Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS Sport Lens Review

Vertigo wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Vertigo wrote:If adjustment at various focal lengths is a lens-only variance, then you're doing sigma's QC job, aren't you ?

Isn't that the case with all focus fine tuning regardless of manufacturer

True. 
My point is that Sigma's approach to thorough MFA is good in a way, because it lets you take control if you are an expert, and have a lot of time to fiddle with the dock.
But on the other hand, it means they can't even sell you a zoom lens that, out of the box, projects the image on the same sensor plane, for various distances and focal lengths.  Food for thought.

But neither does Canon or Nikon.  At least Canon gives you the ability to calibrate a zoom lens at both ends of the zoom range.  Nikon doesn't even allow you to do that resulting in zooms that are really only their sharpest at the long end (assuming that's where you did you cal) and counting on DOF to capture the rest.  If you actually do a cal on both ends of a Nikon zoom lens you usually get significantly different AFFT values.   Sigma allows you, with the dock, to fine tune a lens across a wide spectrum but it is a painstaking process.

Can i ask a question here with regards to calibrating. With Reikan should i measure 150mm and the long end 600mm only?
Rene

I wouldn't use Reikan , at least not in the traditional sense if you have the Sigma dock.

If you use Canon cameras and are not using the dock then yes, do it at 150 and 600 at 20x the focal length distance.

took this a few moments ago after calibrating the lens the other week.   nothing exciting but just checking IQ etc.    techs were D800 and the SIGMA OS S at 1/500 f8 auto Iso  5000.. +0.7 ev.  image quite bit crisper as an original:  (seems to lose it's edge a bit on the upload....that or I need to fathom out the correct level of sharpening to compensate).

Looks totally sharp on this end!

E.J. Peiker wrote:Looks totally sharp on this end!

Have been more than pleased and surprised EJ.  (I've been used to walking all day with a 300 2.8 and this lens is quite compatible to that weight so is no bother at all in that department.   IQ  is very good so am more than pleased, particularly bearing in mind it's versatility too..... for me IQ, then versatility then weight were the priorities in that order and it hits the spot on all counts).   

Hey Dave . . . . any chance we could see a 100% unprocessed crop of the head? Has anyone yet tried this lens with the matching Sigma 1.4x converter? Probably not going to work great, but I am curious how much worse it would be than the Nikon 500 VR with 1.4x.

Tim, I had trouble getting it to an acceptable file size as a pure RAW image, but this is a jpeg copy, unprocessed and unsharpened of the head at 100%. (allowed me to get the size for posting).

Thanks Dave . . . . details look pretty good, especially if it was shot at ISO 5000. I'm still considering selling my 500 VR and replacing it with this lens. Just need to wait for one to show up locally so I can see and test it. My biggest concern is losing the 500 + 1.4x combo. Cost, weight, size and flexibility are really tempting me though. My 500 is getting too big and heavy for me these days.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Thanks Dave . . . . details look pretty good, especially if it was shot at ISO 5000. I'm still considering selling my 500 VR and replacing it with this lens. Just need to wait for one to show up locally so I can see and test it. My biggest concern is losing the 500 + 1.4x combo. Cost, weight, size and flexibility are really tempting me though. My 500 is getting too big and heavy for me these days.

that's alright Tim.  Detail is good considering it's at ISO 5000 and just a bean bag for support on the window cill.  (dropping the ISO naturally puts it in a different ball park).

As EJ mentions, it IS best to spend time calibrating the lens though.  I personally wasn't overly a supporter of that process and mentioned in the past the phrase, "losing the will to live":  throwing aside my pride and stubbornness I accept it is worth the effort.  It doesn't stop or help these types of birds as they are constantly moving and barely in the same position for a mili second, but I do know that the focus is nailed with confidence.  (when checking my lens, the adjustment was quite different at the 150 end and the calibration smarted that up a treat).  

The only down side I can see being the 6.3 at 600, and the loss of the 500 +1.4 option for any that go that way.  For me, the IQ on this lens, versatility and weight make up enough so I'm not dribbling so much after the newer 500 anymore.  

