I haven’t seen (nor could I imagine) a review of three zooms could give so much - ALL of the key information in just 11 minutes. The best comparison review I have ever seen. Brilliant work
I have used and owned a variety of super telephoto lenses over the years both as a wildlife photographer as a personal interest, and as a photographer for a high school for the past 19 years covering sports and performing arts. The first super telephoto lens that I bought was a Sigma 50 to 500 but only kept at one season because I was never happy with its sharpness. That lens was made before sigma improved their game to their new contemporary and sports line of lenses. I upgraded to the EF mount Sigma 150 to 600 mm contemporary lens and have been very happy with it over the past six years with wildlife photography including birds in flight and covering outdoor field sports. When it was released, I purchased the Sony 200 to 600 mm lens. I am very impressed with the linear focus motors in that lens. They are game changing. You really notice a difference between lenses that don’t have the linear focus motors in activities, such as track with the hundred meter sprinters running toward you. In that situation the Sony, focusing was faster and more accurate easily. I did always wish that the Sony wasn’t a 200 however, and wished that the focal length would allow me to have a wider view when shooting track. The Sony is easier to handle due to its internal zoom, which is particularly easier to change when doing video with the lens on a monopod which you can do very smoothly. The stiffness of the external zoom in Sigma lens ruins video during zooming. It was excellent for birds in flight shooting. Since I am a canon EF mount and Sony E shooter when the sigma EF mount 60 - 600mm lens was released I got it last year. It works very well with mc11 adaptor. Well enough that I’m not interested in buying the new e mount version. Loved been able to shoot it with either my canon or Sony cameras. I started using this lens more because it could zoom in to 60 mm. When shooting outdoor field events, I stopped needing to take two cameras so that I could have a wider focal range and the 60 to 600 worked out fine to have one lens on a mono pod and I could cover the action better, because I never had to switch between cameras. So I would take it to cover baseball softball daytime football and lacrosse. This expanded vocal range in a super zoom caused me to be interested in other lenses that were being released in nontraditional focal lengths and I think Tamron and Sigma really have something going for them here and they’re beating the big three in this regard. It took me 10 months to get my hands on the Tamron 35 to 150 and it is a fine lens and I can shoot indoor events like wrestling volleyball and basketball with just one camera body and lens. I hike and like to do telephoto landscape pictures and so the Tamron 50 to 400mm is something that I take in a backpack and it’s a smaller and lighter lens as well and I particularly like how well it handles shooting directly into the sun for sunset pictures. some of the best ones I’ve ever taken happened this fall with it. The 1:2 macro at 50mm works well and was a feature that first interested me in it. It does have purple fringing in super high contact situations. This Christmas I decided to update my six year old Sigma 150 to 600mm to the Sony e mount version with the better focus motors and it is a nice upgrade for my bird in flight wildlife photography also because in was on sale. So I conclude that each lens has its strengths and is best in different situations. It is wonderful to have so much choice. Sigma and Tamron are my first considerations in lens releases. They have saved me so much money and their built and image quality is right up there now. As far as handling goes I can handhold the sigma 150-600mm and Sony 200-600mm on the sidelines or birding without getting too tired but the sigma 60-600mm requires a a monopod. P.S. I am upset that Canon won’t allow third party rf lens development. Stupid decision. One reason. Greed. Sony e mount lens choice is fantastic.
Not greed, its called buisness & protecting one's own Market. Although for Canon users, may seem like a disadvantage, it is logical without diversity to assume - Buy Canon, use Canon accessories
Thanks for this video. I shoot news and sports full time for a newspaper and I'm the team photographer for a baseball team. I have the 200-600 Sony and I can say that this lens is an absolute bargain. The AF is fast and accurate and it can shoot everything for field sports. The fact that it has internal zoom ALONE is a feature that puts it way ahead of the competition. I have to shoot outside in ALL conditions and with rain and snow it's been a solid tool for my on deadline use. In the real world this is the best value because it will hold it's resale value better than aftermarket brands. -Dave K
100% agree… the short zoom throw of the Sony and it’s internal zoom makes a big difference in shooting field sports. A very big point i did not hear in the video is if you’re a Sony A1 or A9 shooter the sigma is capped at 15 frames per second leaving behind 5 frames per second on an A9 and 15 on and A1!
@@eosuser1 I agree it wasn't mentioned in the video. He mentions that he tried the lenses on his A7riii. that would be a VERY important piece of info for people to know I agree!
Internal Zoom like on the 200-600 Sony G makes a huge difference in the long run and if you're really making heavy use of the lens out in the field. Making sure dust does not get on the inside surfaces of the elements really matters, and I've seen dust get in with external zoom.
It doesn't "really matter" until the dust starts to really add up. The idea that zooms are dustsuckers will never die I think. Lensrentals has a good article on it called "The Apocalypse of Lens Dust". In summary primes and zooms can be as dusty inside, that's my experience too. And lots of people will prefer external zooms as they are much easier to pack. That being said, I still prefer the 200-600 and its internal zoom due to how it balances on a gimbal and how easy it is to zoom in use, something that's very useful for homing in on a fast bird for instance.
I sold my G loved the pictures but got dust inside just after 3 weeks of use, I guess internal zoom is not a guarantee it still sucks in the dust somehow.
@@shounakhinge8 A gimbal at its core is just a mechanical device to balance something out in multiple axis relative to gravity and the principle has been used for a long time for passive balancing. You might be confused because you immediately think of the modern motorised version of gimbals. What he most likely meant was a gimbal head that is widely used in wildlife photography
I have the Sony lens for birding and am at 600mm 90% of the time, where it is strongest optically, that with the 30fps on my A1 and internal zooming and lighter weight make it the winner for me over the new sigma 60-600 but competition is great for us consumers. Great comparison, thanks Chris 👍
Totally Agree. I have the SIGMA prime 20mm, 50mm, & 135mm. But I will definitely be getting the SONY 200-600mm next. The SIGMA 60-600 is simply not sharp at 400-600 like the SONY.
@@michaelantony777 The test here clearly shows the Sigma at 600 is sharper than the Sony in the center where it matters. But in real life photos it won't make a difference really.
the Sony looks the sharpest at the long end, also I would rely on its AF more and is easy to handle with the internal zoom. The 60-600 has a significant advantage in close focusing and wider fov but is very heavy
Just a caveat, The 60-600mm is full metal internal construction, and has a external coating that dissipates heat. Personally, I’m thankful it’s not white. Thanks again for the comparison.
