Sigma 150-600 Sport

[Dave Throgmartin]

Nice shots Anthony, the first one in particular is good. The Sigma shots look good too, Brant.

The 3rd party manufacturers are really bringing it with their super telephoto lenses. I may join the club and get the Tamron next year. It's great that quality super telephoto options are now here for the average hobby shooter who can't justify big bucks for the Canon big whites.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

I haven't had much time to shoot lately. But I did set up a second bird feeder that the Blue Jays seem to like and was able to get this shot.

Small-3170-2 by kayaker72, on Flickr

5DIII, 150-600S @ 600mm, 1/1000, f/8, ISO 1250. Still fairly heavily cropped (1822 x 2733 final image)

[Kayaker72]

A few more Blue Jays:

A blue jay shot with the Sigma 150-600S by kayaker72, on Flickr

A blue jay shot with the Sigma 150-600S by kayaker72, on Flickr

A blue jay shot with the Sigma 150-600S by kayaker72, on Flickr

"Original" files are on flickr. The first two are pretty heavily cropped (~2 MP). The third is about half the frame.

All are 5DIII, 150-600S @ 600, 1/1000, f/8. The first two are ISO 500 and the third ISO 2000. All are PP'd.

[Kayaker72]

So, I am off on a work/play trip. The work part will be in the LA area and then I am swinging back through Idaho to see family. I am going to take the 150-600S along with me. This will be the final test for it. Weather and wildlife permitting, I'll get to shoot eagles in Idaho and whatever I find near a beach in CA.

But, after a few times shooting rosebuds, mailboxes, birds around my house, and a few quick test chart shots these are my impressions:

• 600 mm...the focal length. It does not feel like as much reach as I had hoped for especially when downsizing samples to 1000 x 600 pixels, but it is noticeably more than 400 mm and is helping get shots. I say this as it is obvious, but at least I sometimes get caught up in "needing" longer focal lengths when much can be done with 400 mm or less focal lengths. The biggest difference I am noticing is that the reach helps with AF. I went back and tested the similar shots where I had trouble with the 100-400L and 150-600 @400 had similar focus issues.
• I am pleased with the IQ coming off the 150-600S. It is sharper than my 100-400L but not as sharp at the 70-200 II. Generally, the bokeh is pleasing. There are a few issues, but generally good.
• No issues to report with AF. Very good thus far.
• The OS is legit 2-2.5 stops (I've had a few sharp photos taken at 600 mm 1/100).
• Size weight. It is in an odd range. I am physically capable of hand holding it, even for extended periods of time. All of my shots have been hand held. I could go on hikes with it. But I would not necessarily enjoy the size and weight of the lens during those times. I am altering my thinking a bit to that this lens has crossed the line to join "Big Whites" that are typically going to be shot off of supports. It is a tweener, a bit small to "need" support but a bit big to just walk around with and enjoy it.

Thanks....Brant

[Dave Throgmartin]

Nice shots Brant. Real world shots can be tough! Controlled situation shots can really spoil you for clean backgrounds.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Dave....so, still evaluating this lens. Last week.

I was rained out of eagles in Idaho, but I did make it to a NWR in Irvine, CA.

A few pics. All with the 5DIII, Sigma 150-600S @ 600 mm.


1/640, f/8, ISO 800
1L0A3538 by kayaker72, on Flickr

1/500, f/7.1, ISO 800
1L0A3603 by kayaker72, on Flickr

This is uncropped with the original size loaded on Flickr. 1/500, f/7.1, ISO 800
1L0A3612 by kayaker72, on Flickr

[Kayaker72]

Ok. So I have to decide if I am keeping the 150-600S. Before seeing Bryan's results of the 100-400 II + 1.4TC, I had essentially decided to keep it. But the results at f/8 for the 100-400 II @ 560 mm were better than I had expected.

My situation: I am finding I am still cropping 600 mm shots and as much reach as possible is my primary intent. So what I am looking for is the best ability to capture high quality images at as long of focal lengths as possible for around $2k (I won't know my actual budget until tax returns, but I usually can get $2k).

I've been pleased with the IQ and AF of the Sigma. I didn't post them, but it did track well in a few BIF situations.

As I see it:
Sigma 150-600S
Pros:

• Native 600 mm
• Within budget
• Good IQ
• Good AF
• Good reviews thus far (lenstip, photoblog, cameralabs, etc)
• 2/3 stop at 600 mm
• Reports of Sigma AFing with 1.4xTC giving a 840 f/9 lens.

Cons:

• Size/weight
• Long term concerns about 3rd party lenses/AF

100-400 II plus 1.4xTC
Pros

• Size/weight
• IS
• MFD
• "Canon" AF/Quality
• 77 mm thread size
• White with red ring just looks good
• Already seeing images like this.

Cons

• $~700 more expensive (lens plus extender)
• AF speed with extender???
• AF at f/8 on 5D3 limited
• Overlap in range with my existing kit (70-200 II)
• Not sure, but IQ at 560mm??

I should emphasize, I am willing to put up with size weight issues to "get the shot"

Thanks
Brant

[Kayaker72]

I bought the Sigma 1.4x TC to try with the 150-600S right before my trip to Florida.

It does impact IQ and AF...but, I can see using it in certain instances.

Canon 5DIII, Sigma 150-600S with Sigma 1.4xTC, @ 840 mm, 1/1260, f/11, ISO 1600

small-5044 by kayaker72, on Flickr

[Haydn1971]

Brant, could you confirm if the Sigma actually has AF when using the 1.4x extender on a camera that AF's to f5.6 ? (i.e. not the 1Dx or 5D3) as I've read conflicting comments on this.

[Kayaker72]

I can confirm that the 150-600S AFs very well and the 150-600S + 1.4xTC (sigma's) AFs reasonably well on the on the 5DIII.

I'll try it on my 7D or EOS-M and will get back to you. But, I've actually lent the 150-600S out and will be on vacation next week, so it will have to wait a week or two.