Another great video Jared! Thank you for the time and effort you put into these videos. I would choose the sony but worry about focus breathing when I'm hiking and need maximum reach close up.
Make up your mind Jared with Canon RF 70-200 you preferred extension zoom over Internal zoom of EF version, but now you say you prefer Internal zoom of Sony over Sigma extension. I don't get it.
Jared, I always appreciate it when you say "Is there a difference? Yes. Does it matter? No/In most cases, no/Probably not." because when it comes down to so many things, "Can you find a difference," is not equivalent to, "Does this make a difference?" The nits one picks should be the ones that count.
I watched this video 2 years ago but no need super-zoom lens that day. I bought the Sigma for my a6700 for bird photography this weekend. Thank you for honest review.
Definitely agree that taking one shot instead of using the motor drive is a great idea to learn 'anticipation'. I worked for a newspaper many many years ago and was given two rolls of film (yep, film) per day and expected to deliver 20+ 10x8 b/w glossies at the end of each day. That's 72 shots to grab everything! This stood me in great stead for the rest of my photography career and I would recommend everyone try it. Thanks Jared, love your work.
When Olympus released their $7,500 150-400mm F4.5, I went to their website to read about it. No way I want to buy something so expensive. To capitalize on the interest in that fancy lens, they put their $550 75-300mm II f4.8-6.7 lens on sale for just $399. So I bought that. It was backordered and took 3 months before I got mine. It weighs less than a lb. I had never been interested in such a long lens, but it has proven to be a powerful muse for my wildlife photography. I learned to grab birds on the wing through a lot of practice. I live next to a huge lake. I've also taken it and another body backpacking along with my usual 12-45mm zoom. Maybe not the sharpest lens, but sharper than I thought it would be and it has great contrast. So, that long focal length has opened up a lot of new opportunities for my craft.
For birding on my a6700, I had both lenses, first the Sigma, which turned out to be clearly more soft in the long end (600mm). Once i tried the Sony, to see the difference, i was all the sudden getting tack sharp, and thus I let go the Sigma (sold it to MPB that same day). My experience confirms like you said - use native glass !
I actually went with the Tamron 150-500, and I shoot with the A1. I love wildlife photography but it’s not my bread and butter, the compactness of the lens allows me to put it in my bag easily and still fit a 14-24, a couple primes, a 2nd body, and a drone (mavic mini)! I have been loving the Tamron.
Quit impressive to buy the A1 if it's not your " bread and butter. But quit odd to pay over 6000USD for a pro camera and then put a cheap third party lens on it? But I guess it's your taste. If I could afford an A1 I would certainly have chosen the native 100-400 mm or the prime lenses.
@@jalilhosseini621 i wanted more reach than 400mm, I don’t want to use teleconverters, and the primes are MASSIVE. I need a lens that I can fit in a bag as I travel but gives me good reach for wildlife when needed (as in Africa). The Tamron checks all the boxes, having used it for a few more months now I can say that I recommend that lens to anyone. Also, it’s always easy to spend someone else’s money. Lol the 400 prime is a 13k usd lens, since wildlife photography is a hobby, and not my source of income I’ll stick with the $1,400 usd lens. Lol If wildlife/sports photography became my main gig, of course I’d go for the 400/600 prime.
@@totalwargamer183 Fair enough, still it's odd to buy a pro camera and mount it to a cheap third party lens. I have the 200-600 mm with my A9 and it fit fine in a smal bag and give med the reach and super sharp images.
As a sports fan, I love seeing the fans in the stands and a slight bokeh which is fine with me. I know bokeh nerds love it, but it seems anytime I look at Sport Illustrated the images include the fans making it interactive.
@@froknowsphoto yes. And the fans blown out is just like having multicolored christmas lights in the background ; all their different colored shirts and hairs make it so cool when blurred out
We're planning on upgrading to the sigma, as a wildlife film company the cheaper costs is worth as it'll go into rigging (we need rail support with our FS7) thanks for the comparison, was helpful to know that we definitely don't need the Sony, looks like the sigma had a few features that are going to be better for filming anyway
The sigma is preordered for two weeks now, time is ticking so slowly. Hopefully the a7iii will be decent. I played ice hockey for 25 years after picking up photography five years ago I’m so ready to test this lens at the rink also.