It is a shame that third-party lenses are somewhat hampered on the higher-end Sony cameras, especially when considering that the higher-end bodies are the ones most wanting for a telephoto zoom lens. The consistency of the 60-600 across a 10x range is pretty incredible, and I also have to commend sony for offering a first-party lens with such a high build quality at a relatively affordable price! I’m quite interested to see how Nikon’s 200-600 z-mount lens compares when it is finally released (if it ever is).
Hampered? Well at least the Mount is fully open to them for years right? Why we people can't appreciate when 15fps is still a decent amount if you really need to put a third party on your 6500$ body!
I agree. My solution: Megadap your Sony lenses to Nikon adapter: Z8 gives 120 FPS shooting, plus in-body 8K 60p RAW video. No crippling by Sony, who is starting to act like Canon. Stick it to Sony and vote with your dollars. It focuses at native lens speed and they release new firmware like every 2 months.
I believe the Sony 200-600mm lens is the only one that you can use a 1.4 or 2 times teleconverter (for E Mount), so that’s another factor for some on the choice of lens to buy.
Christopher, you're one of my favorite reviewers. I really appreciate the fact you keep bringing us back to the laws of diminishing returns and celebrate the quality of more affordable and less heralded lenses. I also appreciate you dropping the god bless from the video, its pretty offensive to me.
Great comparison, thanks. I have the 200-600 and I'll keep it for wildlife because of 30 fps and the weight of the 60-600 is a bit too much for my 67 year old body.
Nice review 👍🏼 One thing I want to point out The Sigma lens cannot capture 30 images per second on fast cameras. Sony has made this feature only on its lenses, as the Sigma lens will enable you to capture 15 images per second, even if the body can take 30 images.
If harrison did not get it, let me spell it out. Sony lenses still have 30fps. So non-issue with Sony lenses on Sony bodies. Since there are no Sigma DG DN lenses on Canon bodies, harrison’s comment did not add anything to the conversation and you can not compare it to Sony.
Thanks for another great one! I wish you had the Tamron 50-400 on that comparison. For those like me that favour more the wide end of this type of lenses
I've compared my 50-400 with my 200-600 at 200, 300 and 400mm. I shot a church wall at 50m. My copies were more similar than different in terms of sharpness, with an edge to the 200-600 at 300mm. I had to zoom in A LOT in post on tiny imperfections in the wall to be able to tell them apart. More distortion on the 50-400. And the colors are a little different between the two. Very happy with both lenses. I also compared then with the 28-200 on overlapping focal lengths and was surprised to see how well that lens held up against the bigger ones
Very impressive that you've been able to compare these lenses so effectively in a short time. I think that Sigma is still living up to their reputation of providing great value for money, producing lenses that come very close (and sometimes even match in certain areas) the first party models but at a lower price. Or they match the first parties on price but offer some unique features. Still though, I feel as if Sigma aren't being as innovative as they used to be when they completely turned the market on its head with the beginning of their 'Global Vision' lines. Whilst labelled a 'Sport' model, the 150-600mm DG DN seems to be a balance between the old DSLR Contemporary and Sports models. Would've been interesting if they had decided to do that again with mirrorless, and perhaps released a Contemporary 150-600 with a slower aperture (say f/5 - 7.1) but an even more competitive price; if $999 was feasible that could've been pretty amazing. Then they could've done a Sport version with a constant f/5.6, internal zoom and the linear AF motor for $1999. Again if feasible, maybe that is asking a little too much, perhaps f/5 - 6.3 but holding the wider apertures for longer may be more realistic but of course that's not so easy to market as 'here, look at our constant f/5.6 Sport superzoom'. But if Nikon could make a reasonably priced constant f/5.6 200-500mm years ago I'm sure Sigma could've worked out how to get that extra 100mm without the price doubling. Another interesting idea I would've liked to have seen from Sigma would be a 'Sports Light Weight' series. Just like the I-series is a subset of the Contemporary line, they could have done a 'Light Weight' subset of the Sports line, using diffractive optics like Canon's DO and Nikon's PF lenses. Both of those brands seem to have success with those lens types. Imagine Sigma doing say a 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and 500mm f/5.6 primes all light weight and at reasonable prices. The 200mm f/2.8 especially could be a great value alternative to the more expensive f/2.8 zooms. Then for diffractive optics zooms they could have done the 60-600 to keep the 10x zoom benefit but actually have it light weight. And maybe a 100-400 model to round out the series, a higher end alternative to the existing Contemporary so maybe something like an f/4 - 5. Of course everyone can dream about random lens ideas though, doesn't mean it will ever become reality! As my own system is Micro Four Thirds I'm not currently in the market for these FF superzooms, I just find them personally interesting to check out, but I do want to get a FF system sometime soon to improve low light performance, and in particular for the shallower depth of field for portraits. Lenses like Sigma's 24 and 35mm f/1.4 are very tempting with decent prices - actually less than the M43 equivalents but with a lot more depth of field control. But the difficult decision will be whether to also keep my M43 body for the superzoom stuff, as it's impossible to beat for value and size for the really long focal lengths; my Olympus 75-300mm II was only £330! Or I use the funds from selling all my M43 gear towards FF and eventually get a superzoom in the collection...
Already the dslr version of the sigma 60-600 was the best of the bunch. Fast af, sharpest at 600 wide open, sharper than the rest, best IS, weather sealing, macro , high quality built and great tripod mount/collar. And heavyyyy. Also it was a truly do-it-all lens, i took landscape photos w it, panoramas.
Amazing that such high quality super telephoto lenses are now within reach for the average consumer. Granted they're slow, but honestly, f/6.3 isn't terrible for lenses like these. I'd personally take the Sony. Despite the CA on the wide end and "only" starting at 200mm; the size, weight, internal zoom, and OSS is the right mix of features for me.
Great video! Answered a lot of questions. Love the zoom range of the Sigma 60-600, and like the internal zoom of the Sony. I find I tend to shoot these type of lenses at their max focal length. So for me it's the Sony.
Awesome! Finally! This is more than I could have ever dreamed for! This is really going to help so many people when having to choose one of them. Great job!
I currently own the sigma 100-400 for my a6400 and love it but really want an extra 200mm I'm steering toward the 60-600 but the extra weight concerns me
Not bad, I have the Tamron 150-500 because of the lower weight and price. Difference between 500 and 600 isn't much. But I do plan on buying the 600mm F4 at some point, but mainly bc of the smoother backgrounds and compatibility with teleconverters for wildlife/astrophotography.
I would take the sony 200-600mm. There a firmware update to work better on A7RV cameras for the IBIS plus OSS. More affordable now on the used market. Plus it's seems to be more gear towards sports and wildlife(why I would get it) so it being the sharpest looking from the 400-600mm range is a plus. Currently all sigma lenses cap at 15 FPS on the A1 and the A9 cameras. Which is a weakness for those owning those cameras With the A1 mkii getting the A7rV IBIS. So really those waiting on that camera will likely pick the 200-600mm.
