Which would be best Sigma 150-600 sport or C

[skippy89]

I currently have the Sigma 150-500 and thinking of buying the 600 but not sure which would be best. Currently photograph birds so weight wise the Contemp might be best but could use aGimbal head with the sport. Will be using Canon 7d mk2. Any help would be appreciated

 

[minnnt]

The Sport is the better lens, no doubt about it, but if you take into consideration the weight and extra initial outlay then things even up a little more. If you don't have one already, make sure you budget for the USB dock. It is an incredibly useful bit of kit. If you have the cash and don't mind the weight then go for the Sport would be my advice but others will disagree.

 

[odd jim]

Personally I found no optical difference between the two (I tested both on two bodies) but the C had the advantage of being smaller and nearly 1kg lighter, which I found very noticeable as I shoot mostly hand held.

The AF of the C is just as quick when tuned to speed priority in the dock too.

I bought the C as the extra cost and weight made no sense in comparison (I use it for Motorsport, horse jumping and general stuff) and it's brilliant.

There are two dedicated threads for each lens on here.

 

[sureshot]

I have the S the weight is not a problem for me ,but the build quality just felt better than the c and the dock is a must.

 

[Mike.P]

I originally bought the S version but returned it after getting some very iffy results at 600mm. I then decided to try the C but again the results weren't great. After that I left it for a few months and then bought another S lens which I am quite happy with.

Buy the C if weight or price is an issue otherwise the S is better built and (imo) has a slight IQ advantage.

 

[skippy89]

Thanks for your replies food for thought.

 

[snerkler]

S is better, but down to the individual whether it's good enough to be worth the extra cash and weight.

Tamron are releasing a generation 2 of their 150-600mm which sounds promising.

 

[Matt-P]

I had an S and loved it, but the weight was an issue for me handholding for long periods and I ended up moving it on. If you get the chance try both out and see if it will be an issue for you.

 

[BillN_33]

I currently have the Sigma 150-500 and thinking of buying the 600 but not sure which would be best. Currently photograph birds so weight wise the Contemp might be best but could use aGimbal head with the sport. Will be using Canon 7d mk2. Any help would be appreciated

If you photograph birds you will most likely be at the "long" end most of the time - so shots at 500mm, 600mm should be your concern

OK for BIF's hand holding is needed, but any shots taken on a tripod or bean bag will be better 9 times out of 10 than anything you achieve hand held

 

[HoppyUK]

Sigma 150-600 S is a heavy lump for sure, and feels even more because it's longer and front-heavy, especially zoomed to 600. Fine on a gimbal or monopod, but tiring hand-held.

It's slightly sharper than the C-version, but IMHO the biggest killer of image quality with very long lenses is inaccurate focus and camera-shake, ie your technique. Get that right and both Sigmas and Tamron are unlikely to disappoint. The new Tamron Mk2 looks good too, but optically it hardly different to the old version - Tamron's MTF graphs show very slightly better edge sharpness on full-frame. But if AF improvements mean a higher hit rate, that could be worth having.

 

[snerkler]

Sigma 150-600 S is a heavy lump for sure, and feels even more because it's longer and front-heavy, especially zoomed to 600. Fine on a gimbal or monopod, but tiring hand-held.

It's slightly sharper than the C-version, but IMHO the biggest killer of image quality with very long lenses is inaccurate focus and camera-shake, ie your technique. Get that right and both Sigmas and Tamron are unlikely to disappoint. The new Tamron Mk2 looks good too, but optically it hardly different to the old version - Tamron's MTF graphs show very slightly better edge sharpness on full-frame. But if AF improvements mean a higher hit rate, that could be worth having.

That's a bit disappointing. Any idea whether they're improved it from 550-600mm?

 

[HoppyUK]

That's a bit disappointing. Any idea whether they're improved it from 550-600mm?

My only reference is Tamron's published MTF sharpness graphs. FWIW, based purely on that information and my re previous comments, I think the other improvements are likely to be more significant, but I've not seen any reviews yet.

 

[odd jim]

My only reference is Tamron's published MTF sharpness graphs. FWIW, based purely on that information and my re previous comments, I think the other improvements are likely to be more significant, but I've not seen any reviews yet.

Another improvement is the fact they have copied Sigma and now offer their equivalent of the dock (called the TAP-in, I'm not sure if this is compatible with the old lens, it certainly doesn't look like it is, but is used as a selling point with the new one). As this was such an advantage / USP of the Sigma lenses, I think this (very quickly released) new version was made for this in mind, rather than optical improvements?

 

[snerkler]

Another improvement is the fact they have copied Sigma and now offer their equivalent of the dock (called the TAP-in, I'm not sure if this is compatible with the old lens, it certainly doesn't look like it is, but is used as a selling point with the new one). As this was such an advantage / USP of the Sigma lenses, I think this (very quickly released) new version was made for this in mind, rather than optical improvements?

Would be nice if they made the old version compatible with an update.