I hate the external zooms. Sony definitely did a great job with the 200-600. I just returned my Canon 100-500mm because the throw is way to long for fast action! I would rather have a slightly heavier lens that functions well than a small, compact lens.
If i’m not completely wrong there is no Teleconverter Option for the eMount Sigma or the Tamron 150/500. Only the Sony has one (1.4x/2x) or the L Mount one. I ‘ve heard that 3rd Party Manifactures are not allowed to build one for eMount. The only solution ist the ef Mount Sigma 150/600 (c/sport) with mc11 and Sigma ef TC.
I went with the Sony 200-600, it was the only super tele zoom available for Sony when I bought it. But I would also still buy it over the Sigma & the Tamron as the internal zooming and quick throw because of the internal zooming are features I appreciate and are willing to spend the extra money for them. The Sigma and Tamron are still great lenses if your budget can't stretch to 2 grand though. I would like to know though why almost none of the 1st Party lens makers are including Arca Swiss compatible tripod feet or even offering one for their big lenses. Canon, Nikon, Sony what gives :| SIgma and Tamron include them and their lenses cost less.
I had a Sony 200-600mm and never liked the sharpness even after send it under warranty for repair/ tuneup. I may do a comparison with Sigma 100-400 and the 150-600 mm I have on order. I sold my Sony 200-600 to B&H and don’t regret it. I’ll rent another 200-600 and do a comparison but think both Sigmas will out shine it. I already love my Sigma 100-400 and think it is superior to the Sony in terms of sharpness on my Sony a7RIV.
Great comparison Jared, I like how down to earth you are with the conclusion. Some photographers are really elitist in terms of first party lenses and will only ever have something disparaging to say about third party brands, even though they have all been doing really well in recent times - especially Sigma and Tamron. I've not been lucky enough to have a big budget for photography most of my life as it's mainly a hobby. So $500 would make a big difference to me if the results are pretty much the same. That said, I'm sure there are photographers that would consider even my own photo gear budget unattainable and can only afford a $50 second-hand 50mm but an artist would still be able to make that work and get some great pictures. I do appreciate Sigma making some affordable lenses especially when I was starting out with photography, even before the Art/Sport/Contemporary lines they had a number of lenses with great price-to-performance ratio, enabling a budding young photographer to enjoy some brand-new lenses. But of course a professional can easily justify that extra $500 for the peace of mind that the lens will work perfectly with their body - or even if it's a hobbyist, if they comfortably afford it why not if they feel like they are getting a few extra features. One thing I do really want to compliment you on Jared is being so invested in your subjects and knowing everything about them. For your baseball shots, you seem to know all the lingo and the players. I know next to nothing about sports, and even less about baseball being from the UK! I would enjoy shooting sports though, for the challenge of capturing the right moments but that would certainly be a whole lot easier having the knowledge you do about the game and being able to predict what the players are going to do next. Maybe you are just particularly interested in baseball but I get the impression that it's more than that - you seem really professional in your approach to your photography subjects and are genuinely interested about who or what you're shooting. Even the zoo animals weren't just another snapshot but took on a new dimension as you were talking about the flamingos.
Also add it to crop sensor doesn't actually give you extra zoom,600 is always 600 just fills the sensor up at the equivalent of a full at longer length.
I'm presently using the Sigma 150-600C on my Canon R6 as the lighter weight and half the cost made it the more attractive option compared with the Sport. However I must admit if Sigma produce this lens in a Canon RF mount I think I might be looking to swap.
I sold my sigma 150-600 sports including the 1.4 converter used on my Nikon D850. The image quality in range 500-600 was poor in chromatic abbreviation. I’m now waiting for a good bargain on a 400 or 500 2.8.
You certainly take great shots at the Phillies Games! Nice stuff! I have the Sony 200-600 and the A9. I bought the Sigma Sports F4 few years ago and have it also matched to the A9 using a Sigma MC-11. I like the Sigma lens, decent stuff.
The difference between 15 fps and 21 fps is significant when shooting baseball. The key is the time between frames. The faster the better which means the higher frames per second the better, not that you want to shoot that many frames. I shoot with the 400mm F2.8 at 1/2500 second (cause that matters too) at 30 fps which allows me to get bat on ball frairly often which is what I want.