Thanks for this comparison Christopher. I have the L-Mount 150-600 now, and was wondering if it was worth trading up. I don’t think it’s worth the financial hit right now.
I shoot with Sony A1, so my choice is my Sony 200-600mm which can shot at a full 30fps. No third=party lens can do more than 15fps on the A1, so along with the internal zoom, the Sony wins for me. I also own other very good Sigma Art lenses , and used to own an older generation Sigma C 150-600mm in EF-mount used with an MC-11 adaptor and it worked pretty good. But the Sony 200-600mm has been stellar in shooting all over the world and I will stick with it. I have much wider aperture and sharper primes and zooms for below 200mm, so I dont really need the Sigma 60-600mm . I am sure it will be excellent for many. Cheers
Thanks Chris for your amazing comparison of these lenses. I like the 60-600 the best if you're in a controlled environment but I'd use these lenses for surf photography and internal zoom and the white color is necessary for all the salt in the air. It's just too bad at 200mm it's not as good. If Sigma made one with internal zoom then I'd probably lean towards that even if it's black asi usually shoot in the mornings or late afternoon so it's not that big of a deal to be white or black but for that occasional shoot that happens mid day in the middle of summer then white might be a better choice.
I got to say, the Sigma 60-600 is great with my Nikon Z6II and FTZ adapter. The pictures are crisp and bright, but this lens is for daytime use, you can get a lot out of it.
What camera backpack can you recommend for a larger setup like S5 II or EOS R6 with 60-600mm + second body + 24-70mm and maybe 50mm lenses? On top batteries, filters and a dji mini 3 drone would be awesome.
I really, REALLY wanted the new 60-600, but I am actively shooting in the western national parks and in Jackson Hole where summer can be very dusty on dirt roads and vehicle traffic really kicks up a lot of dust. The 60-600 sucks in air every time it is zoomed out. Adding in the cost and downtime for sending the lens in for internal cleaning proved it was not a good purchase for me.
Thank you for this, your comparison comes at the perfect time as I was looking between these exact three for the upcoming eclipse in April. I think the flexibility of the 60-600mm has definitely swayed me!
The Sigma 60-600 weighs almost 50% more than the Sony and Sigma 150-600, that is the real disadvantage. If you don't mind the weight and use the zoom ranges frequently to justify not switching lenses, it's the best option.
@@anonymousl5150 Anyone shooting an eclipse will surely be using a tripod, so the extra weight of the 60-600mm when shooting astro is pretty irrelevant.
I have the 200-600 Sony and I’m a huge Sigma fan but on this call, the Sony internal zoom won me over and the native shooting speed being soft-capped if it’s not a Sony lens. Excellent motorsports lens at big tracks. I wouldn’t need the 60-200 range anyhow.
I have own sigma 170-500 for Nikon very light and fully satisfied fo the lens. I have bought Sony 200-600 because of the special offer and monthly payment. it is very heavy and difficult to manage. I did not yet complete try out this lens. But i dont think i will keep this lens with me.
As a landscape photographer, the 60-600 would allow me to not have to carry the 70-200mm. Just two lenses covering the range from 24-600mm is just awesome!
@@sulev111 i didnt have the budget yet to buy a additional lens but i really want this 60-600 too i only have a sigma 24-70 and the kit lens :( Shits just too expensive if ur just an amateur
Last year I was able to buy Sony 200 600 for 1450 Euro, so it was easy decision for my to buy it for my A9. But that new Sigma 60-600 is really nice gear. I’m happy that Sigma introduced new focusing motors which means that there is a chance for Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sport ;-)
@@vandalton4948 try out tamron 70-180. i've been shooting amateur sports with it for almost a year and it feels amazing. it's sharp at 2.8, fast focusing, light and build quality is surprisingly good
@@sergeyzakharov7326 I used Tamron 28-70 v1 for a while. It was uninspiring :(. That's the reason I don't feel that much interest in Tamron 70-180. Maybe 70-180 is better than the other.
So now thst the 200-600 and the sigma 150-600 are the same price. Would the Sony be the winner? 60-600 is out of my price range at 2300 euros. The other two are around 1400
When you zoom out at 6:00, then there's a big difference in contrast and colors wow. Sony is certainly better. I had sigma 100-400 and wasn't loving the color and autofocus speed, sony 100-400 way better. At least sigma has now better autofocus with 60 600.
Contrast is just a slider, soms lenses like 35mm GM have it even to much base and for some shots you must lover it :) Like rainy shots often like contract, but with heavy open summer sunlight contrast actually better lowered a bit. Also he didnt simultaneous test the lenses, so the light alone might have lowered contrast, this is not a viable way to compare.
Leave the Sony on one body and you will never get dust on the sensor. The other 2 will leave you cleaning the sensor at least once a month. They suck so much air through a camera body. You can feel the wind blow on you eye up to the viewfinder with the 150-600mm. Plus with the sony from 200-600mm it only takes 1/4 turn and stays balance on a gimbal.
Internal focusing doesn't mean the weight won't shift. It's just going to be less weight. Especially with the telephoto lenses, the relevant groups for zooming are quite big & heavy; still, most gimbals in that size class should cope with it.
@@franzjosefstakes With the Sony mostly much of the center elements spread outward . This keeps that lens with the same balance characteristics. Unlike the other lenses which push the largest element out farther from the camera body. When mounted on a tripod gimbal head like the Wimberley you do not have to rebalance. With either Sigma lenes you will have to rebalance. I have personally used both the Sigma 150-600 and the Sony 200-600mm. The sigma will point at the ground when extended. The Sony stays the same at 200 or 600mm.
This focal length is my jam. Thanks for the video! Not sure if you’ve already addressed this. Do you plan on reviewing the Fuji 150-600mm when you get the opportunity?
But where's the Nikon 200-600mm version? Oh hang on, they haven't released it yet, despite being on their lens roadmap since they announced the z mount lens lineup 300 years ago 🤬🤬🤬
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the sigma 100 - 400 C for Sony E and the 150 - 600 Sports for Sony E in terms of sharpness and AF. I bought the 150 - 600 Sports but somehow the AF fucks up very often. I had never such problems with any of my lenses, even manually focussing is more reliable :D
What body do you have it on? I’ve got one with an A7IV and A7siii and it’s pretty good on both, also the stabilisation is much better on those bodies than shown in this review.
