, but it would be instructive to see some good shots taken around 300-500mm. Not necessarily frame fillers but not needing a big crop. These might be better to compare with primes (which they will clearly never win against, but it's good to have a reference). Or, as I say, maybe the forum is degrading the images, which seems to be a common complaint at the moment.
 
Last edited:
guess&press said:
Which bit? :)

There are a lot of pictures on here which are amazing technical feats but they show artefacts of one sort or another (mainly being a bit soft, but there are others). God knows it's understandable--600mm plus, and hand held to boot, are obviously extreme lengths, but it would be instructive to see some good shots taken around 300-500mm. Not necessarily frame fillers but not needing a big crop. These might be better to compare with primes (which they will clearly never win against, but it's good to have a reference). Or, as I say, maybe the forum is degrading the images, which seems to be a common complaint at the moment.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends what you are looking for in the lens, as I have often said a £899 150-600 zoom lens is never going to compete with a more expensive Prime for sure. At 400mm I think even my 'slow' and relatively cheap Canon 400/5.6 prime produces much nicer images than these 'cheap' zoom lenses. For birds I am always reach limited and am not prepared to cart around much heavier Prime lenses these days so its a case of working with a lightweight/cheap zoom and living with the limitations. I doubt that hardly anyone who buys these sort of lenses are that interested in shooting at 300-400mm that much as there are much better choices for those focal lengths. In the past I have used some of the very best Canon Prime lenses so do know about the differences. To be honest I would much sooner that the likes of Sigma and Tamron produce a 600mm prime lens rather than these zooms, even if they were still at f6.3 they should give better IQ as they only have one focal length to concentrate on and the design would be simpler.. But that is not going to happen because a lot of hobbyist togs only seem interested in zoom lenses. I do think that sites like this do not do a lot for the IQ of an image - they do seem to degrade the IQ from what I can tell (the images certainly look better when viewing directly from my PC at home).
I have said it many times but these cheap zoom lenses will never compete with a decent prime lens but they are very good value for money if you can live with the limitations. It is a case of trying to make the best of what you have. If you are looking for really good IQ throughout the zoom range from a cheap third party lens like this then forget it - it is not going to happen.
BTW if you want to compare lenses at different focal lengths then 'The Digital picture' web sites lens comparison section is very good.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
I guess it depends what you are looking for in the lens, as I have often said a £899 150-600 zoom lens is never going to compete with a more expensive Prime for sure. At 400mm I think even my 'slow' and relatively cheap Canon 400/5.6 prime produces much nicer images than these 'cheap' zoom lenses. For birds I am always reach limited and am not prepared to cart around much heavier Prime lenses these days so its a case of working with a lightweight/cheap zoom and living with the limitations. I doubt that hardly anyone who buys these sort of lenses are that interested in shooting at 300-400mm that much as there are much better choices for those focal lengths. In the past I have used some of the very best Canon Prime lenses so do know about the differences. To be honest I would much sooner that the likes of Sigma and Tamron produce a 600mm prime lens rather than these zooms, even if they were still at f6.3 they should give better IQ as they only have one focal length to concentrate on and the design would be simpler.. But that is not going to happen because a lot of hobbyist togs only seem interested in zoom lenses. I do think that sites like this do not do a lot for the IQ of an image - they do seem to degrade the IQ from what I can tell (the images certainly look better when viewing directly from my PC at home).
I have said it many times but these cheap zoom lenses will never compete with a decent prime lens but they are very good value for money if you can live with the limitations. It is a case of trying to make the best of what you have. If you are looking for really good IQ throughout the zoom range from a cheap third party lens like this then forget it - it is not going to happen.
BTW if you want to compare lenses at different focal lengths then 'The Digital picture' web sites lens comparison section is very good.
Click to expand...


Well said,cant see a thing i would disagree with there
 
@Roy C: Many thanks for that comprehensive answer. Every point you make is well taken. Rather than quote your whole post this bit was particularly useful:

Roy C said:
At 400mm I think even my 'slow' and relatively cheap Canon 400/5.6 prime produces much nicer images than these 'cheap' zoom lenses. For birds I am always reach limited and am not prepared to cart around much heavier Prime lenses these days so its a case of working with a lightweight/cheap zoom and living with the limitations.I doubt that hardly anyone who buys these sort of lenses are that interested in shooting at 300-400mm that much as there are much better choices for those focal lengths
Click to expand...

