Sigma 150-600 sport v Contempory (1 Viewer)

Roy C · May 19, 2015

Sigma 150-600 sport v Contempory v Tamron 150-600

For those that may be interested both Sigma lenses are now up on the digital picture lens comparisons HERE. Remember these were with done on a FF Camera so results could be a bit different on a crop Camera.
It looks as if the Sport is slightly better at the long end but the C is a bit better at the wide and mid distance range. Nothing much in either way from what I can tell. At the long end the sport is a bit better when both are at f6.3 but if you stop the C down a tad it becomes about the same so the slight difference is probably due to the slightly larger dia of the sport letting in a tad more light.
BTW you can also now compare the C v the Tamron 150-600.

Roy C · May 19, 2015

Looking at the Sigma C v the Tammy at 600mm, the Sigma looks best at the mid frame and corner but at the centre they are very close. At the wide and mid range the Siggy is just edging it for me.

Roy C · May 19, 2015

With a 1.4c tc again the sport looks slightly better but you only need to stop down the C about 1/3 stop to make them look about equal so the difference is not a lot.

MiguelM · May 19, 2015

And also looks better than Canon's 100-400 II + tc 1.4x at centre frame (mid-frame looks the same to me)

Nick Leech · May 19, 2015

As Miguel says, it looks like at 600mm, the Sports is a little bit sharper throughout the frame than any of the other three "low-cost options" (the Contemporary, the Tamron and the Canon 100-400 II with 1.4x TC).

Interesting that the Tamron looks slightly sharper than the Contemporary in the centre at 600mm. But mid-frame and edge (still at 600mm) the Contemporary is better than the Tamron.

I am starting to favour getting the Sigma Sports (and selling my Tamron). For instances where I am doing a lot of walking and don't want the weight of the Sigma Sports I will revert to using my trusty old Canon 400 f5.6 with or without 1.4x TC.

Nick Leech · May 19, 2015

Just noticed that using that lens comparison tool, if you compare Sigma Sports at 600mm and f8 with Canon 600mm prime Mk1 wide open at f4, the Sigma Sports is sharper in the centre than the Canon prime!

You need to stop down the Canon 600mm Mk1 prime to f5.6 before it gets sharper in the centre than the Sigma Sports is at 600mm and f8.

I know we are comparing apples with oranges a bit, but it speaks volumes for the value-for-money of the Sigma Sports!

Of course the Canon 600mm f4 Mk2 prime is sharper than the Mk1 prime.......but the costs go higher and higher!

the black fox · May 19, 2015

Even if you found a s/h 600mm f4 your probably looking at another 3.5K difference Nick ,out of my price range in this lifetime

Roy C · May 19, 2015

If I could handle the weight I would buy a Canon 500/4 MkI (or better still the MkII) in a heartbeat over any of these third party zooms, you would have a superb 700/5.6. I know a used 500/4 would cost a fair bit more but well worth saving up for IMHO.
The biggest bummer for me is that when I could handle a 500/4 I could not afford it - now I can afford it but cannot handle the weight :C

Roy C · May 22, 2015

Nick Leech said:
You need to stop down the Canon 600mm Mk1 prime to f5.6 before it gets sharper in the centre than the Sigma Sports is at 600mm and f8.

The fact that the 600/4 MkI looks sharper at f5.6 compared with the Siggy at f8 is remarkable to me seeing the Canon has been around for 15 or so years now, that one stop difference means a heck of a lot, the Canon lets in twice as much light so you could shoot at half the shutter speed or half the ISO setting. When you look at the 840mm performances, the Canon at f8 and the Sigma at f9 the Canon absolutely blows the Sigma away (as to be expected)
That's not to say that the relatively lightweight Sigma is not very good value for money as it is for sure but it just proves that you get what you pay for at the end of the day. The law of diminishing returns applies, as you go up the lens ladder you have to start paying significantly more for small increases in performance but if you want the best then its a price worth paying. This is no different to most thing in life.
I am happy with the 'C' for the weight and price paid but I also know full well that it will never come near to a Big White Prime, unfortunately weight is more important than performance for me these days.