@@jamessonfield in an A7r III. The only way the AF isn't completely useless SOMETIMES is in Flexible Spot M or L AF mode. But only sometimes. 70% of the bird-shots I take are missing focus. And I mean stationary, not flying birds. It just sucks.
@@mexmax1657 that does sound bad, I’ve managed to track birds in flight in zone mode and it stays locked on perfectly, the only time it’s a bit slow is going from close focus to infinity quickly but then the limiter helps with that.
@@jamessonfield hm. Very strange. I contacted sigma and they told me its basically "normal" an I should just try to use a tripod. Guess I will try around a little longer and then sell it if it stays this crappy. Its very frustrating.
Thanks Christopher for this film. I'm a relative beginner but interested in this Sony 200-600 lens. I'm thinking of pairing with an APS c such as Sony a6400 ? I wonder are they a good pairing ? I realise the a 6400 is quite old but it seems good value for money especially for bird photography. Also wondered wether the Sony 70-350 might be a decent option with the same camera ? If anyone has any advice please do feel free to reply. Thanks
a6400 is a very good camera. I bought mine a week ago, like it so much. If you have not got the a6400 yet, consider buying it with 18-135 lens, it performs so well. You can also check Arthur R video about this Sigma lens, I think he paired it with a6100, and it performed great
The 60-600 really makes things complicated when choosing. Before this the 200-600 was a hands down no brainer (And it probably is still for many who want the handling and just the 600mm), but its superior image stabilization, mindblowing 10x zoom and even impressive holding the image quality and AF speed so much that it equals and even beats the 200-600 and that too at the same price, is just too hard to ignore. The downsides are the weight, external zooming and 15 fps, where the 200-600 beats this, but depending on your utility, you may well choose the 60-600, especially if youre a videographer considering the impressive stabilization and zoom versatility. I hatr this dillema. I wish this 15fps artificial throttling is done with, the AF motor is designed to work at 30 fps!!! sad.
Does anyone have a recommendation for bird/wildlife photography? I currently have the sony 100-400gm, but searching for a bit more reach. Should I go for - sony 1.4 teleconverter - sony 200-600 - sigma 150-600 sports (+/- 1.4 teleconverter) - sigma 60-600? Thanks in advance! Much appreciated! 😁 And thank you for the video!
Considering the cost of all options, I would think the teleconverter is the best and cheapest, cheapest being the main reason. The other lenses will overlap too much with the 100-400. The one thing I went for a year or so ago was the A7R3, soon the R4 came out with a 61mp sensor. But the R3 is great with 42mp. It shows when cropping and maintaining excellent quality still superior to the 24mp sensor camera. I would opt for a body with a high sensor mp count as it will give you sharper pictures. Even in crop sensor mode, it still be superior to the 24mp camera. But then there is a slight issue with cost as the R4 is $3000 and the R5 at $3800. Hey, its only money.
One thing you left out Chris, the sigma lenses won't shoot @ 30 fps like the the Sony lens will. The Sony being sharpest at 600mm is important because you dont buy a beast lens to shoot at the short end. Great review sir . Keep it up love your tests.
I got the Sony 200-600mm. Hated it for what I most like to shoot, which is tiny, birds. The problem is the minimum focus distance at 600mm is, by my testing, 17 yards. Drove me crazy until I figured out why it couldn't get focus on a Kirtland Warbler perched on a branch 5 yards away. My previous birding lens was the A-Mount Sony 70-400mm and it was great and would have nailed it. So, I sold the Sony and got the Sigma 150-600mm. Very happy with it for birding. For a carry around lens, I got the Tamron 50-400mm, which is much lighter and still gets good shots of tiny birds..
I haven’t seen (nor could I imagine) a review of three zooms could give so much - ALL of the key information in just 11 minutes.
The best comparison review I have ever seen.
Brilliant work
Shooting crap is not a good review)
@@photobatyasend us a link to your video.
Thank you for making this video. These side by side image quality comparisons are very very useful
I have used and owned a variety of super telephoto lenses over the years both as a wildlife photographer as a personal interest, and as a photographer for a high school for the past 19 years covering sports and performing arts. The first super telephoto lens that I bought was a Sigma 50 to 500 but only kept at one season because I was never happy with its sharpness. That lens was made before sigma improved their game to their new contemporary and sports line of lenses. I upgraded to the EF mount Sigma 150 to 600 mm contemporary lens and have been very happy with it over the past six years with wildlife photography including birds in flight and covering outdoor field sports. When it was released, I purchased the Sony 200 to 600 mm lens. I am very impressed with the linear focus motors in that lens. They are game changing. You really notice a difference between lenses that don’t have the linear focus motors in activities, such as track with the hundred meter sprinters running toward you. In that situation the Sony, focusing was faster and more accurate easily. I did always wish that the Sony wasn’t a 200 however, and wished that the focal length would allow me to have a wider view when shooting track. The Sony is easier to handle due to its internal zoom, which is particularly easier to change when doing video with the lens on a monopod which you can do very smoothly. The stiffness of the external zoom in Sigma lens ruins video during zooming. It was excellent for birds in flight shooting. Since I am a canon EF mount and Sony E shooter when the sigma EF mount 60 - 600mm lens was released I got it last year. It works very well with mc11 adaptor. Well enough that I’m not interested in buying the new e mount version. Loved been able to shoot it with either my canon or Sony cameras. I started using this lens more because it could zoom in to 60 mm. When shooting outdoor field events, I stopped needing to take two cameras so that I could have a wider focal range and the 60 to 600 worked out fine to have one lens on a mono pod and I could cover the action better, because I never had to switch between cameras. So I would take it to cover baseball softball daytime football and lacrosse. This expanded vocal range in a super zoom caused me to be interested in other lenses that were being released in nontraditional focal lengths and I think Tamron and Sigma really have something going for them here and they’re beating the big three in this regard. It took me 10 months to get my hands on the Tamron 35 to 150 and it is a fine lens and I can shoot indoor events like wrestling volleyball and basketball with just one camera body and lens. I hike and like to do telephoto landscape pictures and so the Tamron 50 to 400mm is something that I
take in a backpack and it’s a smaller and lighter lens as well and I particularly like how well it handles shooting directly into the sun for sunset pictures. some of the best ones I’ve ever taken happened this fall with it. The 1:2 macro at 50mm works well and was a feature that first interested me in it. It does have purple fringing in super high contact situations. This Christmas I decided to update my six year old Sigma 150 to 600mm to the Sony e mount version with the better focus motors and it is a nice upgrade for my bird in flight wildlife photography also because in was on sale. So I conclude that each lens has its strengths and is best in different situations. It is wonderful to have so much choice. Sigma and Tamron are my first considerations in lens releases. They have saved me so much money and their built and image quality is right up there now. As far as handling goes I can handhold the sigma 150-600mm and Sony 200-600mm on the sidelines or birding without getting too tired but the sigma 60-600mm requires a a monopod. P.S. I am upset that Canon won’t allow third party rf lens development. Stupid decision. One reason. Greed. Sony e mount lens choice is fantastic.
