« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 128 posts | 
by E.J. Peiker on Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:06 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I have completed my review of the new Sigma 150-600 Sport lens.  Overall it's a pretty impressive lens!
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sigma%20150-600.pdf
 

by Mike in O on Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:35 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Nice honest review EJ...just wondering when hand holding at 600, were you able to grip the extended barrel or did your hands have to remain on the main part of the lens and was it comfortable?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:52 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Mike in O wrote:Nice honest review EJ...just wondering when hand holding at 600, were you able to grip the extended barrel or did your hands have to remain on the main part of the lens and was it comfortable?
I could keep it on the main barrel but it would work just fine on the extended barrel.
 

by perky polwarth on Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:32 am
perky polwarth
Forum Contributor
Posts: 15
Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Location: UK
E.J. Peiker wrote:I have completed my review of the new Sigma 150-600 Sport lens.  Overall it's a pretty impressive lens!
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sigma%20150-600.pdf

and an impressive review. Thank you .
 

by Mark Boranyak on Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:37 am
Mark Boranyak
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1354
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Agree. This is an excellent review. Thanks, E.J., for doing this.

I've noted that you intend to keep the copy you tested. That says a lot to all of us.

Mark
 

by Primus on Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:01 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
Thank you EJ. Very helpful. I had pre-ordered one of these but then backed out when I realized how heavy it would be. I am assuming the Canon mount would be equally good.

Perhaps not so much as a replacement for my 600 MkII that I sold, but as a truly versatile zoom, it may be worth thinking about, especially since it costs less than 20% of the big supertele from Canon. I wonder how it would compare with the 100-400 MkII.

Pradeep
 

by rene on Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:58 am
rene
Forum Contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Location: United-Kingdom
EJ thanks for the very thorough testing of this super zoom. I just took delivery of this lens in Canon fit together with the 1401 converter. I would (probably) sell off my 600mark 2 and get a Canon 300/2.8 to complete the set-up. What is your take on this? Body wise i use a 1DX and 7DM2. It means a smaller package and far less hassle to take equipment on board a plane. i could even get away with a much smaller backpack!
Rene
 

by Markus Jais on Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:53 am
User avatar
Markus Jais
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2888
Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Location: Germany, near Munich
Member #:01791
Great review.
How does the lens compare (sharpness) to the EF 4/200-400 in the 200-400mm range and then again in the 400-560mm range?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:14 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Markus Jais wrote:Great review.
How does the lens compare (sharpness) to the EF 4/200-400 in the 200-400mm range and then again in the 400-560mm range?
Since they all outresolve the resolution chart, it's hard to say although I would think the Canon 200-400 without the TC dropped in is a bit sharper and of course the 200-400 is a stop to 1.3 stops faster.  But I can say without reservation that at 560mm the Sigma is a bit sharper than the Canon with the 1.4x dropped in. But again, we are in the realm of splitting hairs and it would take a higher resolution sensor than the sensors we have today to see it or better yet a test bench that is camera and sensor independent. And higher resolution sensors would be recording diffraction anyway at the maximum aperture of the lens.  So you have to ask yourself, does it matter?
 

by DOglesby on Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:07 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
Thanks for the thorough review. Glad to see the lens is a winner. Sigma has really turned into a top shelf lens manufacturer.
Cheers,
Doug
 

by Andy Trowbridge on Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:02 am
Andy Trowbridge
Forum Contributor
Posts: 991
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Markus Jais wrote:Great review.
How does the lens compare (sharpness) to the EF 4/200-400 in the 200-400mm range and then again in the 400-560mm range?
You can look at a direct comparison here with either lens mounted on a 1D Mark III or a 7D Mark II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

The link shows a comparison of the Sigma at 600mm @f/8 against the Canon 200-400 with 1.4 engaged @ f/5.6 both on the 7D Mark II.

Looking through the comparisons at different focal lengths in these test the 200-400 is certainly the lens I would go for if I had the money it easier beats the sigma everywhere to my eye.
All comments & suggestions welcomed and appreciated.
_______________________________________

Andy Trowbridge http://www.andytrowbridge.com 
Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/AndyTrowbridgePhotography
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:14 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Andy Trowbridge wrote:
Markus Jais wrote:Great review.
How does the lens compare (sharpness) to the EF 4/200-400 in the 200-400mm range and then again in the 400-560mm range?
You can look at a direct comparison here with either lens mounted on a 1D Mark III or a 7D Mark II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

The link shows a comparison of the Sigma at 600mm @f/8 against the Canon 200-400 with 1.4 engaged @ f/5.6 both on the 7D Mark II.

Looking through the comparisons at different focal lengths in these test the 200-400 is certainly the lens I would go for if I had the money it easier beats the sigma everywhere to my eye.
You may want to look at their data again and you will discover that their test has a serious problem.  Just  take a look at this comparison and try to explain it. Clearly they have a problem in their test using the 7D Mk II:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... &APIComp=2

It looks to me like they may have used PDAF and failed to calibrate the lens with the 7D2 since the same test taken with the 1Ds Mk 3 produced dramatically sharper test chart shots.  You really should be using Live View and CDAF to eliminate the lens microadjustment, or lack thereof, from the equation when testing a lens for sharpness and resolution.
 

by Andy Trowbridge on Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:34 am
Andy Trowbridge
Forum Contributor
Posts: 991
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Andy Trowbridge wrote:
Markus Jais wrote:Great review.
How does the lens compare (sharpness) to the EF 4/200-400 in the 200-400mm range and then again in the 400-560mm range?
You can look at a direct comparison here with either lens mounted on a 1D Mark III or a 7D Mark II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

The link shows a comparison of the Sigma at 600mm @f/8 against the Canon 200-400 with 1.4 engaged @ f/5.6 both on the 7D Mark II.

