Sigma 60-600mm Lenstip Review

If these measurements are anything to go by, it looks to be a winner!

 

Sigma S 60-600 mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com

 

AF seems to be very fast and accurate......and it has custom focus limiting, something Nikon should have been doing for ages.

 

To all-intents-and-purposes, it's the same price as the Nikon 200-500mm 5.6

 

Personally, I have no problem with it being a variable aperture lens. Long end is 600mm f6.3, 1/3 stop slower than the Nikon at 500mm, and considerably sharper to boot. In-fact, it's very nearly as sharp wide open at 600mm 6.3 as the Nikon 500mm 5.6 PF.

Edited November 12, 2018 by mike_halliwell

When I purchased the 200-500, the Sigma Sport 150-600 was a strong contender. It lost out because of its substantially higher weight and also the higher price. The new 60-600 weighs a little less than the 150-600 it replaces but is still 400g heavier than the 200-500.

 

With regard to these single-copy lens tests - I don't put much stock into them knowing how much the specs can vary from sample to sample; all those tests tell me is that that particular sample of lens A was better or worse than that particular sample of lens B. Those tests aren't entirely worthless though as they at least give an idea on the overall performance level.

 

While I have no intention of replacing one telezoom with another at this point, I am interested in the 500/5.6E PF VR but am not sure I am ready to give up the flexibility of a zoom for it. But the size and weight advantage are compelling even though the price is a bit steep.

Absolutely true on the limited value of single lenses for tests like these.

 

I wonder why Sigma didn't just make a 600mm f5.6 prime? It's got to be lighter and cheaper than the very complex x10 zoom mechanism. You'd probably save the 1/3 stop just on the number of glass/air interfaces from the lens elements no longer needed.

 

Many of these super zooms seem to be mostly used at the long end, but fully agreed losing the flexibility is a big down side.

Ooow! A 10:1 zoom.

I'll be very surprised if the geometric distortion stays acceptable throughout the zoom range. Just don't get any straight edges in the shot!

 

Also interesting to see that they've move the colour fringing to the short end of the zoom.

"The results we got at 60, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 600 mm are as follows: -0.75%, -0.03%, +0.20%, +0.24%, +0.28%, +0.30%"

 

Not so bad for the DX framing.

 

"At 100 mm we got -0.08%, at 200 mm the aberration was +0.44%, at 300 mm +0.54%, at 400 mm +0.67% and at 600 mm its level amounted to +0.71%."

 

(60mm got -1.77%)

 

Hardly extreme on FX either!!

I wonder why Sigma didn't just make a 600mm f5.6 prime? It's got to be lighter and cheaper than the very complex x10 zoom mechanism. You'd probably save the 1/3 stop just on the number of glass/air interfaces from the lens elements no longer needed.

 

Looking at Roland Vink's Nikon lens serial number database, the Nikon 80-400 AF D, was very successful in terms of number of units sold compared to the sales of lenses such as 400/5.6, 300/4 etc. Granted, 400/5.6 was not autofocus, and 300/4 was AF but not VR. Nonethess the 80-400 wasn't as good optically as the 300/4 and people still bought it. When the Sigma 50-500, Sigma/Tamron 150-600 etc. came on the market the local large camera store shelves were packed with those lenses, which suggests high popularity. In many outdoor events and activities I could seem them widely used (e.g. outdoor concerts, sports events, airplane photography, as well as bird photography). I think the majority of non-professional photographers may find the ease of use (and affordability) of the zooms to be worth the image quality and weight drawbacks. A 600/5.6 would probably not sell as many copies as a 60-600 or 150-600, and this would increase the price per unit.

 

Nikon also have had a success with their 200-500/5.6, however, they're now offering also some lightweight primes with the 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF. The 500 PF in particular seems to have gotten very favourable evaluations from early users so far. The 300 PF has been my favorite long lens for several years and it would be hard to give up on its convenience and portability. I am considering the 500 PF at the moment and would not be persuaded by a heavy zoom lens with a smaller maximum aperture. The Sigma 60-600mm is 2.7 kg, which is a heavy lens! Especially when compared with the 1.5kg 500 PF. However, I don't expect the PF primes to get the same kind of enthusiasm from the wider photographing population as I have for them. Quite many people have expressed a preference for the 200-500, for example. For me the maximum aperture and sharpness wide open are priorities, although recently I've started to stop down by a 1/3 stop to f/4.5 in my use of the 300 PF. I think a 500 which is sharpest wide open at f/5.6 is a much better deal than a 600/6.3 which is sharpest at f/8. But I recognize that I live in a location where the winter months can be very dark and also in the summer I tend to favour late hours in the evening where there is soft beautiful light and animals can be seen at closer range when the light is dim, while keeping their distance when the light is bright.