Not greed, its called buisness & protecting one's own Market. Although for Canon users, may seem like a disadvantage, it is logical without diversity to assume -
Buy Canon, use Canon accessories
super informative experienced feedback, thank you
I did not expect Sony 200-600mm will be soft at 200mm
Thanks for this video.
I shoot news and sports full time for a newspaper and I'm the team photographer for a baseball team. I have the 200-600 Sony and I can say that this lens is an absolute bargain. The AF is fast and accurate and it can shoot everything for field sports.
The fact that it has internal zoom ALONE is a feature that puts it way ahead of the competition. I have to shoot outside in ALL conditions and with rain and snow it's been a solid tool for my on deadline use.
In the real world this is the best value because it will hold it's resale value better than aftermarket brands.
-Dave K
100% agree… the short zoom throw of the Sony and it’s internal zoom makes a big difference in shooting field sports. A very big point i did not hear in the video is if you’re a Sony A1 or A9 shooter the sigma is capped at 15 frames per second leaving behind 5 frames per second on an A9 and 15 on and A1!
@@eosuser1 I agree it wasn't mentioned in the video. He mentions that he tried the lenses on his A7riii.
that would be a VERY important piece of info for people to know I agree!
Internal Zoom like on the 200-600 Sony G makes a huge difference in the long run and if you're really making heavy use of the lens out in the field. Making sure dust does not get on the inside surfaces of the elements really matters, and I've seen dust get in with external zoom.
It doesn't "really matter" until the dust starts to really add up. The idea that zooms are dustsuckers will never die I think. Lensrentals has a good article on it called "The Apocalypse of Lens Dust". In summary primes and zooms can be as dusty inside, that's my experience too. And lots of people will prefer external zooms as they are much easier to pack. That being said, I still prefer the 200-600 and its internal zoom due to how it balances on a gimbal and how easy it is to zoom in use, something that's very useful for homing in on a fast bird for instance.
@@Vantrakter what are you doing with 200-600 on a gimbal?
@@shounakhinge8 Shooting from a hide
I sold my G loved the pictures but got dust inside just after 3 weeks of use, I guess internal zoom is not a guarantee it still sucks in the dust somehow.
@@shounakhinge8 A gimbal at its core is just a mechanical device to balance something out in multiple axis relative to gravity and the principle has been used for a long time for passive balancing. You might be confused because you immediately think of the modern motorised version of gimbals. What he most likely meant was a gimbal head that is widely used in wildlife photography
I have the Sony lens for birding and am at 600mm 90% of the time, where it is strongest optically, that with the 30fps on my A1 and internal zooming and lighter weight make it the winner for me over the new sigma 60-600 but competition is great for us consumers. Great comparison, thanks Chris 👍
I have the same cobination A1 + 200-600. My lens is also on 200 mm very sharp.
Totally Agree.
I have the SIGMA prime
20mm, 50mm, & 135mm.
But I will definitely be getting the SONY 200-600mm next.
The SIGMA 60-600 is simply not sharp at 400-600 like the SONY.
@@michaelantony777 Some tests show different results
@@michaelantony777 The test here clearly shows the Sigma at 600 is sharper than the Sony in the center where it matters. But in real life photos it won't make a difference really.
@@JL-fh4qw You need to watch this on a 65" 4K television
the Sony looks the sharpest at the long end, also I would rely on its AF more and is easy to handle with the internal zoom. The 60-600 has a significant advantage in close focusing and wider fov but is very heavy
Exactly, Sony was the sharpest by a margin both at 400mm and 600mm where these lenses are mostly used. I'm surprised he didn't mention that.
Just a caveat, The 60-600mm is full metal internal construction, and has a external coating that dissipates heat. Personally, I’m thankful it’s not white. Thanks again for the comparison.
Hope to see the tamron 50-600 soon! Seriously considering that lens
I had the old 50-500 back in the day and thought it was truly awful. Sigma have come a long way. This new 10x lens is pretty darned good.
It is a shame that third-party lenses are somewhat hampered on the higher-end Sony cameras, especially when considering that the higher-end bodies are the ones most wanting for a telephoto zoom lens. The consistency of the 60-600 across a 10x range is pretty incredible, and I also have to commend sony for offering a first-party lens with such a high build quality at a relatively affordable price! I’m quite interested to see how Nikon’s 200-600 z-mount lens compares when it is finally released (if it ever is).
Hampered? Well at least the Mount is fully open to them for years right? Why we people can't appreciate when 15fps is still a decent amount if you really need to put a third party on your 6500$ body!
I agree. My solution: Megadap your Sony lenses to Nikon adapter: Z8 gives 120 FPS shooting, plus in-body 8K 60p RAW video. No crippling by Sony, who is starting to act like Canon. Stick it to Sony and vote with your dollars. It focuses at native lens speed and they release new firmware like every 2 months.
very interesting indeed, compatibility of teleconverters would be a bonus for the sony lens
I believe the Sony 200-600mm lens is the only one that you can use a 1.4 or 2 times teleconverter (for E Mount), so that’s another factor for some on the choice of lens to buy.
Wonderful comparison video 👌 i will go for Sigma 60-600 Spot for Sony a 6700..
Christopher, you're one of my favorite reviewers. I really appreciate the fact you keep bringing us back to the laws of diminishing returns and celebrate the quality of more affordable and less heralded lenses. I also appreciate you dropping the god bless from the video, its pretty offensive to me.
Great comparison, thanks. I have the 200-600 and I'll keep it for wildlife because of 30 fps and the weight of the 60-600 is a bit too much for my 67 year old body.
Congrats Christopher!! Very usefull test. Thanks a lot, great job!!
Nice review 👍🏼
One thing I want to point out The Sigma lens cannot capture 30 images per second on fast cameras. Sony has made this feature only on its lenses, as the Sigma lens will enable you to capture 15 images per second, even if the body can take 30 images.
This is not an issue with Canon btw, luckily since high fps are needed to counteract the out of focus shots.
Is this an artificial limit imposed by Sony? Will the sigma do max fps in manual focus mode?
@@harrison00xXx Yes, it is not an issue with Canon. Because there arent any Sigma DG DN lenses for RF Mount...
