This one is based on the new mirrorless sport version that came out for L and E Mount sometime in 2021. So yes, different from the ‘Contemporary’ and ‘Sport’ variants that were released for the EF and F Mounts(HSM). What stumps me is the pricing on this rebadged Sigma. The Sigma 150-600 DG DN can be had for 1500 USD. This lens is exactly the same, down to the lens elements, button placements. The IPX1 weather sealing is carried over from the DG DN and so is the stabilisation. The L Mount variant has close to 6 stops of stabilisation when used with Lumix bodies. So I don’t really understand OM’s pricing.
ahh I do but people will not probably like it. OM like other smaller cameras are hurting for cash. This has a large profit margin just my guess and since it is M43 there are no other lens with this mount that competes for the reach of 1200mm at F6.3... Just my guess , is it price gauging i would say so but what else can you do lol go with the 7500.00 150-400 and built in TC ?? Thanks again for watching and commenting.
Why does everyone assume this lens is the exact same as the Sigma mirrorless sport, except with m43 mount and an OMS label? What is this assumption based on? Where is the evidence for it? Now unfortunately OMS's deal with Sigma is likely under an NDA, so OMS can't reveal what exactly they've done to improve the lens. But of course they would have to upgrade the lens because (1) they have higher standards for their lens (kit lenses excepted) than Sigma; and (2) the m43 platform demands higher standards because of the smaller sensor size. But how would OMS upgrade a pre-designed lens? The most obvious way is by upgrading the quality of the glass used in the design. And with a little detective work, we can actually confirm one instance where OMS has in fact done this. Sigma has put six low dispersion elements in the lens. Now third party companies like Tamron and Sigma will use as inexpensive low dispersion elements as they can get away with. Sigma uses four FLD elements and two SLD elements. Both of these are regular low dispersion elements, essentially of the lowest tier of this type of glass. OMS updated the four FLD elements to four super extra low dispersion elements and the two SLD elements to two extra low dispersion elements. Now if they've updated those six low dispersion elements, they've likely updated additional elements. They've also updated the coatings (which in a 25 element lens can be expensive), and I would hazard to guess they had to put their own shake reduction mechanism to make the sync image stabilization work. All this costs money, which is why the lens is so much more expensive than the original Sigma it's based on.
@@gregnyquist7714 You mention the FLD element updates as proven, as well as the coatings. I have not seen any reviews that actually perform a comparison on the Sigma L mount version to the OM Version. I am curious (forgive me) whether you are assuming or if I just haven't seen the comparison. I would appreciate a link or what to search for here. With the obvious carbon-copy exterior it is actually very reasonable to assume this is in fact the same lens with a new mount, lacking specific evidence to the contrary.
The biggest issue in my opinion is that I can get nearly equivalent reach, when you consider pixel density and focal length, for the SAME PRICE, using an R5 and 200-800. And for that price, you get superior Canon AF, and you can crop to any section of that 4x larger sensor. Yes, the readout speed is better on OM1(and blackout free), but the price is overbearing.
Yea, i had those thoughts as well. Overall depends on your parameters that you use for success. Canons focus is the best even in R10/R7 unbelievable bang for the buck. That being said m43 where it shines is the OM5 super light body with a 100-300 and digital teleconverters for 120mm reach along with lot of in-camera computational photography So yea on the on-set of better systems and reach canon has surpassed m43 and they are catching up. But again i can get 2400mm with in-body digital converter from my om5 with the 150-600. So lots of ways to measure the reach and adapt.
Timely review. I recently had a chance to photograph a mother eagle feeding her two chicks using my G9 and 100-400mm lens. Alongside me was a photographer using a Canon R5 and 100-500mm lens and I was surprised at how far she was able to "pinch" into her big-sensor image to get the close interaction between mother and eaglets. We were shooting at a considerable distance and, with my 20-meg sensor, the Sigma 150-600mm would have been helpful. However, I was able to use the 2x digital converter activated in the menu to help close the gap. Your Sigma results look really good but since so much emphasis has been put on the light-weight and portability of MFT, it would be interesting to see how the digital converter stacks up against the Sigma lens and then, perhaps, try the 2x digital converter with the Sigma. So far I'm finding the digital converter really needs direct sunlight to perform at its best but I've been surprised by how well this menu option works in the field if you are willing to shoot JPEGS. I don't think this option is widely known or used by MFT shooters and might be worth a mention by someone of your experience in future videos.
Hey, just a heads up that your shipping info is visible on the box. RU-vid should have a quick edit feature that would let you blur that if that isn't meant to be public.
Hi Stafford - nice first impressions video. Were the video clips you shot of the birds also taken using this lens, or did you have a separate camera recording video?
Ahh you caught me… So to save time. I did video and shooting at the same time by stopping video and then shooting then restarting video of the birds. I did not want to bore people with too much of me doing the photography but wanted to show some video and photos. Be sure both the video and the lens are from the 150-600. Hope that answers your questions
Well just as good as the canon lenses remember most canon lenses are slower but they have a bigger sensor so I would say it is a wash. @@nokiaairtel5311
To be honest if mft are just going to get sigma to adapt FF lenses for mft you might as well go FF as it defeats the object of mft. FF is actually making smaller lenses whilst mft are getting bigger🙃
Yea, there are advantages to MFT but sensor size and image quality is not one of them. Reach stability and computational photography seem to jump out .
@@MAKE_PHOTOGRAPHS_ANYWHERE I get the reach but with ff you can crop more, so no real advantage which makes having massive lenses ................all swings and roundabouts
