sigma 150-600

<p>What's the word on the Sigma 150-600? I've been reading and it seems to review better than the Canon 100-400.<br>

A couple of my friends bought them and swear by them. </p>

 

<p>Which one - the Sports or the Contemporary?</p>

<p>I got the sports. I'm still trying to find literature on the contemporary. Camera shops stock the sports because it costs more. I bought it because I shoot a lot of birds and I needed something more capable of fast-draw shooting.<br>

hj</p>

<p>Comparing on www.the-digital-picture.com , at 400mm and f/8, the Sigma is just a tiny bit softer. Of course, there's no comparison at 600mm! Weight could be an issue at 3.4-lb vs. 6.31-lb. </p>

<p>I don't think it tests better than the 100-400mm II, but people may be saying it is more useful for wildlife as it has a larger zoom range. But there again it is also much larger. I am not even sure that the 100-400mm + 1.4 III is not marginally better than the Sigma at 560mm, but certainly TCs are a pain to add and remove. The main question is whether the AF is up to the same standard as the Canon. From what I have read and heard the answer is it is a close second, so that is good.</p>

<p>I reviewed the Tamron and both Sigma 150-600mm lenses earlier this year (January) in a side my side comparison review for Photo.net, but the review has not yet been published here for some reason.</p>

<p>The Sigma 150-600 C is a good lens. The S version may be a little better. My own review can be found here - http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/sigma_150-600_C_review.html.<br>

My S review can be found at http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/sigma_150-600_S_review.html</p>

<p>After my review, I bought the Sigma 150-600 myself. The Sport version is better built, but is twice the price, significantly heavier, and not really any sharper.</p>

<p>I don't know when the photo.net comparison review(s) will be published. That's out of my direct control.</p>

<p>Nice review Bob. I really enjoyed the bird poop on the roof shot. I often, unintentionally, get the same type of shot. ;-)</p>

<p>The AF time seemed quite slow to me, but I'm using the EF 500/f4 II, which may be a champ in that test, even with the 1.4x TC-III attached. Did the AF time vary with the body used, like when going from a Canon 7D MkII to a 1D-X with a 2x TC mounted on an f/4 lens?</p>

<p>I didn't try any ultrafast AF bodies. I had a 70D, a 6D and an 7D (Mk 1) and I didn't see any difference in AF speed. AF is probably limited by the lens. At f6.3 blazing fact AF probably isn't likely. The Canon primes are faster.</p>

<p>I did try the Tamron 150-600mm last year in July 2015. I am leaning towards Sigma 150-600 mm</p>

Consider the weight and size. Even the worst lens in your backpack is better than the best lens that you left at home due to size/weight.

<p>Sigma just had a firmware update for the 150-600 that increases focus speed. I have the C version and can tell the difference after the upgrade. Do it yourself in 10 minutes with the Sigma Dock.</p>

<p>Thanks. I'm registered. I wonder why I didn't get a notification.</p>

<p>Actually, when it comes to weight. I'm converting a golf cart. I've already modified a wagon. But it makes too much noise.</p>