Tony Brown · May 23, 2015

It is now 12 months since I sold my 300 f2.8 L IS & 500 f4 L IS lenses as I no longer pursue bird photography with the same seriousness as in the previous 35 -40 years.
As my longest lens is now the 70-200 vII I am contemplating one of the 3 150-600 lenses just to have a longer FL for backyard birds.
Having tried & tested multiple copies of all 3 I have found little difference between them regarding IQ but I am opting for the Sigma C because of the weight & docking facility.
I have found them the best bang for buck for a 400, 500 & 600 FL lens around at the moment especially considering the $3000+ price tag for the excellent Canon 100-400 plus a 1.4 TC. Longer lenses $7000+ .Money is no object but I see no reason to pay more than twice the money for a 100-400 for marginal differences or 6 times the cost for a 500 f4. For me there is not much difference aperture wise compared to & when using TCs with alternative offerings. The best birding lens is a 600 (which I have not owned) if the weight is manageable.
IMHO feel free to differ-at least I can speak from my experiences.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1365560

Roy C · May 23, 2015

Tony Brown said:
It is now 12 months since I sold my 300 f2.8 L IS & 500 f4 L IS lenses as I no longer pursue bird photography with the same seriousness as in the previous 35 -40 years.
As my longest lens is now the 70-200 vII I am contemplating one of the 3 150-600 lenses just to have a longer FL for backyard birds.
Having tried & tested multiple copies of all 3 I have found little difference between them regarding IQ but I am opting for the Sigma C because of the weight & docking facility.
I have found them the best bang for buck for a 400, 500 & 600 FL lens around at the moment especially considering the $3000+ price tag for the excellent Canon 100-400 plus a 1.4 TC. Longer lenses $7000+ .Money is no object but I see no reason to pay more than twice the money for a 100-400 for marginal differences or 6 times the cost for a 500 f4. For me there is not much difference aperture wise compared to & when using TCs with alternative offerings. The best birding lens is a 600 (which I have not owned) if the weight is manageable.
IMHO feel free to differ-at least I can speak from my experiences.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1365560

I agree Tony, I have used big Canon Whites in the past and have also all but given up any serious bird photography. These days for me there is three reasons why I like the Sigma 150-600 C and they are:- Weight, Weight and finally Weight. BTW I have also posted pics in that FM thread you linked to.

Nick Leech · May 28, 2015

I bought a Sigma 150-600 Sports and tested it extensively against my Tamron 150-600 on my Canon 7D2. Used Live View focusing mounted on a tripod with a cable release. Took several shots with each lens and compared the best of each batch. I did shots of test charts and also shots of a furry toy. I also did some hand-held comparison shots.

I found very little difference in IQ at 600mm. If anything, the Tamron seemed marginally sharper in the centre of the frame, especially at f8. Furthermore the Tamron seems to be closer to 600mm at the long end than the Sigma Sports (ie slightlly more magnification with the Tamron).

I really can't justify the extra weight of the Sigma Sports over the Tamron (and the extra cost!). I am sending the Sigma Sports back to the shop for a refund.

I had previously done a very similar comparison between my Tamron and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with much the same result - i.e very close IQ, but Tamron marginally sharper in the centre.

If I didn't already own the Tamron and was starting afresh, I would maybe go for the Sigma Contemporary - as much as anything due to the advantages of the Sigma USB dock. But as I do already own the Tamron, it hardly seems worth selling it and changing to the Sigma-C with a consequent loss of money.

I think I will stick with the Tamron until the next generation of Sigma/Tamron 600mm lenses comes out! (or until I can (maybe) consider affording a second-hand Big White Canon prime!).

Roy C · May 29, 2015

Nick Leech said:
I bought a Sigma 150-600 Sports and tested it extensively against my Tamron 150-600 on my Canon 7D2. Used Live View focusing mounted on a tripod with a cable release. Took several shots with each lens and compared the best of each batch. I did shots of test charts and also shots of a furry toy. I also did some hand-held comparison shots.

I found very little difference in IQ at 600mm. If anything, the Tamron seemed marginally sharper in the centre of the frame, especially at f8. Furthermore the Tamron seems to be closer to 600mm at the long end than the Sigma Sports (ie slightlly more magnification with the Tamron).

I really can't justify the extra weight of the Sigma Sports over the Tamron (and the extra cost!). I am sending the Sigma Sports back to the shop for a refund.

I had previously done a very similar comparison between my Tamron and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with much the same result - i.e very close IQ, but Tamron marginally sharper in the centre.

If I didn't already own the Tamron and was starting afresh, I would maybe go for the Sigma Contemporary - as much as anything due to the advantages of the Sigma USB dock. But as I do already own the Tamron, it hardly seems worth selling it and changing to the Sigma-C with a consequent loss of money.

I think I will stick with the Tamron until the next generation of Sigma/Tamron 600mm lenses comes out! (or until I can (maybe) consider affording a second-hand Big White Canon prime!).

I am not at all surprised with your finding Nick, I have always said that there is not much in it at the long end, at least between the Tamron and the Siggy 'C'. But Sharpness is not the only thing that counts IMHO, I think the AF on the Sigma C is much better than the Tammy, especially noticeable when there is not much contrast. I am still surprised at the performance of the 'C' with a 1.4x tc (I use a Canon 1.4x tc MkII) it is very usable on both the Cameras I use (7D2 and 5D3) . Having 840mm on a 1.6x cropper (1344 mm FOV) is very handy if you are reach limited. I also think that the colours and contrast is slightly better with the Sigma but both of them could be corrected in processing so no big deal.

