sigma 150-600 contemporary

[dindsy]

hi there,
i'm looking at a new lens for sports and bird . so the 150-600 is in mind.
i am looking at the Sigma contemporary because it gets finance approval sooner. A friend says get the sports.
I've seen some reviews and shots from the c on this forum. Is there any paricular concerns i should be considering with the contemporary?

BTW. its to go on a Nikon D750

thanks

[Derfman]

Fine lens for the money, reach and weight, but not a fast enogh glass or focus to be a true sports or birding lens, - i have the Canon mount version.

The Sport is heavier and more $ without much benefit imho - major benefits of C lens is range to weight ratio and cost.

[paulheath]

sport has weather sealing... C, does not.... i shoot with the 150-600 c , friends shoot with 150-600 S... image quality difference....zero...$$$$ difference...a lot...can you live without weather sealing?....and the arm ache

[Tannin]

The the two biggest factors to consider with the Sport lens, in my view, are:
(a) It is horrendously difficult to hand-hold. It's not the weight (which is quite a lot) it's the balance. A very uncomfortable lens to use unless you stick to a tripod / monopod.
(b) It costs a lot for what you get. Is it really all that much better than cheaper lenses in the same class, considering the extra cost? Possibly not. Alternatively, if you are going to spend that kind of money, consider what else is around. In Canonland, the 100-400 Mark II produces superior images (even after cropping), costs less, is faster, and is vastly easier to use. (You can look up reputable on-line sources to confirm this with your own eyes easily enough if you wish.) The Nikon 80-400 is not in the same class (or so I am told by Nikon people), however Nikon has a cheap but very well regarded zoom in the same general category as the 150-600. Or, if you are prepared to go just a little bit further, you can get excellent second-hand 500mm and 600mm f/4 primes in the $4k to $5k range. These are easier to hand-hold than the 150-600 Sport, not much heavier, and vastly superior in both image quality and ability to work in difficult light.

Don't be misled by the "600" in the model name. 600/f6.3 is inferior to 400/4 in pretty much every way, and not in the same street as 500 or 600/4. (Nikon make an excellent 200-400/4 zoom too, but it's always been very expensive. I suspect that even a second-hand one, the now-discontinued but nevertheless excellent model, would go around 6k, but I'm only guessing that. If you could get one for a price you can manage, you would not be sorry.

[ameerat42]

Tony. I feel you need to clarify the points highlighted bold and yellow below. After your point "b)" the text looks speculative.
Is your implication that you do not own one and have had no direct experience, - or have you?

In the statement beginning "Don't be misled..." what are you referring to as being potentially misleading?

The the two biggest factors to consider with the Sport lens, in my view, are:
(a) It is horrendously difficult to hand-hold. It's not the weight (which is quite a lot) it's the balance. A very uncomfortable lens to use unless you stick to a tripod / monopod.
(b) It costs a lot for what you get. Is it really all that much better than cheaper lenses in the same class, considering the extra cost? Possibly not. Alternatively, if you are going to spend that kind of money, consider what else is around. In Canonland, the 100-400 Mark II produces superior images (even after cropping), costs less, is faster, and is vastly easier to use. (You can look up reputable on-line sources to confirm this with your own eyes easily enough if you wish.) The Nikon 80-400 is not in the same class (or so I am told by Nikon people), however Nikon has a cheap but very well regarded zoom in the same general category as the 150-600. Or, if you are prepared to go just a little bit further, you can get excellent second-hand 500mm and 600mm f/4 primes in the $4k to $5k range. These are easier to hand-hold than the 150-600 Sport, not much heavier, and vastly superior in both image quality and ability to work in difficult light.

Don't be misled by the "600" in the model name. 600/f6.3 is inferior to 400/4 in pretty much every way, and not in the same street as 500 or 600/4. (Nikon make an excellent 200-400/4 zoom too, but it's always been very expensive. I suspect that even a second-hand one, the now-discontinued but nevertheless excellent model, would go around 6k, but I'm only guessing that. If you could get one for a price you can manage, you would not be sorry.

Mark L has had the Canon 100-400 AND the Σ150-600S. Interesting to see what he says.
Paul's advice sounds interesting.

[J.davis]

I have the C and a D750, couldn't be happier.
Sure I would like the big primes, but I have to live to a budget.
I can cart the combo around most of the day without the need of a monopod.

20170825-JOD_0463 by John Davis, on Flickr



20170825-JOD_0483 by John Davis, on Flickr

[Tannin]

Cheers AM.

Costs a lot for what you get? No question of that, AM. You get a clumsy, heavy 570mm lens with an f/6.3 maximum aperture. The quality you gain (with a distant subject) is swallowed up by the loss of shutter speed at f/6.3 and the superior optics of the broadly-similar-price 100-400 II. There are carefully-shot, controlled-conditions comparisons readily available from reputable sources on the web. Come out of the studio and into the field, of course, and the difference becomes more significant as the superior IS, faster focus, and easier handling of the 400mm lens play their part. It costs quite a lot more than other 600ish zooms; it seems to me that if you are willing to spend an extra thousand for the small optical improvement of the Sport over the Tamron and the Contemporary 600s you'd be better served to spend a little more again and get something clearly superior rather than marginally and questionably so.

When I said "don't be misled" I was referring to the distressingly common belief that more millimetres must be better. I really thought we'd got over that "one important number" nonsense ten years ago when we stopped believing that "more megapixels is better" regardless of the other merits of a camera, but it seems not. For bird work (and also for many other similar tasks) focal length is important, but aperture is critical too. There is a huge difference between using an f/5.6 lens and an f/4 one. Focus on the small aperture lens is slower, less certain, and less accurate. Your ability to control depth of field is reduced; your viewfinder image is dimmer and less clear; your ability to shoot in less than perfect light is significantly restricted; and your ability to shoot in downright bad light sinks to pretty much zero. And that's comparing one stop: with the f/6.3 zooms you are another third of a stop down. That is well worth avoiding if at all possible.

I don't own a Sigma Sport. I have however borrowed a number of different Sigma f/6.3 zooms as far back as the Bigma of ten years ago, and not been impressed by any of them. As so often in real life, "something for nothing" solutions like the big f/6.3 deliver a good deal less than they promise. Just as the Sigma Sport achieves nothing that you can't do at least as well with a cheaper, lighter, vastly better handling 100-400 II, so too did the clumsy old Bigma fail to better the 100-400 Mark 1. These types of lenses promise a lot more than they deliver.

Does it mean that a good photographer can't take good pictures with one? Hell no! These lenses can and do produce excellent results. Any photographer worth his salt can adapt to whatever gear he has at hand. Just the same, it saddens me to see people waste good money on an over-rated, mediocre lens just because it says "600" on the box.

I won't bother repeating myself as regards the light-and-day difference between the likes of a 150-600/6.3 and any of the big primes. See this thread for both words and examples: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...aithful-friend

I do, however need to make a correction to some of my earlier comments: back when I considered (and rejected) a 150-600 Sport (not so long ago), they were roughly $3000. I see that Sigma have dropped the price now to a much more sensible $2400 or so. That is more like it. The 100-400 II is now $200 more than a Sigma Sport. (Worth every penny, mind you.) To step up to a good big second-hand prime you'd have to add the best part of a couple of thousand now. It's more than worth the extra and I would not hesitate for a millisecond if I had the cash, but it is a substantial difference.

But of course you can't use a 100-400 II with a Nikon body, and there is (as yet) no Nikon equivalent. (The 80-400, good lens though it is, is not in the same league, and has a downright stupid price.) Given that, the Sigma Sport becomes a more sensible proposition, and may well be worth paying the extra for over a cheaper equivalent. ($2400 is not $3000!) Finally, I note that the Nikon 200-500/5.6 is $500 cheaper than the Sigma sport. It's 80-odd millimetres shorter, but it's a third of a stop faster (which is worth 50mm every day of the week), much lighter, a bit less bulky, and couldn't possibly have such bad handling. (Well, one would hope not.) I don't know how it compares optically, but I would most certainly check it out.

[Glenda]

Nikon Nellie has the 200-500 f5.6 and is very impressed with it. I remember her saying that changing from the Sigma 150-500 to the Nikon how much more detail she was getting in her bird shots. I vaguely remember Mongo also mentioning he had or had shot with that lens also. Might be worth sending a PM to get their opinion if they don't see this thread.

[dindsy]

Thanks John,
good to see some actual results. Nice shots too. The review i saw was a guy taking air show photos. Very high speed targets and he shared the raw shots. They were very good to my eye and level of experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks all for the feedback and commentary back and forth.

Thanks Glenda i might check out the 200-500 and look for posts on those.

Tannin,
A very detailed expose on lenses. The problem it seems there are so many choices with a bit this way or that. For mere mortals that can only convince the minister of finance for a limited budget there has to be compromise. And my brownie points are way up at the moment as i renovate the laundry myself saving thousands $$$.

cheers all.

[arthurking83]

.... For mere mortals that can only convince the minister of finance for a limited budget there has to be compromise. ....

Would be nice if we could all afford, or justify, ~$4K secondhand prime lenses, but the reality is that we have to live with reality!

I'd say go with the Sigma C .. and be happy.

I have the S model, and don't mind handholding for a few hours, or so, on and off.
I find monopods to be more of an annoyance than an asset, so tend to use tripods instead.

I remember chasing one particular little tweety type bird for approx 20mins or so continuously, and my arms were basically shot holding D800 + Sigma Sport up to eye level for that length of time.
Camera+Lens is actually easy to carry around with it's well designed tripod foot.

I'd say that the Sigma C will be easier than the S model for the above usage scenario.

if you do get the Sigma, be sure to include the price of the USB dock as well. You may well not ever need or use it, but if you don't have it and NEED it .. you're going to kick yourself.
The dock is not only useful with some of the tweaks you can set for your self and usage needs, but it also does firmware updates from the relative comfort of your PC setup .. as opposed to the much more tedious method that first party manufacturer's force upon you in jumping through multiple hoops!

Between the three choices of lens at that end of the market(Sigma C, Tamron 150-600, and Nikon 200-500) .. I don't think you['d go wrong with any of them.

[Tannin]

Would be nice if we could all afford, or justify, ~$4K secondhand prime lenses, but the reality is that we have to live with reality!

Nonsense Arthur. Complete tosh.

Practically anyone here can afford a new f/4 prime, never mind a second-hand one. You just have to have a sense of priorities.

But people go on drinking take-away coffee Two cups a day = 2 * $5 * 5 days a week * 52 weeks = a brand new 600/4 in five years. Just for making your own coffee! It's not hard.

Learn to cut your own hair. That's not hard either, even easier if you get someone in your family to do it for you. There is a thousand bucks every two or three years, just waiting for you to save it.

How many shirts do you need in a year? Eight or ten? There is $500. I get them from the op shop. I spend $10 on shirts for a year. Easiest money I ever saved.

Grow your own vegetables: saves hundreds every year, keeps you fit, calms your soul, and saves quite a few hundred dollars. And you get to eat far better, healthier, tastier fruit than you will ever see in a supermarket in a hundred years.

Drive your old car a year or two longer instead of trying to keep up with your neighbour's new model. There is another $2000 saved a year.

Learn how to cook. Eat out for a meal? Average cost $20 to $50. Make it yourself: $3. $5 if you want to be extravagant.

Stop putting things on credit card. Wait a few weeks and pay cash. save anywhere between a few hundred and several thousands a year.

Eat less meat. The average Australian eats 4 or 5 times more meat than is healthy. And it's expensive! Have a couple of meat-free days each week and you feel healthier, live longer, smell sweeter, enjoy life more. And you save a lot of money.

Cancel that Foxtel subscription. It's costing you hundreds of dollars a year and, let's face it, the programs are rubbish. Three years of cancelled Foxtel = the difference between a 150-600/6.3 and a good condition used 500/4.

Turn off the aircon! What are you, a whimp? This is Australia. It's a hot country. Get used to it. Aircon costs you thousands of dollars, both to buy and to run. If you are under 60 and you can't live without it, stop asking questions, you are a whimp and you don't deserve a nice lens.

And I haven't even mentioned the insane sums people spend on new carpet (around about the price of a 400/4 DO II for an average suburban house, and that's cheap carpet.) Or curtains. Or exercise equipment they use three times and then throw in the shed. Or paying other people to mind the children, weed the garden, clean the house, wash the dog. Or the ridiculous size of the McMansions most people buy.

Or the fact that, simply by moving to a nicer part of Australia than Sydney or Melbourne (which is pretty much all of it, after all) and buying one of the best houses in that town (rather than the below-average one you get for 1.1 million in Sydney), over your 30-year mortgage you save enough to buy eighty three 500/4 lenses with a 300/2.8 in change. Go on, don't take my word for it, do the sums for yourself. Look up the median house price in Sydney, assume a 10% deposit, assume a sensible interest rate (I used 5%, which you'd be absolutely dead lucky to get over 30 years, but let's be generous and assume it anyway) and do the sums. In Sydney, over the 30 years, you are paying a total of $1,932,577.84. (Melbourne is not a whole lot better.) Now get out into the real Australia - you might have to take a bit of a pay cut, who cares? You will have healthier kids, a better lifestyle, a bigger back yard, and $300,00 will buy you a nice little house; $600,000 will get you one of the best, most luxurious houses in town. Let's say you go with the beautiful $600,000 mansion (it will be about equal to a $1.8 million house in Sydney - we aren't talking wooden shacks here) and you pay that same 10% deposit and take that same 30-year mortgage. Your total cost over the 30 years: $966,278.92. You have just saved a cool million bucks, or 83 Canon or Nikon 500mm f/4L IS II lenses with a 300/2.8 thrown in.

Don't tell me you "can't afford" a nice lens. That's bull. You can afford any lens you want. You just have to decide whether you'd rather have a fantastic lens or drink McDonalds coffee every day. It's not hard.

[ameerat42]

Nonsense Arthur. Complete tosh.

Practically anyone here can afford a new f/4 prime, never mind a second-hand one. You just have to have a sense of priorities. ...
...
...
Don't tell me you "can't afford" a nice lens. That's bull. You can afford any lens you want. You just have to decide whether you'd rather have a fantastic lens or drink McDonalds coffee every day. It's not hard.

What a LITANY of LASCIVITIES I had to omit simply to save space!
However, I retained the conclusion to them in your final sentence.
I wonder how people should afford such a good lens who already abide by your
proscriptive list. Perhaps they should add sackcloth and ashes, wearing a hair shirt,
and practising self-flagellation? Clearly, AK must change his ways!

Anyway, no matter what, I "cannot afford a nice lens" at the moment because of
"recent other financial reasons", so I wonder if I may prevail upon your implicit
beneficence to get one for me?

I am, in advance, greatly obliged to you for this.

m.

PS: Sorry for the TOSH!

[arthurking83]

....

Don't tell me you "can't afford" a nice lens. That's bull. You can afford any lens you want. You just have to decide whether you'd rather have a fantastic lens or drink McDonalds coffee every day. It's not hard.

LOL! I know I can afford a nice s/h prime lens .. the problem is I can't afford to have a $4K lens .. it's just in my personality to spend $4K on one lens, when I can have 2 or three different types of lenses for that kind'a money.

eg. Sigma contemporary lens, plus a 12-24, and maybe even throw in a 135/1.8, or their new 105/1.4.

Something about eggs and baskets comes to mind .. but my mind wanders so randomly, I can't remember how to put those two variables into the context I'm trying to convey!

ps. I'm stuck with Maccas coffee for the forseeable future .. it's about the only place you can park a 50+ foot truck(legally).
ps(1). Maccas coffee is still better than 'depot' coffee .. and ..
ps(2). where the options exists(some BPs), Olivers chai lattes are my preferred alternative.

pps. shirsts cost me $30 over the last 3 years
ppps. eating out is a treat I allow ourselves every so often(with the kids)
pppps. whats an aircon .. is that a ceiling fan that cons you into wasting $$$s?
ppppps. the concept of "eat less meat" is Greek to me! .. I have Greek heritage, and being a Geek(ie. a Greek Geek) .. that input that makes a sound similar to "eat less meat" simply does not compute!
damned! I lost count of how may 'p's before the 's' for the next one ... anyhow .. you've seen my hair .. haircuts don't apply(actually! ... don't work!! )

Back to the topic at hand tho(for the OP) .. from my playing with the two at the store(that is the S and the C lenses) .. the S lens is 'more substantial' .. larger and heavier, but it feels very solidly built compared to the C lens.
More solid as in build quality, tighter feeling tolerances, and maybe the ability to take knocks without impacting performance as much.

[NikonNellie]

I have the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 and I love it. I am impressed with its sharpness and I love that I can have a constant aperture of 5.6 all the way through to the 500mm focal length. I looked at the Sigma lenses also but in the end I bought the Nikkor on recommendation from AP member Mongo.

[bobt]

Well ...... having just been through this process, and prevaricated for weeks - I just bought a Sigma 150-600 contemporary and I'm very happy.

I haven't yet done a huge amount with it, but i have done enough to know that I think I made the right choice.

I already have the shorter ranges covered, but I had nothing over 200. I thought a 600 might be just too big, but for the shots that warrant it, I think it's a good choice. It can be hand held, and it does have pretty good resolution for a lens that's almost affordable.

The sports version is too heavy, too costly and not really worth the extra unless you really need better sealing and a stronger lens. I look after my lenses, I don't take them near sand and I am careful how I handle them. I don't bash them around like some, and so I figure that I'll be more likely not to need the extra strength and weight of the sports model.

In terms of cost, I found the going price was around $1400. Ted's camera store had them on special for $1280 but when I walked in with cash they told me the special ended the day before. I went online and bought it for $1080, and it arrived from Hong Kong in a week. I'm very happy, and I think most people would be. It's not an everyday lens to carry around as it's still a big lens - but for those occasions when you want the length - it's good value and quality.

[Bensch]

Have had the 150-600 contemporary for almost a year now, and hasn't let me down yet

The only trouble I find is that it feels a bit "front heavy" when at 600mm, but that could also be due to the lightweight body on the other end.

Overall, a fantastic lens at a good price


Not the world's best photographer by any means, but here's one shot with the contemporary that is a favourite of mine.

DSC_8636 by andrewbensch, on Flickr

[cookey]

Was thinking of getting the 15-600 sports but after getting more information think I will go for canon 100-400 plus I already have a 1.4 converter.

[ameerat42]

You lose a stop of exposure with the 1.4X, but if that's not a problem... Check the TC compatibility table
for your intended lens to make sure the TC transmits ALL functions.

Another thing: doesn't that lens LACK a tripod collar?

[Tannin]

An excellent choice! the 100-400 II is one of those very rare lenses which, overnight, make all others in its class obsolete, and which competitors are unable to match for years. (Another example is the Nikon 14-24, which came out ages ago and has only recently been matched by the likes of Canon and Sigma.) As is probably always the case with these instant classics, there is no one thing that makes them stand head and shoulders above the crowd, it is the combination of many factors.

No f/5.6 lens will autofocus with a 30D using a converter. Some people claim good results with a 100-400 II and a converter using one or another of the various modern bodies which will AF at f/8. I tend to disagree. (To be fair, I would try harder with teleconverters on my 100-400 II if I didn't have longer, faster lenses to use instead of it in case of need.)

However, you will get the same effect as using a teleconverter, without any of the downside, by replacing your 30D (wonderful old thing that it is - Rick seems to have disappeared all the older threads but I once posted a long one with examples in tribute to my wonderful old 20D) with something that has better pixel density such as a 7D or a 7D II. With a converter you will get horrible sluggish focus (if any at all), a loss of contrast (small but noticeable), a modest loss of sharpness, and a severe hit to your shutter speeds - f/5.6 is bad enough for birding, you certainly don't want to go backwards from there. With something like a 7D, on the other hand, you will get equal or better effective reach, vastly faster focus, and significantly sharper pictures.

All Canon 100-400s (new model and old), by the way, do indeed come with a tripod collar. AM is probably thinking of the Sigma 100-400, which not only doesn't come with one but does not provide for one as an optional extra. Last time I checked (a couple of months ago) you couldn't even get one from a third-party manufacturer. In my book, that makes it a no-go zone. (I have a half-memory that Tamron, who ought to know better, recently pulled the same stupid stunt with one of their new lenses. No-one knows why.)

The 100-400 II is far and away the best birding lens you can buy this side of the nosebleed-priced Big Whites and their Nikon equivalents. Buy with confidence.

[Hawthy]

Or the fact that, simply by moving to a nicer part of Australia than Sydney or Melbourne (which is pretty much all of it, after all) and buying one of the best houses in that town (rather than the below-average one you get for 1.1 million in Sydney), over your 30-year mortgage you save enough to buy eighty three 500/4 lenses with a 300/2.8 in change. Go on, don't take my word for it, do the sums for yourself. Look up the median house price in Sydney, assume a 10% deposit, assume a sensible interest rate (I used 5%, which you'd be absolutely dead lucky to get over 30 years, but let's be generous and assume it anyway) and do the sums. In Sydney, over the 30 years, you are paying a total of $1,932,577.84. (Melbourne is not a whole lot better.) Now get out into the real Australia - you might have to take a bit of a pay cut, who cares? You will have healthier kids, a better lifestyle, a bigger back yard, and $300,00 will buy you a nice little house; $600,000 will get you one of the best, most luxurious houses in town. Let's say you go with the beautiful $600,000 mansion (it will be about equal to a $1.8 million house in Sydney - we aren't talking wooden shacks here) and you pay that same 10% deposit and take that same 30-year mortgage. Your total cost over the 30 years: $966,278.92. You have just saved a cool million bucks, or 83 Canon or Nikon 500mm f/4L IS II lenses with a 300/2.8 thrown in.

Hmm...Checked your figures. You overstated the Sydney scenario by $20. It is actually $1,932,557.84. Sloppy work.

The $600K house less a $60K deposit over 20 years at 5% equals a total amount repayable of $1,043,581.24 according to my financial calculator ( the venerable HP12C). You used a $100K deposit on the $600K house scenario.

On the flipside, if you invested the $4,000 that you were going to spend on the lens in the Australian Share Market for 30 years, assuming historical returns that average 9.96% pa, you would wind up with $78,410.85 less capital gains tax. I am not sure if this rate includes dividends and franking credits.