Sigma 150-600 Sport

[Kayaker72]

A few comparison shots. I haven't really taken the time to AFMA the 150-600S yet, but it seems to be doing ok.

~100% crops (@400mm) of my neighbor's mailbox about 40-50 yds away.

Canon 5DIII

150-600S @ 600 mm, 1/640, f/6.3, ISO 640

150-600S @ 401 mm 1/640, f/6.3, ISO 800

Canon 100-400L Mk I. @400mm, 1/640, f/6.3, ISO 640...this was taken ~20 min after the others. The first set were so bad, I wanted to retest.

[DavidEccleston]

Judging fine detail from the cracks (one at the end of the horizontal bit, one through the middle of the wood grain circle under the box, and one down the middle of the vertical bar)... they're all a bit more visible in the 100-400 shots, so I'd say the 150-600S shows a bit more softness at the pixel level than the 100-400, but it's not bad.

If you need the extra reach, it looks like a decent option... assuming it can focus (one shot AND servo).

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Dave. I was actually thinking the opposite. It isn't by much, which has definitely caught my attention. But I was favoring the images coming off the Sigma. But my opinion may be a bit skewed as I am already seeing a huge difference in AF. I don't want to jump to any premature conclusions, but in my brief (30 min) shoot yesterday my keeper rate with the Sigma is much higher than the 100-400L. I'll see if it holds up, but even with the mailbox above, I ended up rejecting my first set of shots (it is actually the "attached thumbnail" image) with the 100-400L. I started the post and decided to retake the shot.
I also shot birds near a feeder I have up (below). Again, the Sigma was pretty much in focus (I haven't AMFA'd it yet) with each shot. The 100-400L I was at ~30% keeper rate.

So, my likely premature, but first impressions:

• IQ just a bit better than the 100-400L. Definitely in the same league. Sharpest in the center, fall off in IQ going to frame edges. I need to shoot at f/8-f/11 to see how that holds up in that range.
• AF potentially much better/more consistent than the 100-400L.
• Well built. Actually, there are armored tanks that aren't as well built.
• Not sure it is the lens for me as it is big and heavy. The 100-400L feels like a toy lens after holding the Sigma. All shots were hand held, so it is absolutely hand holdable. But I suspect this lens may be better suited for those planning to shoot from supports.

None of these shots are meant to be artistic. But birds on my shed roof (near my feeder) yesterday.

Sigma 150-600 @ 600mm: 1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 1600 (~100% crop)

100-400L @ 400mm: 1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 1600

Getting back to the AF...above was my best shot with the 100-400L. Below, same settings, is the best of a group I had at the same spot on the roof as the Sigma.

So, the second shot with the 100-400L is obviously back focused. Which is somewhat typical of my 100-400L. I always had issues AFMA'ing it as it had a real habit of oscillating between front focusing and back focusing. But I had a burst of 5 shots with the 100-400L here and all were mis-focused. Compared to the Sigma, same spot, same conditions, I had 7/8 shots in focus. Granted, that may just be the perk of 600 mm vs 400 mm.


Obviously, the 100-400L does nail focus. It is a great lens. But, I absolutely noticed a difference in my keeper rate yesterday whether I was shooting mailboxes, a dying rosebud, or small birds.

[Joel Eade]

The detail looks pretty good. I am surprised how much different the backgrounds look between the two lenses. Some of the shots even look like the color temp is different.

[neuroanatomist]

A keeper rate of ~30% with the 100-400L? Honestly, I'd send the lens to Canon. My experience with the lens across three bodies (7D, 5DII, 1D X), the keeper rates were >90%. The only time it struggled was with small birds in thickets (the 600 II locks onto them, but with the 2xIII it behaves like the 100-400 in those situations).

[HDNitehawk]

I suppose it depends on what you are considering a keeper. 30% sounds low but each of us have our own idea.
I go with John, maybe send the 400mm for service.

I am not impressed with the Sigma shots you posted. Sure they get you to 600mm but is it a good enough for what you want?
Then I was never impressed with the 100-400mm I had.

On your other thread you mentioned waiting on the new 100-400mm II. I think that is the best idea in this price range.
From Canon's past releases and MTF charts I would speculate that you will be far better off with the extenders on it.

[Kayaker72]

A keeper rate of ~30% with the 100-400L? Honestly, I'd send the lens to Canon. My experience with the lens across three bodies (7D, 5DII, 1D X), the keeper rates were >90%. The only time it struggled was with small birds in thickets (the 600 II locks onto them, but with the 2xIII it behaves like the 100-400 in those situations).

