NatureScapes.net Forums

I am looking at the Sigma 150-600mm and can't decide between the Sport version and the Contemporary version.  

I'm shooting with the Nikon D500 and the D4 and I shoot wildlife and nature pretty much exclusively. I have the Nikon 600mm (11+ lbs plus tripod) but it is so heavy that I'm looking for another lens that still helps me get the reach but allows me to be more nimble and be able to carry it out on long walks (I still love the 600 but it's a different tool in the tool kit)

As I look at the specs and price for the Sport vs Contemporary here's what I see:

Contemporary is not built as well (plastic, not as weather proof) but it's $939 and is 4.3lbs

Sport is solid metal construction, weather sealing sounds great but price is ~$1779 and it's 6.3lbs

For me, fast autofocus is important for birds etc in flight and quality of image is of course critical.

For those of you who know this lens in these two incarnations, how do these two lenses compare in terms of image quality? which would you recommend?  

I have good Gitzo tripods and RRS heads and I use them but I also like to hand hold.

Why did Sigma seemingly make the same lens at different price points? 

If I'm not rough on my lens, am I basically just deciding based on price and weight?  

Is image quality (at 600mm) the same on these?  Do they focus at the same speed (by the name, I would guess that the sport is faster but I haven't found any confirmation of that and even saw some reviews that say the contemporary is better) I'm just so confused over why there are two lenses that seem to be the same.

Twice the price is significant.  Is the Sport version twice the value?  With the pace of technology, no lenses are keepers forever so I expect we'll have to keep upgrading. Is it worth spending twice as much?

All advice and ideas here are welcome.  I do plan to go to the camera shop and put my paws on both lenses to see how they feel in the hand. Image quality and focus speed though are factors that users know best so I hope you all will weigh in!

Thanks in advance,
Nicole

Q. For those of you who know this lens in these two incarnations, how do these two lenses compare in terms of image quality? which would you recommend?
A. The two are different optical formulas and do not offer the same image quality although on a crop sensor camera the difference is much smaller than on a full frame camera as the majority of the image quality improvements are toward the outer parts of the full frame sensor's image.  The Sport is the better lens in every way but it does weigh more and cost more.
 
Q. Why did Sigma seemingly make the same lens at different price points? 
A. One is a consumer grade lens, thus the Contemporary designation and one is built to professional standards, thus the Sport designation.  Manufacturers often make a cheaper consumer grade model of a lens and a more rugged and better performing pro grade of a lens.

Q. If I'm not rough on my lens, am I basically just deciding based on price and weight?  
A. No, as stated above, the lenses are quite different.

Q. Is image quality (at 600mm) the same on these?  
A. No

Q. Do they focus at the same speed?
A. The Sport is a hair faster and tracks slightly better

Q. Is the Sport version twice the value?  Is it worth spending twice as much?
A. Only you can answer that based on the info above

Welcome to NSN and hope this helps!

We have had lots of discussions about these lenses - so searching the forum will give you more info. 

Both are heavy lenses. Rent one to see if you can or want to use it.

Check out my recent post on this very same issue - I think it will help you out a lot: 
 viewtopic.php?f=57&t=266359

Cyber Monday sale $200 off sport and 150 off "C".
Wouldn't let me paste Sigma website

really helpful! Thank you all! I haven't gotten to any decision but am ruling out the C lens (I'm now evaluating if I can get what I want from existing lenses by adding the TC) Lots of ways to think about this

NicoleH wrote:really helpful!  Thank you all! I haven't gotten to any decision but am ruling out the C lens (I'm now evaluating if I can get what I want from existing lenses by adding the TC)  Lots of ways to think about this

One of the many ways to think about this may be the Canon 400/5.6 L. A simple, lightweight lens that is considered by many the perfect BIF lens. It's only handicap is the lack of Image Stabilization.

Now, Sony just released the new a6500 which has a 1.5 crop factor 24 MP sensor with in body image stabilization. I have this camera on order with the intention to use it with the Canon 400/5.6 exclusively, via a Sigma MC-11 adapter. Thanks to the crop factor I will have a lightweight 600mm image stabilized 24MP lens/camera combo that costs less than half of what a new 600mm prime lens costs.

Jens, Nicole shoots Nikon.

Nicole, do not expect the Sigma 150-600 Sport to be anywhere close to your 600 prime with regards to sharpness. Plus you can use a 1.4x converter with your 600mm for more reach, which you cannot do with the Sigma.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Jens, Nicole shoots Nikon.

That doesn't make it illegal to buy a canon lens and a Sony Camera.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Jens, Nicole shoots Nikon.

Plus you can use a 1.4x converter with your 600mm for more reach, which you cannot do with the Sigma.

Sure you can but it has to be the Sigma 1.4x - don't expect great image quality though...

E.J. Peiker wrote: Sure you can but it has to be the Sigma 1.4x - don't expect great image quality though...

Thus, my point exactly! Are you saying you would use the Sigma 1.4x with your 150-600? Somehow I doubt that. My post was to help by being realistic.

Jens Peermann wrote:That doesn't make it illegal to buy a canon lens and a Sony Camera.

Who said it was illegal? Wat I will say is that suggesting that someone spend thousands of dollars on a separate system to what they are currently shooting, is ridiculous. I personally do not see how that helps the original post and question at all.

Tim Zurowski wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote: Sure you can but it has to be the Sigma 1.4x - don't expect great image quality though...

Thus, my point exactly! Are you saying you would use the Sigma 1.4x with your 150-600? Somehow I doubt that. My post was to help by being realistic.

Actually my point was only made because Sigma is currently promoting a bundle where they include the 1.4x so your statement might confuse somebody that saw that offer.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Actually my point was only made because Sigma is currently promoting a bundle where they include the 1.4x so your statement might confuse somebody that saw that offer.

Understood . . . . . I was not aware of that promotional offer. I shouldn't have used the word "cannot" and maybe used "would not".

Tim Zurowski wrote:Jens, Nicole shoots Nikon.

Nicole, do not expect the Sigma 150-600 Sport to be anywhere close to your 600 prime with regards to sharpness. Plus you can use a 1.4x converter with your 600mm for more reach, which you cannot do with the Sigma.

Have to agree, but don't get why it needs saying.  It's pretty obvious... However, what we do is either based on what we want or what we need.  

i've been using the Sport for over a year and a half.  Have not been tempted to go back into Prime territory as my photography doesn't need it.  Were i a professional, that view may change although I would most certainly use the Sigma for much... here is an abstract I took late last fall with a D800.  fine for the internet.  looks on the money large too....   Please feel free to click on the image.   HH in natural light

missed all this. probably no help at all, but here is another with the D800 and Sport.   Just playing with colour.  PS.  have a 24x36 print on this one... late fall 2016.. looks better when image is clicked on...