If I was a Nikon user I would be looking at the soon-to-be-announced 200-500mm f/5.6 lens.

Cheers,

Jim

hullyjr wrote:If I was a Nikon user I would be looking at the soon-to-be-announced 200-500mm f/5.6 lens.

Cheers,

Jim

You mean a wealthy Nikon user. For me, I simply cannot afford the price of camera gear anymore, which is one of the major reasons this Sigma appeals to me. I could probably make $4000 on the switch, and likely not notice any IQ difference at all. After seeing Alan praising the new Nikkor 600 FL, I thought for fun I would look it up here in Canada. Needless to say I nearly fell out of my chair. With taxes and shipping, it is over $17,000 CDN, which to me is totally outrageous!! Basically it is making sure that wildlife photography is now only a rich person's sport. Let's keep hoping that Sigma keeps making great affordable lenses so the many photographers like me can stay in the business.

Tim,

This is not a gold-ring model, it looks like a big brother to Nikon's 70-300 model, so the price will not be outrageous. Pay a visit Nikon rumors (sorry EJ!).

Cheers,

Jim

Yup! Wrong forum guys, please head over to Nikonrumors.com to discuss a non-existent mythical lens.  Once it's real, we can open a new thread here.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Thanks Dave . . . . details look pretty good, especially if it was shot at ISO 5000. I'm still considering selling my 500 VR and replacing it with this lens. Just need to wait for one to show up locally so I can see and test it. My biggest concern is losing the 500 + 1.4x combo. Cost, weight, size and flexibility are really tempting me though. My 500 is getting too big and heavy for me these days.

You would be giving up 100mm of field of view (700 with the 1.4 vs. 600).  Of course we all know that 100mm can make a difference. However, if you are shooting with a full frame then picking up a D7200 or used D7100 not only reclaims that lost field of view, but you can go into crop mode and shoot at an additional 1.3x on top of the already present 1.5x crop (and the focus points will nearly cover the entire frame when in 1.3x crop mode). So your 600 becomes a 900mm field of view, which can become a 1170mm field of view! Not a bad converter! Of course, low light capability is another thing...

Another shot after calibration.  using what i consider my default settings. Naturally the D800 and Sigma 150-600 Os S at 600.   1/500 f8 auto iso. ISO 5000.   nr on bg only.  Heavy crop.  (whole image readily available)

I am not as proficient a photographer as many in this forum, but the lens looks to be performing excellently. So, is the photographer, BTW

Mark

I apologize for taking this a bit off topic, but Dave, is ISO 5000 really your default setting? I never ever shoot beyond ISO 800 with my D800 and my "default" setting would be ISO 200 to 400.

Me too, I consider anything above ISO 800 an emergency ISO on almost any camera. My default for birds is 320 and my preference is 200 and landscapes is 64 or 100.

Very good review.

I have the same problem with the Mongoose gimbal head.
There are several "arca swiss" plates that it doesn't close on without adjustment. It is a minor  annoyance.  Not a knock on the Mongoose head, I really like it and I have always been able to adjust it properly. This may just be the nature of the cam type clamp but it is the only one I have so I can't really say. 
I have the same  problem with a Jobu Design QRR-125 screw clamp  and there is no adjusting that.
I  had the opposite problem with a no name brand screw clamp where the jaws wouldn't open wide enough to let some plates enter from the top.  You had to slide those plates  in from the side.  I "adjusted" that one with a bit of grinding. :) 
Never had a problem with my Wimberly side mount gimbal screw clamp.
The "arca swiss" system  is a great idea and i really wish everyone would get on board, but it doesn't appear to be a real standard.  If it is really a standard then the manufacturing tolerances aren't specified tightly enough.    I guess it's also possible  that some of the plates and clamps just use " arca swiss" in there promotional material with out following the standard.

I also think Canon and Nikon should incorporate the  "arca swiss" mount into all their tripod feet.  It is annoying to have to buy a third party replacement foot for a $10,000 lens.   You do have the option of adding a plate to the vendors foot, but that's extra  un-needed weight on an already heavy lens.