If harrison did not get it, let me spell it out. Sony lenses still have 30fps. So non-issue with Sony lenses on Sony bodies. Since there are no Sigma DG DN lenses on Canon bodies, harrison’s comment did not add anything to the conversation and you can not compare it to Sony.
@@DJ-sp5vf Why are you talking? You dont have any clue why that is, still you talk?
Thanks for another great one! I wish you had the Tamron 50-400 on that comparison. For those like me that favour more the wide end of this type of lenses
I've compared my 50-400 with my 200-600 at 200, 300 and 400mm. I shot a church wall at 50m. My copies were more similar than different in terms of sharpness, with an edge to the 200-600 at 300mm. I had to zoom in A LOT in post on tiny imperfections in the wall to be able to tell them apart. More distortion on the 50-400. And the colors are a little different between the two. Very happy with both lenses. I also compared then with the 28-200 on overlapping focal lengths and was surprised to see how well that lens held up against the bigger ones
Great video, thanks. The 60-600 Sigma seems the best for my liking.
Man! Still doing it! Kudos 👏
Very impressive that you've been able to compare these lenses so effectively in a short time. I think that Sigma is still living up to their reputation of providing great value for money, producing lenses that come very close (and sometimes even match in certain areas) the first party models but at a lower price. Or they match the first parties on price but offer some unique features.
Still though, I feel as if Sigma aren't being as innovative as they used to be when they completely turned the market on its head with the beginning of their 'Global Vision' lines. Whilst labelled a 'Sport' model, the 150-600mm DG DN seems to be a balance between the old DSLR Contemporary and Sports models. Would've been interesting if they had decided to do that again with mirrorless, and perhaps released a Contemporary 150-600 with a slower aperture (say f/5 - 7.1) but an even more competitive price; if $999 was feasible that could've been pretty amazing. Then they could've done a Sport version with a constant f/5.6, internal zoom and the linear AF motor for $1999. Again if feasible, maybe that is asking a little too much, perhaps f/5 - 6.3 but holding the wider apertures for longer may be more realistic but of course that's not so easy to market as 'here, look at our constant f/5.6 Sport superzoom'. But if Nikon could make a reasonably priced constant f/5.6 200-500mm years ago I'm sure Sigma could've worked out how to get that extra 100mm without the price doubling.
Another interesting idea I would've liked to have seen from Sigma would be a 'Sports Light Weight' series. Just like the I-series is a subset of the Contemporary line, they could have done a 'Light Weight' subset of the Sports line, using diffractive optics like Canon's DO and Nikon's PF lenses. Both of those brands seem to have success with those lens types. Imagine Sigma doing say a 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and 500mm f/5.6 primes all light weight and at reasonable prices. The 200mm f/2.8 especially could be a great value alternative to the more expensive f/2.8 zooms. Then for diffractive optics zooms they could have done the 60-600 to keep the 10x zoom benefit but actually have it light weight. And maybe a 100-400 model to round out the series, a higher end alternative to the existing Contemporary so maybe something like an f/4 - 5. Of course everyone can dream about random lens ideas though, doesn't mean it will ever become reality!
As my own system is Micro Four Thirds I'm not currently in the market for these FF superzooms, I just find them personally interesting to check out, but I do want to get a FF system sometime soon to improve low light performance, and in particular for the shallower depth of field for portraits. Lenses like Sigma's 24 and 35mm f/1.4 are very tempting with decent prices - actually less than the M43 equivalents but with a lot more depth of field control. But the difficult decision will be whether to also keep my M43 body for the superzoom stuff, as it's impossible to beat for value and size for the really long focal lengths; my Olympus 75-300mm II was only £330! Or I use the funds from selling all my M43 gear towards FF and eventually get a superzoom in the collection...
I believe the Sony is also the only one accepting tele converters on E mount. That could be a decisive factor as well.
Already the dslr version of the sigma 60-600 was the best of the bunch. Fast af, sharpest at 600 wide open, sharper than the rest, best IS, weather sealing, macro , high quality built and great tripod mount/collar. And heavyyyy. Also it was a truly do-it-all lens, i took landscape photos w it, panoramas.
I am deciding whether I should switch from my Sony 100-400mm G Master to this one.
Amazing that such high quality super telephoto lenses are now within reach for the average consumer. Granted they're slow, but honestly, f/6.3 isn't terrible for lenses like these.
I'd personally take the Sony. Despite the CA on the wide end and "only" starting at 200mm; the size, weight, internal zoom, and OSS is the right mix of features for me.
Great video! Answered a lot of questions. Love the zoom range of the Sigma 60-600, and like the internal zoom of the Sony. I find I tend to shoot these type of lenses at their max focal length. So for me it's the Sony.
But you can only use the 200-600 with a teleconverter on Sony
Awesome! Finally! This is more than I could have ever dreamed for! This is really going to help so many people when having to choose one of them. Great job!
I currently own the sigma 100-400 for my a6400 and love it but really want an extra 200mm I'm steering toward the 60-600 but the extra weight concerns me
*Kicking and screaming and crying because I want these lenses with RF mount*
Not bad, I have the Tamron 150-500 because of the lower weight and price. Difference between 500 and 600 isn't much. But I do plan on buying the 600mm F4 at some point, but mainly bc of the smoother backgrounds and compatibility with teleconverters for wildlife/astrophotography.
Hi there Mr. Frost
I am thrill about the new Sigma 60 to 600 mm lens ! But I am very disappointed in Canon . I need not say anything more !!!
I would take the sony 200-600mm. There a firmware update to work better on A7RV cameras for the IBIS plus OSS. More affordable now on the used market. Plus it's seems to be more gear towards sports and wildlife(why I would get it) so it being the sharpest looking from the 400-600mm range is a plus.
Currently all sigma lenses cap at 15 FPS on the A1 and the A9 cameras. Which is a weakness for those owning those cameras
With the A1 mkii getting the A7rV IBIS. So really those waiting on that camera will likely pick the 200-600mm.
Thanks for this comparison Christopher. I have the L-Mount 150-600 now, and was wondering if it was worth trading up. I don’t think it’s worth the financial hit right now.
I shoot with Sony A1, so my choice is my Sony 200-600mm which can shot at a full 30fps. No third=party lens can do more than 15fps on the A1, so along with the internal zoom, the Sony wins for me. I also own other very good Sigma Art lenses , and used to own an older generation Sigma C 150-600mm in EF-mount used with an MC-11 adaptor and it worked pretty good. But the Sony 200-600mm has been stellar in shooting all over the world and I will stick with it. I have much wider aperture and sharper primes and zooms for below 200mm, so I dont really need the Sigma 60-600mm . I am sure it will be excellent for many. Cheers
Thanks Chris for your amazing comparison of these lenses. I like the 60-600 the best if you're in a controlled environment but I'd use these lenses for surf photography and internal zoom and the white color is necessary for all the salt in the air. It's just too bad at 200mm it's not as good. If Sigma made one with internal zoom then I'd probably lean towards that even if it's black asi usually shoot in the mornings or late afternoon so it's not that big of a deal to be white or black but for that occasional shoot that happens mid day in the middle of summer then white might be a better choice.
