The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is on sale at B&H right now for $899 with about a million reviews...they've clearly sold a ton of them based on the price/performance ratio.
To me that's where Sigma could have really separated itself. A non-sports version for around $1,200, undercutting the Tamron price. As it stands if I wanted 600mm I'd pick up a used 200-600, or wait for the Tamron 150-500 to go on sale.
gocolts wrote:
The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is on sale at B&H right now for $899 with about a million reviews...they've clearly sold a ton of them based on the price/performance ratio.
To me that's where Sigma could have really separated itself. A non-sports version for around $1,200, undercutting the Tamron price. As it stands if I wanted 600mm I'd pick up a used 200-600, or wait for the Tamron 150-500 to go on sale.
Yep, surprised a Contemporary was not announced along with the Sport for L & FE mount
As the Sigma rep told me when inquiring about a EF mount, if your always out in inclement weather you want a sport, other wise the Contemporary will give you the same IQ results and less weight.
I am trying to decide between these three lenses and likely leaning towards the Sony for the AF confidence. That being said, where the Sigma is most attractive is the close focusing. The Tamron has close focusing and is a smaller lens. All attractive options in their own right.
gocolts wrote:
The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is on sale at B&H right now for $899 with about a million reviews...they've clearly sold a ton of them based on the price/performance ratio.
To me that's where Sigma could have really separated itself. A non-sports version for around $1,200, undercutting the Tamron price. As it stands if I wanted 600mm I'd pick up a used 200-600, or wait for the Tamron 150-500 to go on sale.
During the introduction of this lens by the Sigma CEO he mentioned that users of the Contemporary DSLR version wished it was splash- and dustresistant. He goes on to explain that they've made what they consider the best of both worlds (DSLR Sports and Contemporary versions) by taking into account feedback from users of both dSLR lenses.
As for its price undercutting the Tamron 150-500's in Europe it does, at least in Sweden and in the UK from what I saw toward the end of C Frost's review. Here it is significantly cheaper than the 200-600 and I've never seen an "edu" discount or mostly any discount of Sony lenses except the occasional ones Sony provides.
For the record I'm not saying it's a given over the Sony or the Tamron, merely that its position differs a bit geographically and personally I think it seems like a reasonable offer, especially if the push-pull works pretty well in the field. I'd like to see more reports on center sharpness at 600mm, an acquaintance with the C dslr version can produce rather sharp photos at 600mm f/6,3 (compared to mine from the 200-600 at 600/6,3). That can have several reasons, that he's better at pp, that his particular specimen is sharper than the average, that he's a slightly better birder (rather likely) and also that the C version can be very competitive.
Lux Lux wrote:
Maybe not. Weight and length wise, Sigma is much better than Sony 200-600 to handle.
MFD is way, way better, and magnification as well!
+1 regarding the MFD.
For those eeking out the diff's at 600mm, the diff's in mfd capability may be more notable. Kinda tough to optimize a lens for both ends, for all distances. Optics always have some forms of trade-offs. Whether one finds them to be bundled to their liking is of course a matter of preference.
When I had the 150-600 Contemporary side by side with my EF 100-400 II (and TC III), the IQ of them was splittin' hairs on the long end. In the end, I went with the EF because of the MFD capability that the Contemporary didn't have. Point being, while one might find the distance 600mm MTF to be the end all, do all for them ... another may value the magnification capability for working in closer proximity.
Personally, I might be inclined to relinquish .003% gain in 600mm MTF for 30.0% gain in MFD (conceptual numbers).
If I'm misremembering it looked like Dustin Abbott's review showed the Sigma at 600 pretty closely matching the Sony. In his review the lens only seemed to soften up around the mid-range, then sharpened back up at the end.
Here in the US if you can do the edu discount you can usually buy the Sony 200-600 usually for $1700 from B&H. I've heard around Black Friday you can possibly get it even cheaper. I'd like to try this lens against the Sony.
kooshball wrote:
really dont undersatnd why tamron/sigma are trying to compete here. the market for this seems super narrow given competition today. and it's hard to actually standout.
seems like there's way more opportunity in the tele prime space given the native primes are insanely expensive.
It's possible that just as Sony artificially reduces fps performance and removes TC option for third party lenses that they also have a rule for no third party primes above a certain focal length.
It wouldn't surprise me if Sony is more restrictive than they might seem with what lenses third parties are able to make, given that we didn't see any 35mm f2 options until after Sony released their f1.8 and then we got approximately one billion. But that's just speculation, obviously.
If you like many of us, you may order a new filter each time you buy a new lens. If comparing the Tamron 150-500 and Sigma 150-600 keep in mind the Tamron takes an 82mm filter while the Sigma needs a pricey 95mm. Of course, you may already own a 95 on for that Sony 200-600 of yours.
As someone who didn't fall in love with the Sony 200-600 (while it's optically great, I don't need the ultimate FPS or best AF, and the packed and filter sizes made it a no-go for me), it's nice to see more options from the third-parties. The Sigma looks great, I like the MFD on the wide end, and I like that they shaved a couple of inches off the packed length with the external zoom.
Specs-wise, though, the Tamron 150-500 is looking really good to me. Nearly two inches shorter packed than the Sigma, greater than 1:4 reproduction ratio throughout the zoom range, lighter (though not by much), and I can live with the slight reduction in max aperture and only getting to 750ish with an APS-C crop. If it plays well with the rIV, it may be my Goldilocks tele-zoom. The fact that it's the least expensive option will be a huge bonus. I do wish it was designed to work with their Lens Utility, since being able to adjust the MF action would be great, but if AF works well, that probably won't be much of a concern.
freaklikeme wrote:
As someone who didn't fall in love with the Sony 200-600 (while it's optically great, I don't need the ultimate FPS or best AF, and the packed and filter sizes made it a no-go for me), it's nice to see more options from the third-parties. The Sigma looks great, I like the MFD on the wide end, and I like that they shaved a couple of inches off the packed length with the external zoom.
Specs-wise, though, the Tamron 150-500 is looking really good to me. Nearly two inches shorter packed than the Sigma, greater than 1:4 reproduction ratio throughout the zoom range, lighter (though not by much), and I can live with the slight reduction in max aperture and only getting to 750ish with an APS-C crop. If it plays well with the rIV, it may be my Goldilocks tele-zoom. The fact that it's the least expensive option will be a huge bonus. I do wish it was designed to work with their Lens Utility, since being able to adjust the MF action would be great, but if AF works well, that probably won't be much of a concern....Show more →
I just got an rIVa and got a chance to play a bit with the Tammy yesterday - for now all I can say the rIV is a huge upgrade to my old R2. But I am a complete newbie in birding so that doesn`t say much.
One thing I did notice was that the focus struggled when forest was in the background and the birds small in the frame (I have sensitivity set to 5 (responsive) - maybe that also played a role in AF performance - although I did try a bit with 1 (sticky) but it felt worse). Other than that it seems fast and accurate.