There was talk around the water cooler of the Nikon patent for a 600mm f5.6 PF....;)

 

Agree with RJ about 'seeing' conditions at long range, but a small bird up a modest tree would benefit from 600mm.

 

Unusually, the 60-600mm is sharpest @ 600mm wide open @ 6.3. But that's still not great for the AF module.

Nikon also have had a success with their 200-500/5.6, however, they're now offering also some lightweight primes with the 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF.

|

|

However, I don't expect the PF primes to get the same kind of enthusiasm from the wider photographing population as I have for them. Quite many people have expressed a preference for the 200-500, for example. .

 

Makes sence ... the price differences betwewen the zooms and the primes are significant, if either Sigma or Nikon would produce a good quality prime in the price range of the zooms, then the cards might get dealt diferently i guess...

Unusually, the 60-600mm is sharpest @ 600mm wide open @ 6.3. But that's still not great for the AF module.

 

Okay, I made a misreading of the graph; it does seem impressive at 600mm. However, I would still like to see 36 MP or 45 MP results instead of 22MP.

 

One aspect which would be nice to know is how well the lens maintains focal length upon close focus. Many of this type of zooms lose focal length more as you focus close than primes do.

Edited November 13, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

I've no idea if focus-breathing can be predicted, but you gotta think a 1:10 zoom range of this scale could be interesting....;)

I've no idea if focus-breathing can be predicted

The minimum focus distance is 0.6m for the Sigma Sport 60-600 and the maximum magnification is given as 1:3.3. At 600mm, a 0.6m MFD ideally (unit focusing) would result in a 1:1 magnification - ergo, the focus breathing gets the focal length down to about 200mm at MFD and the 600mm setting. For the 200-500 the relevant parameters are 2.2m and 1:4.55 - ergo hardly any focus breathing at all (2200/500 = 1:4.4).

Good one Dieter! I knew someone would know...:-)

- ergo, the focus breathing gets the focal length down to about 200mm at MFD and the 600mm setting.

 

- A bit worse than that actually Dieter. The thin-lens formula relating FL to subject distance and magnification is D = f(2+1/m+m) since focussing distance is conventionally given from focal-plane to subject-plane.

 

Excuse me while I consult my calculator.....

 

OK. My calculator and I make that an EFL of just over 107mm. That's not just focus breathing, that's focus hyperventilating!

 

Which makes me wonder. Errrr, does that mean it becomes an 11 mm lens at the short end? Or does the zoom range shrink to bugger-all as well?

Edited November 14, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I think we need someone who actually has the lens to test the focal length at some practical distances, e.g., 5m, 10m, 20m to get an idea of how the angle of view of the lens compares with other lenses in some real-world applications. Also it is interesting to know how the sharpness of the lens varies from close focus to infinity. Anyway, lenstip test at several distances and then present the average in their graphs, it would be nice if they presented that data individually.

Gosh, what a monster!

 

A 10-107mm zoom at MFD, amazing...:confused:

Err, it appears the 60-600 reaches its highest magnification at the 200mm setting, allowing it to focus to just under 2' - so my above estimate for focus breathing is not valid.

Source: In the Field: Sigma 60-600mm f4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Zoom

or directly from the horse's mouth: 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM I S | Sigma Corporation of America "when shooting at the focal length of 200mm, the Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports can also be used for telephoto macro photography, with a maximum magnification ratio of 1:3.3"

 

It appears, the minimum focus distance at 600mm is 2.6m.

Belatedly: I may well have an interest in an affordable 600mm f/5.6 if Sigma are listening. One reason the 150-600 Sport lost out to the 200-500 was that it hits f/6.3 earlier than the 200-500 hits f/5.6 (I believe), and I'd prefer a definite f/8 for autofocus if I'm going to 700mm with the TC14. Other reasons were price and size. Given the 200-500's performance at the 500mm end (okay, not exceptional, not terrible like the 150-500 OS Sigma) I may or may not have made the same decision with hindsight. It's way more usable than the 500mm AI-P, though.

