I have one of these. It is the perfect airshow lens. You still need a wide angle for the static shots (I use a Z 7 now with the 14-30) but the D500 with this lens gets all the action. All we need now is a bloody airshow!
This lense was my biggest investment so far and I haven't had any regrets since. Its performance on a Nikon D7500 is iust amazing. I am able to shoot Jupiter, Saturn and Venus hand-held so that the planets are visible as disks. On wildlife, the results are tad sharp if you know how to handle the lense; starting with 150 mm you will get a very smooth bokeh. Yes, it is 2.7 kg, but I am rather a big guy. Highly recommended as well!
I bought this lens last year and couldnt agree more with this review. Its just so good at wildlife/nature photography, the only issue is safely carrying it during travel
Great review! Thank you for taking the time. I'm thinking of getting this for the R5 actually, so the end made me laugh a little. Haha, I'm not rich either but did splurg on the R5 recently.
Thank you again for a fantastic review. I'll add it to my wishful thinking list!! Your outro was also fantastic!! When you consider the zoom range it almost seems like a bargain against buying 2 or more to get the same range.
This came out just after I purchased the 150-600mm sport. Out of the box I was sorely disappointed after spending so much hard earned cash. After spending an afternoon adjusting the focus via in camera micro focus adjustment on my Canon 80D and Canon 5DMk3 I was amazed at the sharpness of that lens and use it frequently, even more than the Canon 100-400mm Mk2.
my next lens will be the sig 150-600mm c, having seen this the extra at wide end would be nice but for the weight and price i think i stick to getting the 150-600c, great review as always
Funnily enough, my particular 150-600C was actually sharper than the 150-600S, Tamron, 150-600, Nikon 200-500, and Sigma 60-600 I compared. I'm not sure if I just encountered particularly bad examples of the other lenses, or a godly C version.
@@giklab Yes, I have seen much worse performance from this 60-600mm. So there seems to be quite a lot of variation in quality. I hope this particular lens is not cherry-picked by Sigma... But even if it is, that's not Christopher's fault.
@@stevess7777 Yes, that's most likely the case. Overall I really like Sigma lenses though. Especially the newer models give really high price-performance.
It's since been its fifth been a full year review of the sigma 60 to 600 mm lens ! This is been a great review , and I have taken the time to read all of the comments made about the Sigma 60 to 600 mm ! Mister Frost you mention that this lens will work well on a aps-c camera ! But is it possible for you to make a review using a aps-c camera adapter to this lens ? I am considering purchasing this lens and trying to adopt it to my aps-c camera ! Thank you !
Where this lens really shines is that it's one the few camera lenses that is "Parfocal" meaning it retains perfect focus at all zooms levels. A necessity for shooting high-end video. The Sigma 150-600mm sport is NOT PARFOCAL so if you shoot video this is not the sense for you. All Cine Lenses are par focal but Cinema lenses are quite expensive for this reason. Understand that more than 90% of the photography lenses by Canon, Nikon and yes Sony are not parfocal because the cost to make it that way. Some lens come close to being parfocal but be careful because if you are not paying attention you can get burnered by that almost perfect focus. For critical work keep it parfocal. Also even if you are not much of a videographer having the focus still perfect even though you have zoomed in and out is a boon for nature photographers.
How would this perform vs the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary? Aperture is a bit more open, and I can pull back by 90mm. I do find on occasions when I do bird and wildlife with my 150-600 on my R7, 150mmx1.6 crop is too close on some situations. Though I'm not sure if I'd be willing to pay 2x for an extra top of light and 90mm/144mm.
Early sports photographers could probably get some use out of it at 60mm. Ideally you'd have a 70-200 f/2.8 for something that's close enough to need something that wide, but if you have to decide between the wider aperture and the range, I feel like a lot of people would rather the range until they can afford a second body and more lenses.
Used for Sport photography this lens will be very often used at 60-200mm range, just as much as at 200-600mm range, because in many Sports point of interest is moving rapidly toward you and from you. It seems you believe this lens in Wild life lens exclusively, which is clearly not the case.
How would one connect rods to this lens? Doesn't the foot not come off? If attaching to a RED DSMC2 camera how would one properly support the lens? What length rods?
Great review Chris. I would have liked to see some more AF examples with R5 as I'm planning on using it with that camera. Do you think the AF is fast enough for BIF?