Much better performance with my 100-400L is my general experience as well. Considering it was a very brief shoot, and more of a pulling the Sigma out of the box and shooting the first things I see kind of test, I am impressed with the Sigma AF as same conditions, same settings it performed well where the 100-400L did not. But, the vast majority of the time, my 100-400L does very well. And while I still need to try tracking and a few other conditions, I would expect the same from the Sigma based on what I saw yesterday.

I suppose it depends on what you are considering a keeper. 30% sounds low but each of us have our own idea.
I go with John, maybe send the 400mm for service.

I am not impressed with the Sigma shots you posted. Sure they get you to 600mm but is it a good enough for what you want?
Then I was never impressed with the 100-400mm I had.

On your other thread you mentioned waiting on the new 100-400mm II. I think that is the best idea in this price range.
From Canon's past releases and MTF charts I would speculate that you will be far better off with the extenders on it.

Yep, 30% isn't typical. I think the 100-400L had issues hitting the small birds on a slanted roof at distance. Also, I was using 9 pt AF expansion, so I could have gone to single point AF mode to help. Admittedly, much of the issue could have been the "test" and is not meant to be a negative about the 100-400L, but a positive about the Sigma AF, which was one of my concerns.

Of course, the 100% crops weren't necessarily intended to be impressive. More to show how it was doing against the 100-400L. While I still need to do more tests, such as shooting at f/8-f/11 instead of "wide open" (which seems like a bit of a misnomer ), what I saw yesterday definitely has me thinking:

• As you point out, would I be better off with superior optics at 400 mm? Both with and without extenders (i.e. would I be better off cropping an extremely sharp 400 mm image?).
• While I am not sure what I expected, I can already seen the need to crop even with a 600 mm lens. If that is the case, maybe I am better off with a more portable 400 mm lens and working on closing the distance with the subjects.
• I am also wondering if one of the benefits about "reach" isn't just pixels on target, but also AF. There is no doubt that another reason that the 100-400L may not have done as well yesterday is because each AF point was covering a larger area.

Anyway, my initial impressions are good. I will continue to test. As I don't think a 600 mm f/6.3 lens is necessarily my best option for indoor shots of a turkey, I doubt I'll have much more to post for awhile.

Happy Holidays everyone.....

[Kayaker72]

Ok...plans changed due to the storm hitting New Hampshire. I had a few minutes to look through some other photos I took yesterday. Not worthy of "Best Birds" thread, but here are a few that I actually processed in LR. The above photos had no editing done other than LR defaults.

5DIII, 150-600S, 1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 1600. This is still heavily cropped, ~1/9th of the frame, but not down to 100%.

Again, for comparison, the 100-400L @ 400. Same settings, 1/9th of the frame.

Thanks...Brant

[Joel Eade]

I see these as showing very good plumage detail even on small birds which are small in the frame

[Anthony M]

I have to admit - I was ready to send back my recently received Tamron and wait for the Sigma Contemporary. I still see a lot of advantages to that lens as far as the Sigma TC's and the USB dock. Added to that, I wasn't getting particularly amazing results with the Tamron. I knew that shooting with a lens this size (especially handheld) is a whole new ball of wax - and I needed some patience. Indeed, after a week or so I started getting pretty good results - assuming the conditions were optimum. High ISO shots produced worse than usual results with my 6D. After careful micro adjustment however, the results I was getting were much, much better. Especially since I think I was getting some back focus - which seems to be a theme with any Tamron lens I've had.

The results I'm getting now are much better than I had hoped, so much so I think I'll go ahead and hang onto the lens. Small birds have been perfect practice as they don't hold still, but they're plentiful and right outside the house!

This was a few days ago, ISO 400, 600mm, f7.1 (which seems to be sharper than f8, even on charts), 1/200.
These are/were 100% 1:1 size crops (1600x1067) not sure what size they compress to in the html body here...

Then yesterday ISO 100, 600mm, f6.3, 1/650

and ISO 640




So, if this is as bad as it gets (600 and wide open) I'll call it a keeper! I'll be really interested on the Sigma Sport results. I really don't consider it to be competition for the Tamron - at least I would assume the lens' performance will be aimed at an entirely different crowd. That would mean much better AF speed and accuracy, and a better build. The Tamron is just ok in that regard, however the AF speed is much faster than my Tamron 70-300 for instance.

Since I think that the Contemporary is still being designed as I type this, it will be interesting just how much performance they give it (or can give it). They certainly don't want to cannibalize sales from the Sport, but at the same time need it to beat the Tamron. I have no doubt the build will be an improvement - at least it had better be!