That's exactly the sort of info I was after. It's a pity forums degrade images and I'll check out The Digital Picture, but actually I've already gone for a Nikon 300mm f4 (probably to end up permanently on a 1.4 tc I already have). It hasn't arrived yet so this is good to hear!
 
Last edited:
guess&press said:
That's exactly the sort of info I was after. It's a pity forums degrade images and I'll check out The Digital Picture, but actually I've already gone for a Nikon 300mm f4 (probably to end up permanently on a 1.4 tc I already have). It hasn't arrived yet so this is good to hear!
Click to expand...

You may as well glue the 1.4 to the lens,the set up is very sharp even wide open.

@Roy C very good post and absolutely spot on.
 
@Roy C as always accurate thought process
@guess&press having tried the Tamron equivalent I was disappointed, have not tried the Siggy but judging by conversations with Roy the Siggy appears to have better af, at the moment I use a 300f4+1.4 and as @fracster said mine just aswell be glued together.
 
RKC said:
@Roy C as always accurate thought process
@guess&press having tried the Tamron equivalent I was disappointed, have not tried the Siggy but judging by conversations with Roy the Siggy appears to have better af, at the moment I use a 300f4+1.4 and as @fracster said mine just aswell be glued together.
Click to expand...
As long as you are happy with the focal length you are getting Bob, then you would be best to stick to your 300/4 as one of these zooms are not going to match your superb 300mm IQ.
Having said that I doubt if there would be a lot in it when you use a 1.4x tc so 420mm v 420 on the zoom would be pretty close I reckon, if you do the comparison on the TDP web site they are fairly close at 420mm v 400mm with the Sigma just shading it when both wide open - if you stop both down to f8 then the Sigma look significantly better at the centre and mid-frame (which is all that matters on a crop Camera) I would think that the AF speed would be a bit quicker on the zoom at this focal length as well.
If you compare your 300/4 + a 2x tc against one of these zooms at 600mm with both at f8 then there is no comparison - the Sigma looks miles better!. it would also have quicker AF speed for sure (2x tc's tend to slow the AF down a good bit on f4 lenses).I am not knocking the 300/4 Bob as it is a superb lens but if you want more focal length and start adding converters things change.
As you know I had the stunning Canon 300/2.8 IS MKI, it would beat the pants off of one of these third party zooms at 300mm or 420 mm BUT I also used a Canon 2x tc MkII with it (making it 600/5.6) and it is my opinion that the Sigma C beats it at mid-frame when both stopped down to f8 at 600mm. Mind you with a 2x tc MKIII the Canon combo shades it. With the newer Canon 300/2.8 IS MkII + a MkIII 2x tc The Canon combo is far better than any of these third party zooms but that would set-you back more than £5k (still my ultimate lightweight 600mm set-up).
One thing that all these third party zoom suffer from is the extremely poor corner IQ but that is not particularly important if you are using a crop Camera (or even cropping and image from a full frame).
This bird photography lark is all about compromises and there is not easy answers.
 
Roy C said:
As long as you are happy with the focal length you are getting Bob, then you would be best to stick to your 300/4 as one of these zooms are not going to match your superb 300mm IQ.
Having said that I doubt if there would be a lot in it when you use a 1.4x tc so 420mm v 420 on the zoom would be pretty close I reckon, if you do the comparison on the TDP web site they are fairly close at 420mm v 400mm with the Sigma just shading it when both wide open - if you stop both down to f8 then the Sigma look significantly better at the centre and mid-frame (which is all that matters on a crop Camera) I would think that the AF speed would be a bit quicker on the zoom at this focal length as well.
If you compare your 300/4 + a 2x tc against one of these zooms at 600mm with both at f8 then there is no comparison - the Sigma looks miles better!. it would also have quicker AF speed for sure (2x tc's tend to slow the AF down a good bit on f4 lenses).I am not knocking the 300/4 Bob as it is a superb lens but if you want more focal length and start adding converters things change.
As you know I had the stunning Canon 300/2.8 IS MKI, it would beat the pants off of one of these third party zooms at 300mm or 420 mm BUT I also used a Canon 2x tc MkII with it (making it 600/5.6) and it is my opinion that the Sigma C beats it at mid-frame when both stopped down to f8 at 600mm. Mind you with a 2x tc MKIII the Canon combo shades it. With the newer Canon 300/2.8 IS MkII + a MkIII 2x tc The Canon combo is far better than any of these third party zooms but that would set-you back more than £5k (still my ultimate lightweight 600mm set-up).
One thing that all these third party zoom suffer from is the extremely poor corner IQ but that is not particularly important if you are using a crop Camera (or even cropping and image from a full frame).
This bird photography lark is all about compromises and there is not easy answers.
Click to expand...