I didn't have the lens long enough to test BIF but the lens should be absolutely fine for that - as I mentioned in the review it performs great on the R5
Hi Christopher, I am considering this lens. Many are.comparing this lens to the 150 - 600. I am interested in a comparison with a 70 - 200 2.8 however. The 60 - 600 is posibly better than a 150 - 600. What it does mainly offer however, is the wide end. For the current price, I can buy a 70 - 200 2.8 and a 150 - 600. The tele end has been compared plenty, but how about the wide end? Yes, it will be more lens to carry, but the wide end will be faster and I also photograph many people. The 200 - 600 is interesting for me, but I don't expect to use it that much more then a 70 - 200 plus 2x converter wiuld cover.
I'm finding the same results as you, i was shooting it on my 90D (at 33mp) and always finding the sharpness quite lacking at 600mm. but a while back i bought a 6D mark II and found that the sharpness is quite better on the 26mp of this camera. It's funny that everybody is talking about the 150-600 and forgeting about this lens .... i guess it's the price ? at the time that i bought it, it was only 300 euros more than the 150-600 sport ....
Hi. If I may ask, will this work on my Fujifilm XT100? Sorry to ask, I am not really a professional photographer but I want to be good at it. I am thinking of using it in macro photography. 😊
Great review Christopher! What would be on take on Image quality in between this lens and the RF 100-500 mainly to shoot the moon on an R5 and trying to fill in the frame and get sharp images of craters etc. many thanks
I've got to say this: You seem to have made it: Usually, when any non-political channel even dares to put things like "go vote" in a pinned comment, 90% of the comments are along the lines of "how dare you!?" (rather than being about the content of the video), but you explicitly stating your political opinion just gets a tiny amount of comments wanting to give you bonus thumbs up for it - no backlash to be seen... This is really fascinating!
@Christopher Frost Photography Thanks again for this review. I have a question: You photograph the same poster every time, and I assume that you move away so far that the whole picture/sensor is exactly filled with the poster. But what does it matter how many megapixels the sensor has? OK, you can maybe zoom in further, but in your videos you always show the same zoom levels, so the megapixels of the sensor should not make a visible difference, at least in the video, or should it? Of course I assume the same sensor size in my statement.
Not really sure what you're asking me, here. When you say that I "always show the same zoom levels", are you saying that I always zoom in to show the test chart to the same extent? Because I don't - you can even see in this review that I zoom in to the 45mp test image a lot closer than the 32.5mp one
@@christopherfrost I guess that answers my question, I never noticed that. So you always zoom until you reach the same amount of pixel, e.g. 1920x1080? Thanks for your answer.
I got this lens a couple months ago, I was unable to get your input on it at the time, but jared polin seems to like it enough for me to just go for it. I am rather pleased with the purchase, but was admittedly a bit worried when I got to your sharpness test....I think something's wrong with me
Doing sports photography you need to be able to approach 1000fps under stadium lights. At f6.3 fully zoomed I doubt this could do the job. It's a shame that there's no capable options outside of the super expensive L series in these kind of focal lengths. I presume that increased sensor size will beat lens development to bridge this gap eventually.
Early in 2019 i doubted to get this lens or the 150-600 C. Went for the 150-600, since i already have a 70-200 2.8 ii Canon. If that would not have been the case, i would have bought this lens! I tested them both on a Sigma test event.
Hey a lens that I actually own! I love the lens and it’s worth every penny I paid for it. I use it to shoot wildlife all the time and the OS is so good and fast that it feels like you’re turning off physics when it’s engaged. Sometimes it feels like cheating.
hello, On tripod in video mode, does the OS try to "compensate" the fact that it's on tripod ? I've the 150-600 tamron G2 and it's shaky (just a little bit) on tripod
@@Jigamanx2 thanks ! did you notice why there is little shake sometimes, and the rest of the time not ? It's recommended to turn OS OFF on tripod by some companies, but I prefer to let it ON because of the wind
4:43 just as clarification, did you mean to say, "keeping its focalplane**** in place when zooming". Or did you mean to say something else. Sorry if this is a dumb question. I was just a little confused by the way you said that.