 

[HoppyUK]

Another improvement is the fact they have copied Sigma and now offer their equivalent of the dock (called the TAP-in, I'm not sure if this is compatible with the old lens, it certainly doesn't look like it is, but is used as a selling point with the new one). As this was such an advantage / USP of the Sigma lenses, I think this (very quickly released) new version was made for this in mind, rather than optical improvements?

If there's evidence, and I'm not sure there is, that the Tamron Mk1 version has been missing focus because of a calibration issue that can't be fixed by the in-camera AF fine-tune, then this new TAP-in device will help. If there isn't, it won't.

 

[odd jim]

If there's evidence, and I'm not sure there is, that the Tamron Mk1 version has been missing focus because of a calibration issue that can't be fixed by the in-camera AF fine-tune, then this new TAP-in device will help. If there isn't, it won't.

It will as its a far better system (enabling 4 or 5 points of calibration across the entire focal range).

It also allows customisation of the lens itself, different AF speed options and VC etc that can be assigned to the in lens switches. It does a lot more than a single calibration tweak *

* if it's the same as the Sigma Dock which it pretty much is.

 

[odd jim]

Would be nice if they made the old version compatible with an update.

Unfortunately it requires extra hardware in the lens itself.

 

[snerkler]

If there's evidence, and I'm not sure there is, that the Tamron Mk1 version has been missing focus because of a calibration issue that can't be fixed by the in-camera AF fine-tune, then this new TAP-in device will help. If there isn't, it won't.

I'd imagine it will allow AF fine tune at different focal lengths and distances like the Sigma improves it over Nikon's AF fine tune. Still baffles me why Nikon only has one fine tune rather than one for the short end and one for the long end like Canon.

 

[HoppyUK]

I'd imagine it will allow AF fine tune at different focal lengths and distances like the Sigma improves it over Nikon's AF fine tune. Still baffles me why Nikon only has one fine tune rather than one for the short end and one for the long end like Canon.

But a lens that's been properly designed and manufactured should be perfect at all distances out of the box. The only thing that might need sorting is a miscalibration between the lens and camera, but when that's fixed with in-camera AF fine-tune, that single global adjustment should put everything right. And pretty much, it does, though I accept than in the real world there may still be small errors at the extreme ends of the focal length and distance range.

On the other hand, tweaking AF can be tricky and a lot of people end up doing it wrong and making things worse. Nikon's new automated system looks very promising on that score.

Edit: Nikon's new automated AF fine-tune feature https://www.dpreview.com/news/3468248279/nikons-automated-af-fine-tune-explained

 

[snerkler]

But a lens that's been properly designed and manufactured should be perfect at all distances out of the box.

Should being the operative word

The only thing that might need sorting is a miscalibration between the lens and camera, but when that's fixed with in-camera AF fine-tune, that single global adjustment should put everything right. And pretty much, it does, though I accept than in the real world there may still be small errors at the extreme ends of the focal length and distance range.

Not from my experience, almost all of my zoom lenses have been different at one end compared to the other. In fact my body has been away to Nikon recently with one of my lenses and even though both have been calibrated together there's still a discrepancy between the short end and long end. Mind you, from the service I've been getting at Nikon lately that's not surprising.

On the other hand, tweaking AF can be tricky and a lot of people end up doing it wrong and making things worse. Nikon's new automated system looks very promising on that score.

Edit: Nikon's new automated AF fine-tune feature https://www.dpreview.com/news/3468248279/nikons-automated-af-fine-tune-explained

I've seen many folk say this is hit and miss tbh.

 

[odd jim]

But a lens that's been properly designed and manufactured should be perfect at all distances out of the box. The only thing that might need sorting is a miscalibration between the lens and camera, but when that's fixed with in-camera AF fine-tune, that single global adjustment should put everything right. And pretty much, it does, though I accept than in the real world there may still be small errors at the extreme ends of the focal length and distance range.

On the other hand, tweaking AF can be tricky and a lot of people end up doing it wrong and making things worse. Nikon's new automated system looks very promising on that score.

Edit: Nikon's new automated AF fine-tune feature https://www.dpreview.com/news/3468248279/nikons-automated-af-fine-tune-explained

A single point of AF fine tune on a lens this long will cause issues at other relative lengths.

But as per my post, AF tuning is only a very small part of what it does.

Again, on the Sigma it allows focus speed tuning (setting one switch to fine accuracy, another to speed priority etc), OS tuning and setting up, firmware updating (without having to send the lens off) and a few other bits and bobs.

For example, on my Sigma, custom 1 switch is set to AF fine accuracy and dynamic OS, and I've set the 2 position for AF speed priority and dynamic panning, for Motorsport (though you can select OS panning on the OS switch, I've set it to change it all with one switch). It's very, very effective. These settings can't be adjusted or set without the dock (otherwise they'd be about 10 switches on the side of the lens).

In fact, the AF fine tuning is the only aspect that I've NOT used on the dock, as my lens was pretty much perfect straight out of he box, as I'd expect.

This is what the G1 Tamron lens didn't have which put it at a big disadvantage to the Sigma, which they've clearly tried to level out now with the G2 lens.