I got to say, the Sigma 60-600 is great with my Nikon Z6II and FTZ adapter. The pictures are crisp and bright, but this lens is for daytime use, you can get a lot out of it.
What camera backpack can you recommend for a larger setup like S5 II or EOS R6 with 60-600mm + second body + 24-70mm and maybe 50mm lenses?
On top batteries, filters and a dji mini 3 drone would be awesome.
F-stop gear 🤙🏻
Are we going to ignore that the third party lenses are hindered to 15 fps and extremely heavy?
Please can you do a review on the Tamron 50-400mm , great upload 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I really, REALLY wanted the new 60-600, but I am actively shooting in the western national parks and in Jackson Hole where summer can be very dusty on dirt roads and vehicle traffic really kicks up a lot of dust. The 60-600 sucks in air every time it is zoomed out. Adding in the cost and downtime for sending the lens in for internal cleaning proved it was not a good purchase for me.
we can clearly see 200-600 producing excellent contrast and resolving much more details than other two (may be except at 200mm)
Love the new en 60-600 from sigma…is time to start saving like crazy :)
Hi Christopher! Is the Tamron 50-400 on your radar? Been looking at 3rd party options vs the 100-400gm...
Yes, on my radar. I've asked Tamron UK to lend me a copy as soon as they have one available.
@@christopherfrost awesome!!
No mention about Ony Sony 200-600G compatible with TC. And 3rd party lenses limited to 15FPS.
Nice comparison, really helpful.
Thank you for this, your comparison comes at the perfect time as I was looking between these exact three for the upcoming eclipse in April. I think the flexibility of the 60-600mm has definitely swayed me!
The Sigma 60-600 weighs almost 50% more than the Sony and Sigma 150-600, that is the real disadvantage. If you don't mind the weight and use the zoom ranges frequently to justify not switching lenses, it's the best option.
@@anonymousl5150 Anyone shooting an eclipse will surely be using a tripod, so the extra weight of the 60-600mm when shooting astro is pretty irrelevant.
@@alfoutdoors9660 you still have to carry it
@@alfoutdoors9660 Well you're talking about a specific niche case lol
I’m getting the 60-600 for my classroom! 👍😁
I have the 200-600 Sony and I’m a huge Sigma fan but on this call, the Sony internal zoom won me over and the native shooting speed being soft-capped if it’s not a Sony lens. Excellent motorsports lens at big tracks. I wouldn’t need the 60-200 range anyhow.
Versatility of Sigma 50-500 and Sigma 60-600 lenses is unbeatable.
Is there a hope to see Sigma 24-105 DG DN soon?
I have own sigma 170-500 for Nikon very light and fully satisfied fo the lens. I have bought Sony 200-600 because of the special offer and monthly payment. it is very heavy and difficult to manage. I did not yet complete try out this lens. But i dont think i will keep this lens with me.
As a landscape photographer, the 60-600 would allow me to not have to carry the 70-200mm. Just two lenses covering the range from 24-600mm is just awesome!
Use a Sony 20-70 and it's 20-600.
why do you need beyond 200mm focal length for landscape? shoot animals u see?
@@r00kiet80 distant mountain, details in the landscapes, glaciers. Lots of uses. Big moon landscape shots are all done with ~1000mm+.
@@sulev111 i didnt have the budget yet to buy a additional lens but i really want this 60-600 too i only have a sigma 24-70 and the kit lens :(
Shits just too expensive if ur just an amateur
@@r00kiet80 Tamron 50-400 exists
Why didn't you include the even cheaper Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary lens? Why only include the Sigma 150-600 Sport?
The 150-600mm DG DN Sport is basically the Contemporary lens but for E-mount
In Poland new Sigma 60-600mm is 30% more expensive than Sony 200-600mm, which is huge difference compared to similar prices in $.
Amazing review, thank you
Last year I was able to buy Sony 200 600 for 1450 Euro, so it was easy decision for my to buy it for my A9.
But that new Sigma 60-600 is really nice gear. I’m happy that Sigma introduced new focusing motors which means that there is a chance for Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sport ;-)
man, been waiting for that lens years. Sony is just too expensive for a hobbyist.
@@vandalton4948 try out tamron 70-180. i've been shooting amateur sports with it for almost a year and it feels amazing. it's sharp at 2.8, fast focusing, light and build quality is surprisingly good
@@sergeyzakharov7326 I used Tamron 28-70 v1 for a while. It was uninspiring :(. That's the reason I don't feel that much interest in Tamron 70-180. Maybe 70-180 is better than the other.
Thanks for this comparison.
I'd like to learn a little more about your new test chart: what's different to the old one?
A little bigger, with finer detail on the printing of the image
I went with the Sony because of it not changing the size when zooming and that’s also why I got the Sony 70-200mm 2.8 ii
So now thst the 200-600 and the sigma 150-600 are the same price. Would the Sony be the winner?
60-600 is out of my price range at 2300 euros. The other two are around 1400
A shame non native lenses get capped framerates
If you would throw in the Tamron 600 in the mix, which one would you still choose?
Sony also seems to have the darkest colouring in your sharpness comparison.
Why not add the Canon RF 100-500L since it's basically the same kind of lens?
When you zoom out at 6:00, then there's a big difference in contrast and colors wow. Sony is certainly better. I had sigma 100-400 and wasn't loving the color and autofocus speed, sony 100-400 way better. At least sigma has now better autofocus with 60 600.
Contrast is just a slider, soms lenses like 35mm GM have it even to much base and for some shots you must lover it :) Like rainy shots often like contract, but with heavy open summer sunlight contrast actually better lowered a bit. Also he didnt simultaneous test the lenses, so the light alone might have lowered contrast, this is not a viable way to compare.
Very helpful, thanks buddy!
Should I buy sony 200 - 600 or sigma 60 600. Which lens is better?
What about Tamaron 150-600 lens?
Nobody buys a 200-600 to use it at 200. 😂
For wild life get the Sony 200-600. For landscape get the Sigma 60-600.
Leave the Sony on one body and you will never get dust on the sensor. The other 2 will leave you cleaning the sensor at least once a month. They suck so much air through a camera body. You can feel the wind blow on you eye up to the viewfinder with the 150-600mm. Plus with the sony from 200-600mm it only takes 1/4 turn and stays balance on a gimbal.