Thanks Roy
TDP what site is that?

I am still tempted by the Sigma for the extra reach!! a major factor as you know but would feel quite disappointed if I had the same feelings after trying the Tamron, compromise it always is mate, did look to hire first but they only seem to rent out the sport sigma
 
RKC said:
Thanks Roy
TDP what site is that?

I am still tempted by the Sigma for the extra reach!! a major factor as you know but would feel quite disappointed if I had the same feelings after trying the Tamron, compromise it always is mate, did look to hire first but they only seem to rent out the sport sigma
Click to expand...
Its 'The Digital Picture' Bob . HERE is the link you can play around with different focal lengths and apertures. Just drag the little arrow back and forth from one lens to the other. I have been using it for many years and always found it fairly accurate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RKC
The comparison photos of the Nikon 300mm on the Digital Picture website are very soft compared to what the actual lens can produce. I do not know if it's because of the copy they used or something else, just thought I mention it. I tried both the VR and the non-VR versions of the Nikon and they are much sharper than their samples both with and without the TCs
 
micloi said:
The comparison photos of the Nikon 300mm on the Digital Picture website are very soft compared to what the actual lens can produce. I do not know if it's because of the copy they used or something else, just thought I mention it. I tried both the VR and the non-VR versions of the Nikon and they are much sharper than their samples both with and without the TCs
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for Nikon Michael as I have never used one but I have always found the site fairly accurate for lenses that I have tried/bought for Canon over the years. Having said that I would be absolutely amazed if a Nikon 300/4 lens with a 2x tc on came up to one of these third party zooms at 600mm (both at f8). A 300/2.8 yes, but not with a 300/4.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
Yes, I have owned both the Tamron 150-600 (now sold) and the Sigma C - IMO the Sigma is the better lens. IQ wise at the long end there is not a lot in it but I think the AF on the sigma is better. You can also get the dock with the Sigma where you can fine tune the lens. Another bonus is that the Siggy works fairly well with a 1.4x tc (840mm) providing you have a Camera that will AF at f8 (actually the Sigma is at f9 with a 1.4x tc but the lens fools the Camera into thinking it is still f8).
Click to expand...
I'm stewing over the Sigma C and Tamron 150-600mm's and interested in your thoughts on IQ having tried both. I've read a number of reviews saying the Tammy is sharper at the long end, would you say this is true and if so is it easily noticeable or only if you're really scrutinising them?
My thoughts are that the sigma is the better lens but there's not enough of a photo pool out there to get a true 'feel' for the lens, whereas I've seen enough shots from the Tammy to get an idea of what I'd be getting :confused:
 
Roy C said:
I cannot speak for Nikon Michael as I have never used one but I have always found the site fairly accurate for lenses that I have tried/bought for Canon over the years. Having said that I would be absolutely amazed if a Nikon 300/4 lens with a 2x tc on came up to one of these third party zooms at 600mm (both at f8). A 300/2.8 yes, but not with a 300/4.
Click to expand...

Totally agree Roy. I was also very amazed on how good it is. As I also was with the Sigma 150-600mm (I own both lenses).

And I am not the only one that was amazed by both. Please read the post on the 21st of May on the blog below regarding both the Sigma and Nikon lenses :

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html
 
snerkler said:
I'm stewing over the Sigma C and Tamron 150-600mm's and interested in your thoughts on IQ having tried both. I've read a number of reviews saying the Tammy is sharper at the long end, would you say this is true and if so is it easily noticeable or only if you're really scrutinising them?
My thoughts are that the sigma is the better lens but there's not enough of a photo pool out there to get a true 'feel' for the lens, whereas I've seen enough shots from the Tammy to get an idea of what I'd be getting :confused:
Click to expand...