How well will this lens work indoors like church Stadium concerts and big huge large events how well will it work for that that they have ability for micro 4/3 attachment will it work on the Blackmagic Design Studio camera 4K does it have the option to operate from the camera inside itself
Hi Chris. sorry to barge in like this but have you ever done a review of the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX HSM, Canon EF Fit lens .The reason I ask is that I've found a second hand one and for the life of me I can't fine one review of it.
I haven't I'm afraid although I hear it's quite a similar performer to the equivalent Tamron lens from years and years ago, which I tested a while back. It won't be the same but this review will give you a vague idea of what to expect: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LvSI6PDXN8U.html
Honestly, for the 600mm reach and zoom range, it could be a lot worse than 1600 USD. Not saying that's cheap, but the Canon alternatives for that reach are just so far out of the ballpark (and understandably so given the max apertures), it's just nice to have anything at all for under $2K!
Thank you for your review, I can't afford the lens right now but maybe I can sit with my fleece jacket my 5d mkIV on my lap and it's cheaper cousin you mentioned the 50-500mm. Off to see if you reviewed the 50-500mm now. Thank you Christopher.
I have always thought that this is an underrated lens and focal range. I am SO, SO hoping for a Sony E-mount version of this what would be somewhat smaller than the current version, but will utilize all of Sony's fast-focusing capabilities. That focal range is incredible!
@@anjankarki From all I heard, the contemporary and sports version of the 150-600mm have the exact same optics, just different housing (mainly regarding weather sealing).
Apparently the 150-600mm Sports lens does have slightly different optics, although there's huge debate over whether they're any better than the Contemporary version (different review websites say different things)
In my opinion, it is not very correct to estimate the cost in absolute terms. It is clear that $ 1600 is a lot of money - but telephoto lenses are generaly expensive, so in relative terms, this lens is very, very, veeeeeeeeeery cheap. Just keep in mind that Canon 100-500 4.5-7.1 costs a thousand more, and this is a lens of a different class. This sigma as close as possible to the class of big telephoto monsters. Aperture is (600/6.3 = 95mm) only 5mm smaller than Canon 200-400 f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x (That costs $11 000), or canon 400 4 DO IS II (6900$). While the Canon 100-500 4.5-7.1 is a fairly common mid-size telephoto lens, like 100-400 4.5-5.6 or 300 4, without any extraordinary claims. So if this lens is "expensive", then Renault Sandero is also an "expensive" car.
just wonder when the hell sigma an tamron will finally made a 600mm for mirorless it's been years since sony lunched the 200-600 for E mount, and no one else is doing a similar one :/
The 200-600 may well be a Tamron design, and is possibly the Nikon Z 200-600 as well. Of course, we'll see when it launches and we can see the optical construction, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tamron launches it under their brand some time down the line.
@@giklab it may be a tamron design But why would they design it, but never made it and sell it ? Sony is the only brand on the market selling a 600mm for mirorless, that's weird
@@DarkiiDen Tamron is an optics manufacturer. If the two really are the same, there are likely contracts in place preventing them from immediately releasing it for way less money. For example, Tamron 70-300 VC and Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR are the same lens. Same for Tamron/PEntax 18-270mm. That's why I suspect/hope we'll see a Tamron branded 200-600 eventually, but of course we don't know the internals of the upcoming Nikon, so this is just speculation on my part.
@@giklab okay, that make sens But it sucks Because 1.800$ for the sony version is out of range for many people compared to a 8-900$ of the previous 150-600
@@DarkiiDen The Tamron would probably cost much less, at least 20-30% if we go by previous comparisons. That'd put it roughly in the 1200$ range, similar to what 150-600G2 cost at launch, or maybe a bit above that.
Having a high megapixel sensor doesn't affect how sharp a lens is and they are not "more challenging" or brutal. Better sensors give better images. Its just that you can zoom in closer when viewing images than with a sensor with less megapixels. Because you're now looking at the image closer, you see blur, just like you do whenever there is an increase in enlargement. But you don't go backwards, at an equivalent magnification a high megapixel sensor will show at least the same image quality, or better if that lense has the resolving power to do so. It amazes me how many people don't understand what they are looking at when they zoom in on their monitor. This is the biggest fallacy in photography, people implying that you can get worse image quality with a lense when you put a higher res sensor behind it. Its not the case.
Wow, you're the first person I've ever hear use the expression, "Hoi polloi". (I'm not sure of the correct spelling.) For those who don't know what it means, it means the common people, as in middle class.