Internal focusing doesn't mean the weight won't shift. It's just going to be less weight.
Especially with the telephoto lenses, the relevant groups for zooming are quite big & heavy; still, most gimbals in that size class should cope with it.
@@franzjosefstakes With the Sony mostly much of the center elements spread outward . This keeps that lens with the same balance characteristics. Unlike the other lenses which push the largest element out farther from the camera body. When mounted on a tripod gimbal head like the Wimberley you do not have to rebalance. With either Sigma lenes you will have to rebalance. I have personally used both the Sigma 150-600 and the Sony 200-600mm. The sigma will point at the ground when extended. The Sony stays the same at 200 or 600mm.
This focal length is my jam. Thanks for the video!
Not sure if you’ve already addressed this. Do you plan on reviewing the Fuji 150-600mm when you get the opportunity?
Yes, one day :-)
Is there any optical difference between the mirrorless and DSLR versions of the sigma lenses, or is it just weight and mount?
I bought the 150-600. if i had extra funds, I would have gotten the 60-600!
But where's the Nikon 200-600mm version? Oh hang on, they haven't released it yet, despite being on their lens roadmap since they announced the z mount lens lineup 300 years ago 🤬🤬🤬
Thanks for your effort
Hello! What do you think about nikkor z 180-600 vs sigma 60-600 sport?
Thank you very much
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the sigma 100 - 400 C for Sony E and the 150 - 600 Sports for Sony E in terms of sharpness and AF. I bought the 150 - 600 Sports but somehow the AF fucks up very often. I had never such problems with any of my lenses, even manually focussing is more reliable :D
What body do you have it on? I’ve got one with an A7IV and A7siii and it’s pretty good on both, also the stabilisation is much better on those bodies than shown in this review.
@@jamessonfield in an A7r III. The only way the AF isn't completely useless SOMETIMES is in Flexible Spot M or L AF mode. But only sometimes. 70% of the bird-shots I take are missing focus. And I mean stationary, not flying birds. It just sucks.
@@mexmax1657 that does sound bad, I’ve managed to track birds in flight in zone mode and it stays locked on perfectly, the only time it’s a bit slow is going from close focus to infinity quickly but then the limiter helps with that.
@@jamessonfield hm. Very strange. I contacted sigma and they told me its basically "normal" an I should just try to use a tripod. Guess I will try around a little longer and then sell it if it stays this crappy. Its very frustrating.
@@mexmax1657 I had the 100-400 dgdn before and that wasn’t quite as good af wise but still very usable, loved the size of that lens though!
I think the sony is the best choice...
How do you think these lenses compare with the internally focusing, Fuji XF 150-600?
Thanks Christopher for this film. I'm a relative beginner but interested in this Sony 200-600 lens. I'm thinking of pairing with an APS c such as Sony a6400 ? I wonder are they a good pairing ? I realise the a 6400 is quite old but it seems good value for money especially for bird photography. Also wondered wether the Sony 70-350 might be a decent option with the same camera ? If anyone has any advice please do feel free to reply. Thanks
a6400 is a very good camera. I bought mine a week ago, like it so much. If you have not got the a6400 yet, consider buying it with 18-135 lens, it performs so well. You can also check Arthur R video about this Sigma lens, I think he paired it with a6100, and it performed great
Great to see you aren't giving up any IQ with such a "superzoom"!
are they all full frame?
Yeah
U should make compare into same situation. This is not a good comparsion.
How does the Sigma 60-600 do vs the Sony 200-600 on AF(Birding)?
The 60-600 really makes things complicated when choosing. Before this the 200-600 was a hands down no brainer (And it probably is still for many who want the handling and just the 600mm), but its superior image stabilization, mindblowing 10x zoom and even impressive holding the image quality and AF speed so much that it equals and even beats the 200-600 and that too at the same price, is just too hard to ignore. The downsides are the weight, external zooming and 15 fps, where the 200-600 beats this, but depending on your utility, you may well choose the 60-600, especially if youre a videographer considering the impressive stabilization and zoom versatility.
I hatr this dillema. I wish this 15fps artificial throttling is done with, the AF motor is designed to work at 30 fps!!! sad.
In Sweden at the very least the 60-600 is priced significantly higher than the 200-600 currently.
i dont get why u compare 150mm vs 200mm, and 350mm vs 400mm? trying to give resolution advantage to sony? >:D
Now I need Tamron with its creamy bokeh to come out with a 60-600 or even a 100-600 will do.
Can someone say the maxximum apperture of each milimeter in 60-600mm???
Thank you for this :)
it is noticeable that the author shows loyalty to sigma, although obviously Sony looks better
Does anyone have a recommendation for bird/wildlife photography?
I currently have the sony 100-400gm, but searching for a bit more reach.
Should I go for
- sony 1.4 teleconverter
- sony 200-600
- sigma 150-600 sports (+/- 1.4 teleconverter)
- sigma 60-600?
Thanks in advance! Much appreciated! 😁
And thank you for the video!
Considering the cost of all options, I would think the teleconverter is the best and cheapest, cheapest being the main reason. The other lenses will overlap too much with the 100-400. The one thing I went for a year or so ago was the A7R3, soon the R4 came out with a 61mp sensor. But the R3 is great with 42mp. It shows when cropping and maintaining excellent quality still superior to the 24mp sensor camera. I would opt for a body with a high sensor mp count as it will give you sharper pictures. Even in crop sensor mode, it still be superior to the 24mp camera. But then there is a slight issue with cost as the R4 is $3000 and the R5 at $3800. Hey, its only money.
One thing you left out Chris, the sigma lenses won't shoot @ 30 fps like the the Sony lens will. The Sony being sharpest at 600mm is important because you dont buy a beast lens to shoot at the short end. Great review sir . Keep it up love your tests.
Sigma makes great telephotos (100-400 as well is great). However the fact they dont produce teleconverters is a very big con
As a Nikon Z shooter, I’d take any of them! 😂😢
🎉🎉🎉
I got the Sony 200-600mm. Hated it for what I most like to shoot, which is tiny, birds. The problem is the minimum focus distance at 600mm is, by my testing, 17 yards. Drove me crazy until I figured out why it couldn't get focus on a Kirtland Warbler perched on a branch 5 yards away. My previous birding lens was the A-Mount Sony 70-400mm and it was great and would have nailed it. So, I sold the Sony and got the Sigma 150-600mm. Very happy with it for birding. For a carry around lens, I got the Tamron 50-400mm, which is much lighter and still gets good shots of tiny birds..
Thanks, you just saved me making an expensive mistake.