Hi 'snerkler' here are my (long winded) thoughts for what they are worth.
I have know of a few people who have owned both who think that the Sigma is slightly sharper at the long end whereas folks who have looked at test results think that the Tamron shades it at the long end. To be honest having used both I have always said there is very little in it either way with real results and in the field you would be hard pushed to see a lot of difference. One thing I am fairly certain about is that the Sigma AF's better in situations where contrast is low. The sigma also takes a 1.4x tc fairly well if you have a Camera that will AF at f8.

There are certain things with the Sigma which I think makes it a better lens.

Here are some cons on the Sigma lens itself:
Better focus limiter choices
Two OS (VR) modes inc one for panning
2 hard lock and 6 soft locks on the focus range (150 hard, 180, 200,250,300,400,500,600 hard)
An easily removable tripod foot to lighten the load if hand holding - with a supplied collar to protect the ring where the foot is removed.

There are also some useful utilities with the Dock if you buy one:-
Down load any future firmware direct to the lens.
Micro adjustments can be made to the focus for 16 ranges (4 focusing distance ranges in x 4 shooting distance ranges) in total for zoom lenses.
Ability to turn full time Manual focus on or off
AF speed selector ( Speed, standard, or Focus priority ) for some reason the default is 'standard' but should be set to 'focus' ASAP IMO
Specify your own Focus limiter distance range
Choose between 3 OS settings .
You can save any combo of the above to C1 or C2 and switch between either or the off position on the lens.

At the end of the day both lenses are good value for money and I doubt anyone would be displeased with either one unless they are comparing with more expensive prime lenses. Best of luck whichever you choose
 
Last edited:
BTW I think the Sigma 150-600 Sport is the best of the lot - a little better at 600mm and certainly better build quality. Its a very good buy if you are OK with the weight but too heavy for me these days I am afraid.
 
Roy C said:
Hi 'snerkler' here are my (long winded) thoughts for what they are worth.
I have know of a few people who have owned both who think that the Sigma is slightly sharper at the long end whereas folks who have looked at test results think that the Tamron shades it at the long end. To be honest having used both I have always said there is very little in it either way with real results and in the field you would be hard pushed to see a lot of difference. One thing I am fairly certain about is that the Sigma AF's better in situations where contrast is low. The sigma also takes a 1.4x tc fairly well if you have a Camera that will AF at f8.

There are certain things with the Sigma which I think makes it a better lens.

Here are some cons on the Sigma lens itself:
Better focus limiter choices
Two OS (VR) modes inc one for panning
2 hard lock and 6 soft locks on the focus range (150 hard, 180, 200,250,300,400,500,600 hard)
An easily removable tripod foot to lighten the load if hand holding - with a supplied collar to protect the ring where the foot is removed.

There are also some useful utilities with the Dock if you buy one:-
Down load any future firmware direct to the lens.
Micro adjustments can be made to the focus for 16 ranges (4 focusing distance ranges in x 4 shooting distance ranges) in total for zoom lenses.
Ability to turn full time Manual focus on or off
AF speed selector ( Speed, standard, or Focus priority ) for some reason the default is 'standard' but should be set to 'focus' ASAP IMO
Specify your own Focus limiter distance range
Choose between 3 OS settings .
You can save any combo of the above to C1 or C2 and switch between either or the off position on the lens.

At the end of the day both lenses are good value for money and I doubt anyone would be displeased with either one unless they are comparing with more expensive prime lenses. Best of luck whichever you choose
Click to expand...

Roy C said:
BTW I think the Sigma 150-600 Sport is the best of the lot - a little better at 600mm and certainly better build quality. Its a very good buy if you are OK with the weight but too heavy for me these days I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed response. The sigma does sound the better lens, I think I'll see what happens to the prices when the Sigma C is widely available for Nikon. The Tamron works out at under £700 from Amazon.de at the mo which could be a deciding factor. The sport is a bit out of my price range at the mo, although IQ does look stunning. Having never handled a lens of that weight I'm not sure how I'd cope tbh, the heaviest lens I've used is my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII which is half the weight. I do use this hand held on a sling strap but I'm not sure I'd want to hand hold much more weight, and I'm not sure I'd trust the strap or tripod mount either :eek:

I've actually just got my hands on the Panny 100-300mm courtesy of this site and am interested how this stacks up. AF-C on the EM5-II can't match my D750 though so think I will still need/want a 150-600mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top