 

I'm not sure I'd ever care enough about the full range to want a slightly iffy 60mm f/4.5 that weighed more than my tripod, though. (I'd always swap lens. Same as my dislike for the 200-400 f/4 - either I want a 400 f/4 or I want something a lot smaller or faster than this lens as a 200mm f/4 - hence my choice of 200/2 and a TC14. Bring back variable aperture!)

One reason the 150-600 Sport lost out to the 200-500 was that it hits f/6.3 earlier than the 200-500 hits f/5.6 (I believe),

 

err.uh. the 200-500 is Always F/5.6 max, is'nt it ?

I think what Andrew means is that as the Sigma 150-600mm is a variable aperture lens 5.6>6.3 and is 'darker' than 5.6 @ 500mm before it reaches 6.3 @ 600mm.

 

or something like that....! ;)

I think what Andrew means is that as the Sigma 150-600mm is a variable aperture lens 5.6>6.3 and is 'darker' than 5.6 @ 500mm before it reaches 6.3 @ 600mm.

 

or something like that....! ;)

 

Yes. Basically, the Sigma would give me an f/6.3 600mm, but with a TC14 attached it would give me an 840mm f/8.8. AF (and diffraction) is kind of at the limit already at f/8, so I didn't want to trust f/8.8 to work, especially since it would already be below f/8 at 700mm. While I usually use my 200-500 bare (and often stopped down to f/8 for actual shooting), I did want the option of 700mm f/8, so I was treating the 200-500 as effectively giving me more reach. Plus I already have a TC14(II) and the Nikkor was cheaper and lighter.

 

Incidentally, I was kind of disappointed by how drab my Yellowstone wolf shots in Hayden Valley are at 500mm + TC14, and was blaming the lens for lack of contrast - but I've just watched an old documentary I had recorded, and pro video equipment has exactly the same problem. So I blame the scene. :-) This may not stop me from wanting to hire an 800mm next time I'm there...

how drab my Yellowstone wolf shots

Have you tried Lab colour enhancements in photoshop?

 

Does wonders for drab...:)

Have you tried Lab colour enhancements in photoshop?

 

Does wonders for drab...:)

 

As in applying (say) a tone curve to the a/b channels? It'd give a bit more control, but otherwise would it be significantly different from tweaking the saturation/vibrance and haze reduction?

You can do some pretty aggressive sharpening in the L channel which bumps up the local contrast.

 

So YES! Do your normal in DxO, but maybe a bit more gentle on the Sat and Vib with maybe 1/2 your normal haze reduction.Default sharpening at this stage doesn't seem to bother it??

 

Then into p.shop and convert to Lab and tone curve a and b and sharpen L.

 

Dilute to taste if it's too punchy...:)

 

If your feeling nerdy... try Photoshop Lab Colo(U)r by Dan Margulis. There's usually a couple 2nd hand around for well under a tenner.

Hmm. I'll have a play. I've used Lab to try to manage worse LoCA than the software would handle by default (selectively blurring the AB channels helped). Effectively I'd have been making a non-HDR but gamut-boosted scene, for better or worse. Maybe I should just go and paint some of Yellowstone's foliage bright green.

 

(Actually, I'd suggested a campaign to go and paint all the rocks bright pink. That would stop the interruption every five minutes while we try to work out whether a rock on the horizon is a wolf...)

Incidentally, I was kind of disappointed by how drab my Yellowstone wolf shots in Hayden Valley are at 500mm + TC14, and was blaming the lens for lack of contrast - but I've just watched an old documentary I had recorded, and pro video equipment has exactly the same problem. So I blame the scene. :) This may not stop me from wanting to hire an 800mm next time I'm there...

 

Yes . . . Nature photographers over the yes have used UV or "haze" filters when shooting across great distances or when shooting at high altitudes. With file this was do to the increased UV at high altitudes and the UV sensitivity of most films. Today, many have forgotten this when shooting digitally because many cameras already have a UV blocking filter over the sensor. However, the cutoffs of these filters vary from camera to camera and the addition of a filter on the lens MAY be significant.