ASC_1900 wrote:
I'm going to guess the first one is the GM the second one is the sigma, based on the background and the color. Don't have much confidence on my guess though
---------------------------------------------
LiveShots wrote:
Looks almost identical to me, both images are perfectly clear/crisp, one being better than the other is probably subjective. That there is a such a massive price difference is amazing, especially considering the flexibility of the Sigma.
---------------------------------------------
Dameon wrote:
I cheated and looked at the files I like the natural warmth of the Sigma. Mine should arrive on Tuesday. Excited to try it out.
Yah, the Sigma is a bit warmer in tone but other than that I couldn’t find a difference in Lightroom’s side by side at 200-300%. Considering the Sony 600Gm is one of the sharpest 600s ever, it’s a statement by sigma. The lens doesn’t lose sharpness at other focal lengths either. The only real limitation of this lens is its weight if that matters, and Sonys crippling of the FPS and lack of TC use. Other than that it’s one of the best lenses out there. It also proves that these lenses cost a lot more than they need too. There’s a a lot more going on inside the Sigma and yet it’s still able to be produced and sold at half the price. Im thrilled with it and it’s going to stay in my kit.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Megadap put out a firmware update today that is supposed to help AF accuracy when zooming.
So, I shot with the new 2.04 version of the Megadap firmware this weekend, along with upgrading my Z8 firmware to 3.10. I experienced an intermittent situation where it would occasionally lose the ability to autofocus, as in it stopped even trying to move the AF motor. It usually happened after a long pause where the screen went black for a bit and then I would wake it up to shoot, but would just see a big red, no focus box in the middle of the viewfinder and then lens wouldn't even attempt to autofocus. It didn't happen every time I had a long pause, but enough times to make it annoying to have to restart my camera.
If I turned off the Z8 for five seconds and then turned it back on, I'd regain all AF capabilities. The Z8 with the Megadap Pro+ adapter and the Sigma 300-600 are pretty darn accurate combo and the minor pain of working through this firmware upgrade was absolutely offset by having the option to use this incredible lens.
To be fair, the Z8 firmware upgrade instructions say to upgrade it with a Nikon Z lens attached. The only Z-mount lens I had with me was the Tamron 50-150mm. Not sure if that counts or if I'm going to need to re-upgrade to the 3.10 with a regular Z-mount lens once I get home and then test again.
Had an opportunity to try this lens 02.23.2026 for a few hours and am quite pleased with AF speed and acquisition on the Sony A1. Tracked the Cooper's hawks quite well as they are coming at me with nesting materials.
Thanks to everyone for sharing their images and experiences with this lens.
I used to have a bias against zooms when it comes to rendering, but my experience in Africa shooting the Sony 600 f/4 side by side with the 70-200 GM II changed that. That lens compared very well with the prime and I never wished I would have "gotten the shot with the 600 instead" the entire trip.
I'm definitely planning to add this to my kit in the future. Especially if we can get a workaround 1.4TC from Viltrox or an alternative. That's my one hangup before spending this kind of money. I loved using the Sony 600 with teleconverter for small birds in Africa.
Got my own copy after trying one earlier this week. Very satisfied with the AF tracking of the Cooper's hawk and other birds in flight and have also used it with the Viltrox 2x converter and pleased with image quality from that.
First two with the Viltrox 2x converter, 1200mm at F8 near minimum focus up. Other's with bare lens, all at F4 primarily at 600mm. I continue to be very impressed with this lens.
Almost convinced myself that this lens would be a great upgrade from the Sony 200-600G for soccer and lacrosse (paired with the A7V), but can't overcome the nagging feeling that the 300GM would be better (or the 400GM ultimately, at twice the price). Wonder if this thread has thoughts.
Idk, field sports people say 300 is not long enough. PMR rocks a 300 and 600, sold his 400 for example.
The only reason I'd get a 300 2.8 over this is if you shoot indoors as well, or are willing to rock the 1.4 or 2x tele.
I've been toying with getting the 300 or this, and it's a hard choice.
isyoox703 wrote:
Almost convinced myself that this lens would be a great upgrade from the Sony 200-600G for soccer and lacrosse (paired with the A7V), but can't overcome the nagging feeling that the 300GM would be better (or the 400GM ultimately, at twice the price). Wonder if this thread has thoughts.