Nick Leech · May 29, 2015

Good point Roy about using a TC. I haven't managed to get anything satisfactory with a TC on the Tammy - I think that is a fairly common finding. It does seem like the two Siggys perform better with a TC.

I don't shoot a lot of flyers so the AF performance is perhaps not so critical for me. I find the AF on the Tammy is fine for most of my shooting to date (static or slow moving birds). But as I get more proficient I may try to get more BIF shots.

I am certainly not ruling out switching from the Tammy to the Sigma-C (plus dock). Maybe I'll do it later in the year when the price of the Sigma-C drops when there is full availability (eg keen prices at places like Amazon).

I fully agree with all your views Roy. There is little IQ difference at 600mm between the Tammy, the two Siggys and the Canon 100-400 Mk2 with 1.4x TC. They are great in decent light if you can get fairly close to the bird. They are all great value for money - especially the Tammy and Siggy-C; they are all superior to what was on offer before at this price sector. BUT, still some way short of a Canon Big White - there is no free lunch!

hosesbroadbill · May 29, 2015

Nick Leech said:
Good point Roy about using a TC. I haven't managed to get anything satisfactory with a TC on the Tammy - I think that is a fairly common finding. It does seem like the two Siggys perform better with a TC.

I don't shoot a lot of flyers so the AF performance is perhaps not so critical for me. I find the AF on the Tammy is fine for most of my shooting to date (static or slow moving birds). But as I get more proficient I may try to get more BIF shots.

I am certainly not ruling out switching from the Tammy to the Sigma-C (plus dock). Maybe I'll do it later in the year when the price of the Sigma-C drops when there is full availability (eg keen prices at places like Amazon).

I fully agree with all your views Roy. There is little IQ difference at 600mm between the Tammy, the two Siggys and the Canon 100-400 Mk2 with 1.4x TC. They are great in decent light if you can get fairly close to the bird. They are all great value for money - especially the Tammy and Siggy-C; they are all superior to what was on offer before at this price sector. BUT, still some way short of a Canon Big White - there is no free lunch!

I find it odd that did not see a difference in image quality between the C and the Tamron. To me there is a fairly big difference. I think it is clearly sharper and I like the color and contrast more as well. These improvements are a big deal for only a few hundred dollars more money. For what you would have to pay to get a 600 prime,the few hundred dollars I lost by selling the Tamron and getting the C was well worth the price. In addition I love the focal length locks, the 2 OS modes, the case it comes with, the dock, the ability to use a 1.4x, etc.

Nick Leech · Jun 1, 2015

Isaac - many people on the net are saying they think the Sigma-C is sharper at 600mm than the Tamron. However, it is possible to find people who swear that their Tamron is sharper than the Sigma-C, or at least, it is equally sharp.

Perhaps more significantly, a couple of the key websites that do comprehensive tests on lenses have said that the Tamron is slightly sharper at 600mm in the centre of the frame than the Sigma-C (eg Lenstip).

To my mind we are probably seeing some copy-to-copy variations. I can imagine that the QC on the third-party lenses is not quite as good as the QC on Canon's lenses.

Also, many of the users on the net who claim one lens is sharper than another have not actually tested the lenses side-by-side on the same camera body at the same time with the same settings.

I think the only way to be sure is to do your own testing on your own camera body with the lens copies at your disposal.

But at the end of the day, the IQ differences are relatively small. As Tony Northrup says, just moving a coupe of steps nearer the bird will make the worst performing lens produce better IQ than the best performing lens (at the original distance)!

By the way, I do agree with you that the colour/contrast are slightly better on the Sigma-C than on the Tamron. But on out-and-out resolution at 600mm, I am not sure there is much in it!

I think most amateur bird photographers will be well served with any of these new lenses.

the black fox · Jun 1, 2015

The one thing I have learned over the last few months with the sport is that 600mm is not the magic bullet ,I find that if I can get as close as I used to with a 400 the bird will be more frame filling with better detail ,there obviously comes a time when you can be to close as well ,but overall whichever lens you own or use out of the two sigmas and the tamron ,your technique has to be exemplary or the shots just turn to mush .there is also rumours of canon working on a low priced alternative for next year that could start a whole new ball game LOL

Sigma 150-600 sport v Contempory (1 Viewer)

More options

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

MiguelM

Well-known member

Nick Leech

Well-known member

Nick Leech

Well-known member

the black fox

Well-known member

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Tony Brown

Tony B

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Nick Leech

Well-known member

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Nick Leech

Well-known member

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member

Nick Leech

Well-known member

the black fox

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread