Sigma Sports 150-600mm

$2K - that's a lot of tote bag sales.

Thats dirt cheap for a 600mm

Shot with one for a few minutes, tried out a friends. I was pretty impressed with what I got back from a sharpness and IQ perspective. Its not a Canon L, but its not priced like one either.

LOL, Edward. It's certainly not pocket change!

If I live to be 100 I'll never recoup costs through sales. I'd love this to be a profitable venture but I'm a realist and the reality is I love photography but my work is not outstanding and won't be competitive even with the most expensive equipment. The thing that pushes me to keep wanting bigger and better is that I'm disappointed in output and hope better equipment would help. In many cases it does but the improvement had better be rather dramatic for me to shell out 2 grand for a lens.

Thomas, you're right about the price of quality glass. I wish I could afford their 300-800 but even if I could, I'm not interested in having to use a tripod. That's my concern with the 150-600 also. I get sharp captures hand-held with my 50-500 but it is much lighter than the sports lens. If I can't hold the sports lens steady I don't want it.

ETA: Thomas, if you're impressed with its quality, that means a lot.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html

This would be the Canon equivalent......

My most bang for the buck lens is my old Canon 50mm 2.5 macro. But if wildlife is your thing, sounds like you need to rent it and test it out.

Heavier lenses actually can be shot handheld much easier than light lenses....same reason a heavy rifle is more accurate than a light one.

Its carrying them around that stinks, but when its time to shoot, heavy all the way.

FWIW the Sigma may be my next lens. I can't talk myself into the 10k Canon, but 2k to be able to start playing in the wildlife game is probably worth to me at some point.

When you tried it out, did you use it on a tripod or hand-held?

Heavy all the way may be great if you are a strong man but I am a senior female and my upper body strength ain't what it used to be.

Handheld, we were in bright light so I was holding 1/1000 shutter speeds at just ISO 200, hand holding was not a problem and I got really sharp images, but I do pretty well hand held as well, those 14 hour wedding days toting at 5dIII and a 70-200 make my wrists pretty strong.

If I was going to use it a lot though I would probably get a monopod.

"but my work is not outstanding and won't be competitive"

With all due respect, that is nonsense. I see things on the sold page here all the time that are no more "outstanding" then most of yours. Artist are their own worst critics and should maybe do more work on their confidence level as well as their artistic skills.

Apply my fastest gun in the west philosophy:

The bad news is, no matter how good any of us are or get, there will always be someone better.

The good news is, no matter how bad some of us are, there will always be someone worse.

But the best news is that none of that matters because there are plenty of buyers out there that don't care about any of that and they just simple buy what they like when they see it. Getting them to see it is the trick.

If you have problem with the weight get a monopod, let it hold the weight for you and use your arms to aim it.

Thats what most people who lug behemoths around do.

I don't hate monopods with the same passion as I do tripods. There's a Bogen rattling around somewhere in the truck that came in handy once when I was too shaky from not eating.

Years ago I used a double on the film camera I had. I was doubling a 300 to get 600. Was not that happy with it. Anyone using a double on a 200 to get 400 with any success?

Kathleen,

I considered that lens, but the weight of it put me off, too. I ended up getting the Tamron 150-600 and I'm quite pleased with it. I probably would have gotten the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary if it had been released at the time I got my Tamron. Is there a reason you aren't considering the lighter Sigma?

Also, I understand what Thomas is saying about heavier being better, but birds never seem to appear in a place where the angle is comfortable to shoot. Standing still, aiming upward, while waiting several minutes for a bird to fly or whatever you want it to do can be very difficult with a heavy lens.

Floyd, thank you. I think. Yes, I see some godawful stuff sell here but I wonder if those photographers sell enough godawful stuff to make a dent in their expenses.

Don't want to derail this completely by turning it into a "how to promote" thread but I really don't understand how people promote and sell through Facebook or even to gain followers for that matter. Pushing product ad nauseam seems like it would be more of a turnoff to potential customers yet I know people sell that way. Anyway, back to the lens...

There is the contemporary version that is quite a bit cheape and lighter, but from reviews I have seen the image quality is pretty close to the sport version. I think the sport has a slight edge wide open but stopped down they are pretty close. As far as auto focus goes, I am assuming the sport might be a little better but not sure. The sport is professionally weather sealed so if you shoot in extreme conditions that might sway you. There is also the Tamron 150-600 as well which from what I read is no slouch either.

Oops, already mentioned. Late to the party sgain.

Hi Loree! I so wish I was where you are right now!

You're right, holding a heavy lens at an awkward angle for any length of time takes a toll. I spent days shooting into tree canopies and often would miss the best shots because my arms needed a rest right at that critical moment.

The Contemporary is actually a tad lighter than my current lens and after reading about the difference in construction and elements between the Contemporary and the Sports, I decided that buying the Contemporary would only give me another 100mm reach without improving IQ. I may be wrong about that but after reading the hype on the Sports model the extra bucks and weight may be justified. At this point I'm still learning and evaluating. Another thing I'm looking for is very fast focus and, especially in shady situations, there's no time to wait for a lens to hunt.

That's OK, Mark. I'm always a few posts behind.

Well, not many birds around where I am right now, but the scenery is amazing!

FYI, I noticed my Tamron actually focuses faster in lower light than in bright sun. Not sure why the bright light throws it off, but maybe because there's less contrast between the subject and the background. Now if I could just get it to ignore the tree branches and focus on the bird! LOL

Here are the Ephotozine reviews for both the sport and the contemporary. Look at the mtf charts side by side and you'll see how close they really are in image quality. Yes, the Sport is better at 600 but only marginally. I dare say you would really have to pixel peep to see the difference. Granted, charts aren't everything but at least is gives you a reference to compare the two.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-contemporary-review-27247
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens-review-26786

Thanks, Mark! It's not that I don't want to save $900 bucks it's just that I don't want to spend $1,100 for an extra 100mm if the image quality is no better than the 50-500. I'm actually pleased with the quality of the 50-500 but that may be because of the camera. I know everyone says that good glass is more important than camera body but I can see a vast difference in quality between shots taken with the T4i and the 7d Mark II, using the 50-500 on both bodies.

"If I live to be 100 I'll never recoup costs through sales."

Yes you will. No reason to doubt that.

Probably cheaper to buy a bird and then photograph it in the studio. ;-) Probably why I don't do bird photography (unless they fly into my window).
....
Larger sensor means more info so you can crop more but the trade off would be shallower depth of field.

I am pretty sure any of the new 150-600's are going to be somewhat better IQ than the 50-500. But I guess that is where you have to make the choice of what is more important. You will be compromising somewhat either way. I would rent the contemporary and shoot with that and the 150-1500 and compare. If you don't think the difference is enough that try the sport. You may find that isn't a whole lot better either.

Here's a couple more now that I'm not posting from my phone.

Loree,

Do you have any at 500-600mm? The reason I ask is that DP review and other sites had discussion of the stabilization not working in that range and the lens not being sharp in that range. Here is the initial test by DP review: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron-150-600-5-6p3 Go through some of the comments but beware....I don't trust many of them and judge images I see at the 500-600mm focal length.

Tamron did just announce a firmware update to the stabilization mostly for Canon bodies....so perhaps that fixed some of the issues.

That's weird, usually lenses do better on crop sensors than full frame, but looks the opposite in this review. Maybe it is because they are using an older camera, 7D, instead of the newer ones.

Roman, the hummingbird above is a 500mm, the great egret and the geese are at 550mm. I may have some at 600mm, but today is a travel day for me so I don't have time to search. And it's unlikely that I have too many because, like Kathleen, I tend to back off a bit from the full zoom length. In my experience, most all long zoom lenses (at least the ones I can afford!) tend to lose a little sharpness at the long end. Since there's not a whole lot of difference in the final shot between 550 and 600, I usually keep it around 550mm at the most. One thing I noticed about the Tamron that's really nice is it doesn't creep like my Sigma did. (I used to shoot with the Sigma 150-500mm)

I've not had any problem with the stabilization, but I shoot with Nikon bodies, so maybe it was only a Canon problem?

Here's another at 550mm:

It could be and that is why I judge images! You could go crazy reading reviews!!! If an image is shot at those long focal lengths.....then that goes away.

Here is the firmware announcement on FM: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1296983

As you can see.....many people were having issues even though Tamron denied it. Comments are interesting but remember....need to be taken with a grain of salt!

It does seem to say it was a Canon issue Loree......so good news on the sharpness!

Well, to my eye Loree's eagle is a perfect capture. If I were to ever achieve that I could die happy.

Other than limited focal length with my 50-500, my main complaint is that when a subject is close enough for me to fill the frame when shot at 500mm, the capture is too soft to be usable. That may be in part because it's shot handheld but if I back off to 450mm it becomes acceptably sharp. I'd like a lens that can be pushed to it's limits and still be tack sharp in the center.

I'm not sure such a lens exists for $1-2K. I know my Tamron can produce tack sharp images up to at least 500 or 550mm. Any lack of sharpness in those images is due to my lack of skill, not the lens. Above 550mm it does get a bit softer, but that's something I can live with. I usually end up cropping anyway, whether it's to eliminate extra space or just to make it a better composition.

lol Kathleen. Shot some more with the lens today, Hand-held I am at a "Keep" rate of just over 50%. Of course I keep tons of shots I will never look at again...lol. It is still heavy, lol. I am looking at getting a stabilizing harness, or even making one to use with it.....holding it up to get birds high in trees makes the "Shake rate" much worse. Maybe you should "rent" a few different lenses before you make your decision about which one to get?

This is one from today, at 600mm, hand-held-was overcast.

Alicia,

Maybe a monopod might help. I don't have one anymore,since I always have a tripod,even for birds,

Rich

This won't help when you shoot, but walking around it will help carry that beast a lot easier and gives quick access when you see something to shoot. It gives your arms a rest when not shooting. I have it and it was very helpful when I had my 150-500 lens. It is kind of expensive but well worth it. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=836946&gclid=CLmb87SomcYCFUEUHwodlR4A3Q&Q=&m=Y&is=REG&A=details

Thanks for the link to the carrier vest, Mark, I really like that it's cotton so won't add to the sweatiness of hiking a hot trail. Cost of $150 when weighed against neck and shoulder pain doesn't sound all that bad.

Kathleen, I was going to send you the link to Cotton Carriers but see that Mark beat me to it...they're made by Andy Cotton, a photographer who lives in my neck of the woods. I don't own one but don't really need it (yet). Here's his website http://www.cottoncarrier.com/

I got a monopod yesterday to use until I can get something like the cotton carrier, and OMG. I can't post the newest pics from yesterday due to not being at home due to my mother being in the hospital and having limited access, but I shot a cardinal at 500-he was probably 25+yards away and is so clear I could not believe it. My jaw dropped at 100% magnification. If he had been crying I would have been able to see his wee bird tears. Def going to look at the cotton carrier-just have to figure out a way to keep the hubs from seeing it, he saw the monopod and nearly had a coronary (I did not tell him that it was a small piece of a 2 in one tripod mono i bought.......:) he does not understand my photo addiction, probably because I do not share any of my photo profit with him.....lol (not being mean, he just gets my entire paycheck from my "real" job, so my photobux are mine mine mine.....

It is quick too.

Interesting that they would make those vests out of cotton. When my daughter was getting ready for her college course in Indonesia, the first thing they told everyone was no cotton clothes as they do not wick in the high humid conditions-they absorb and thus stay wet. I'd think the vests would be of a wicking blend.

Louise, I'm not sure that they are made of cotton, though I'd assumed they were at first because "Cotton" is part of the brand name.

I never noticed it making me uncomfortably hot while wearing it. I guess I was just so relieved to be hand and neck free it never mattered so much. Funny, I didn't know that is why it is called the Cotton Carrier, I figured it was cotton. I just looked at mine, it is actually 70% polyester, 30% nylon.

Mark, the vest description says, "The system is designed for the photographer who carries a DSLR with battery grip." I don't have a battery grip on my cameras. Would you know if that means I can't use the vest without using a battery grip?

I don't use a battery grip and it works fine. I think it means that it even works with a battery grip. Sorry for the late reply.

Mark, I just bought the vest with the Steady Shot at AvidMax. With their price and another 10% off coupon for signing up for their newsletter I saved $89.32 over B&H. Keeping my fingers crossed that it works well. Thanks again for the recommendation. I know people will look at me funny with a table and camera sticking out of my chest but they look at me funny anyway.
http://www.avidmaxoutfitters.com/p-4993-cotton-carrier-steady-shot-with-camera-vest.aspx?CA_6C15C=130003200000030958

I have a vest like the cotton carrier and I love it - hands free and neck free like Mark says - I don't have any issues with the Sigma 150-500 weight, don't use a tripod

I don't use a tripod either with the 50-500 but it does get heavy after several hours of hiking and shooting. I'm interested in seeing if the "steady shot" platform will be of any use. Can't really visualize how to aim it up, down or sideways. In any case, the vest should be a great help. Usually I keep the other camera with the wide angle lens in my backpack when I'm hiking if I'm primarily using the camera with the long lens but in places where I'm using both a lot, I have them both hanging on my neck and even though I cradle the heavier one, my neck and arm take a beating.

Let me knopw how it works. Do they sell the steady shot separate? I don't need it yet but when I get another super zoom, whatever that may be, I might be interested. It would save having to carry a monopod aroung.

I can't wait to hear how you like your vest Kathleen. I am looking at a few options and the vest is certainly on the list. I am currently using a tool belt and half-poding, but have a cheap head on the pod so it is slow and hard to tilt to 90 degrees if I need to for birdies.

Yes, Mark, the steady shot is sold separately but it's $199 by itself at AvidMax and $219 at B&H. That's why I thought paying $229.68 for the vest and the steady shot combo was a really good deal. It's like getting the vest for less than $30 if you look at it that way.

I'm heading off to shoot a heron rookery and wish I had it already. Last time I was there I had to lie on my back to shoot into the canopy. Too snaky there for my comfort zone.

Alicia, I'll post an update when I've had a chance to use it. B&H recommends buying a universal hubless adapter plate to go with it but the guy at AvidMax said it isn't necessary. I'm not the least bit mechanical so it will be a kick to see if I can even figure out how to put it together, let alone not wear it upside down.

Here's a video of how it works, if I can get the link to work