I'm not sure who PMR is, but for my eyes, there is nothing like the look of photos taken at 400 2.8, so it's interesting that they got rid of the one lens I would keep out of the 3. Different strokes, I guess.
I'm shooting my kids at 15fps because 30 just creates culling overhead I don't want to deal with, and the weight doesn't bother me in theory because I won't be handholding (I shoot with a panning head on a low to the ground tripod as of late) and will be stationary except to switch sides as the teams do.
I am talking myself into this lens again. The other vagary is, I would want to pick up the 300GM or 400GM in Japan, new ($5k or $9k), but the Sigma is about the same price, so I wouldn't feel ripped off just ordering here.
Yeah, its one thing to sell your 400 if you already have the 300 and 600 (makes sense) but if you're starting from scratch, that makes a big difference.
isyoox703 wrote:
I'm not sure who PMR is, but for my eyes, there is nothing like the look of photos taken at 400 2.8, so it's interesting that they got rid of the one lens I would keep out of the 3. Different strokes, I guess.
I'm shooting my kids at 15fps because 30 just creates culling overhead I don't want to deal with, and the weight doesn't bother me in theory because I won't be handholding (I shoot with a panning head on a low to the ground tripod as of late) and will be stationary except to switch sides as the teams do.
I am talking myself into this lens again. The other vagary is, I would want to pick up the 300GM or 400GM in Japan, new ($5k or $9k), but the Sigma is about the same price, so I wouldn't feel ripped off just ordering here....Show more →
isyoox703 wrote:
Almost convinced myself that this lens would be a great upgrade from the Sony 200-600G for soccer and lacrosse (paired with the A7V), but can't overcome the nagging feeling that the 300GM would be better (or the 400GM ultimately, at twice the price). Wonder if this thread has thoughts.
How often do you find yourself using the zoom on the 200-600mm, and how often do you find yourself at 300mm or 400mm? Even if you plan to use TC's to cover a wider range, changing out TC's is much slower than having a zoom at the ready, and there is a good amount of light loss with a TC 2x. For example, the 200-600mm gets you 600mm at f6.3, the 300mm f2.8 + TC 2x gets you 600mm at f5.6, and the 300-600mm gets you 600mm at f4.
PMR's rationalization seems perfectly reasonable. I do like that he points out the 400 has an eye candy look that is special, which is the number one reason I covet one. My own rationalization and wavering comes down to being conflicted about wanting that eye candy, but also the versatility of a zoom, which to answer the question, I do use the 200-600 for. I am at 300 and 400 a lot with the 200-600 (not so much 200, and 600), esp. since I am photographing youth sports that ends up being contested in the midfield for the bulk of the time. I am not sensitive to weight, since I am stationary, and I will never use TCs like a zoom, or even a 2 body set up, realistically. Whatever is on my camera is what I am shooting with for the day (which is why I love the 50-150GM for everything else).
isyoox703 wrote:
Almost convinced myself that this lens would be a great upgrade from the Sony 200-600G for soccer and lacrosse (paired with the A7V), but can't overcome the nagging feeling that the 300GM would be better (or the 400GM ultimately, at twice the price). Wonder if this thread has thoughts.
I had the 200-600 and the only reason I would go back to it would be if I truly needed 30FPS with the zoom, or needed the size and weight savings. The Sigma is truly that good, but it is huge! I also have the 600GM and 300GM along side the 300-600. While I feel the 300Gm may be the best lens ever made in terms of image quality and AF speed, its limited in its use, for me at least. I will carry it attached to a 2x TC slung on my shoulder and have the 600 w /1.4 on another A1 body while out shooting ospreys and eagles. But when i want to camp out in one spot, in the hide or wading the river, I've been taking the Sigma for the zoom.
I cannot find any difference in IQ between the Sigma and the 600GM. Only difference is color rendering which I've shown earlier in this thread.
Im going to pick up the viltrox 2x and see how that goes.
I like the natural warmth of the Sigma. Mine should arrive on Tuesday. Excited to try it out.