Looking through the comparisons at different focal lengths in these test the 200-400 is certainly the lens I would go for if I had the money it easier beats the sigma everywhere to my eye.
You may want to look at their data again and you will discover that their test has a serious problem.  Just  take a look at this comparison and try to explain it. Clearly they have a problem in their test using the 7D Mk II:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... &APIComp=2

It looks to me like they used PDAF and failed to calibrate the lens with the 7D2 since the same test taken with the 1Ds Mk 3 produced dramatically sharper test chart shots.  You really should be using Live View and CDAF to eliminate the lens microadjustment, or lack thereof, from the equation when testing a lens for sharpness and resolution.
Quite possible but in your comparison you have an aperture of f/6.3 for the 7dm2 and f/8 for the 1dsm3. But I still see what you are saying.  But there are similar results with the 200-400mm on both cameras and at the same aperture, although not such a big difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

Can this just be showing how the respective lens perform with a higher density sensor???

Anyhow you could be right that the test is flawed. They are pretty close in the 500-600mm range when comparing them on a 1Dsm3. 
All comments & suggestions welcomed and appreciated.
_______________________________________

Andy Trowbridge http://www.andytrowbridge.com 
Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/AndyTrowbridgePhotography
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:45 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I must have sent the wrong link - here's the right one, it shows the same thing:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... &APIComp=2

No, density of the sensor doesn't make straight lines suddenly appear fuzzy like that and it definitely wouldn't reduce the resolution as read off of the center swatch on the converging lines.  It should make it better, not worse if anything since you are sampling at a higher frequency.
 

by Primus on Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:49 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
This is a bit puzzling.

Bryan Carnathan's review, while praising the lens, suggests that the 'Contemporary' version is just as good as the Sports in terms of sharpness and is of course much lighter.

Looking at the actual results on the 1DSIII as per your link does indicate that he may have got it wrong with the 7D2.  The C version still looks very interesting though.

Pradeep
 

by Vertigo on Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:55 am
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
For me the real novelty on these zooms (both the C and S models seem to have it) is the possibility to custom-tune the AF range. For BIF this could be a game-change.

On a 400/5.6L you are forced with 8.5m-inf.
On a 100-400L you are forced with 3m-inf (which can slow things as Steve C. pointed out).
On these zoom you theoretically can limit the AF to say 15-30m, if this is the range where the bird will be nor too large nor too small in the frame. This could speed AF range scanning by a factor of 5 or 10. If it really speeds up acquisition remains to be tested.

EJ, if you can test this feature, I would love to know if it works in the field.
 

by Mike in O on Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:30 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Vertigo wrote:For me the real novelty on these zooms (both the C and S models seem to have it) is the possibility to custom-tune the AF range. For BIF this could be a game-change.

On a 400/5.6L you are forced with 8.5m-inf.
On a 100-400L you are forced with 3m-inf (which can slow things as Steve C. pointed out).
On these zoom you theoretically can limit the AF to say 15-30m, if this is the range where the bird will be nor too large nor too small in the frame. This could speed AF range scanning by a factor of 5 or 10. If it really speeds up acquisition remains to be tested.

EJ, if you can test this feature, I would love to know if it works in the field.
Since Sigma is not making this lens for Sony, I won't be tempted.  By the way modern Sony cameras have range limiter built into the camera, completely independent of the lens and infinitely variable. (A mount)
 

by sdaconsulting on Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:54 pm
sdaconsulting
Forum Contributor
Posts: 579
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Moncure, NC
If the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary image quality is just as good (per Bryan Carnathan's review) I'd be very inclined to pick it up instead - for the weight savings.
Matthew Cromer
 

by sdaconsulting on Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:56 pm
sdaconsulting
Forum Contributor
Posts: 579
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Moncure, NC
Mike in O wrote:
Vertigo wrote:For me the real novelty on these zooms (both the C and S models seem to have it) is the possibility to custom-tune the AF range. For BIF this could be a game-change.

On a 400/5.6L you are forced with 8.5m-inf.
On a 100-400L you are forced with 3m-inf (which can slow things as Steve C. pointed out).
On these zoom you theoretically can limit the AF to say 15-30m, if this is the range where the bird will be nor too large nor too small in the frame. This could speed AF range scanning by a factor of 5 or 10. If it really speeds up acquisition remains to be tested.

EJ, if you can test this feature, I would love to know if it works in the field.
Since Sigma is not making this lens for Sony, I won't be tempted.  By the way modern Sony cameras have range limiter built into the camera, completely independent of the lens and infinitely variable. (A mount)
Supposedly the 150-600 Contemporary is coming in Sony A mount. If the IQ is close to as good, that's the one I'd want since the 150-600 sport is a heavy beast.
Matthew Cromer
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:18 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
There's no free lunch, you will lose something. For one, either the Contemporary lens is not 600mm or it is not f/6.3 - it can not be both if the filter threads are 95mm as specified by Sigma. You also give up the programability of the lens that I cover in the review and weather-sealing. Also, from folks that I trust that have used both, you give up quite a bit of IQ in the corners. Of course if you are shooting with a crop camera that won't matter and the weight savings is compelling.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
128 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group