F6.3 is F9 with 1.4x teleconverter (it's F13 with the 2x TC, which most people don't use). And it should be noted that the α1 + 200-600mm CAN do 30fps in compressed RAW. I'm assuming you were shooting in uncompressed RAW... Yes, we all know you only shoot in uncompressed RAW, but I personally have no issues shooting in compressed RAW, the only time I shoot in uncompressed RAW is when perhaps the subject (like a bird) is backlit by the sun
I hesitate between the Sony mount and the panasonic mount .... I have a sony a7 M3 and a panasonic s1r, which mount you will choose for sports photos at night, but with good lighting ... Thank you
I'm tempted to get this, but after having used the Sigma 120-300 on my Nikon D500 and now the Sigma 100-400 for Sony I think I'll trade it all in to get the Tamron 150-500. Granted it's f2.0/2.8, I really like how the Tamron 35-150 looks. I've also previously used the Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 G2 and I just really like the way those photos come out; even tho the 70-200 I had didn't necessarily have sharpness near the corners.
I can see the use of push/pull especially for me, being smaller (the lens is 5 percent my bodyweight). I would get extra leverage at the end, therefore being able to hold it more steadily.
The zoo is a horrible place to test a wildlife lens; all photos look good at the zoo. Go to your neighborhood park and shoot some birds; if you don't like birds, get one of your neighborhood Fros to take it out for you.
As credos97 stated below, the Sony is capable of 30fps. I have that very combination and checked the speed. To quote Sony "20 fps max. when shooting uncompressed or lossless RAW". You are shooting uncompressed RAW, as can be seen e.g. in the EXIF of your RAW files. Which is why you see the lower speed of 20fps. With that setting you would not get 30fps with any lens whatsoever.
Yep, Sony says on their A1 30fps lens compatibility list that the 200-600 can do it, lots of other non GMaster lenses on that list too, so saying only GM have that feature is wrong.
Nice review and perfectly fine with your reasoning. The price difference however is in the mean time wider. Here in Europe we pay 1650 Euro for the Sony and about 850 for the Sigma. Got my Sigma for 630 - 100 Sigma mail in rebate = 530 Euro. So the Sony is 2-3 times more expensive.
Would be basically on par. If they both lock focus then there will be no sharpness difference apart from when you crop/zoom into the photo you’ll see a quality difference between 24 megapixels and 50 megapixels
I recently borrowed the Sony 200-600 to shoot an airshow and it was very nice. I had the Tamron 150-600 g2 DSLR lens before I switched to mirrorless and I didn’t like the external zooming. I also suspect the AF would be better with the native lens too. I have the Sony 100-400 now and have a hard time justifying a longer telephoto but I would probably pay the extra for the Sony if I did too.
Great video! Can you review the new tamron 35-150 when it comes out? I’m getting my first decent lens for e mount and am having a tough time deciding if I should wait for it!!
Jared question for you. How did you get in the photo pit at the Phillies game? Been trying for year to do that. Can you help me out with that Can’t seem to fine the right contact. Keep up the great work
I've got the Sigma since more than a year and I'm satisfied. I'm not ready to spend 500$ more for the benefits I'd get from a Sony 200-600. It'd be also less versatile in its focal length
I know you don't like cropping but would it be a good idea to just use one Sony 135mm 1.8 for all of it on a high MP Sony camera? ISO could be set to 100 because it's F1.8 and if you want a tighter shot you can crop it to the max. If you use the Sony A1 you can crop to 1/4th of your image and still have a 4k photo.
I have looked at the sigma 150-600 lens but don't know if I should choose sport or their c model. plus I have been considering a new camera for mirrorless. I currently have a Canon 70D but have been considering the Canon R6 or Sony a7 III what would you recommend
One cannot put teleconverter on this lens for Sony mount for a simple reason that no such teleconverter exists. Sony does not let Sigma develop teleconverters for Sony mount, and Sony's own teleconverter would not be recognized by the camera if attached to this lens. And yes, as many people already noted, teleconverters could be quite beneficial even for f6.3 lens (by the way, with 1.4TC aperture becomes 9, not 11), and TCs are made by Sigma for L mount, but not for Sony mount.
Do the fro packs work on Lightroom mobile? Also could you do a video on Lightroom mobile and your opinion on it? A lot of times it’s much more convenient to edit my photos on my iPad rather than lug around my laptop
One of the 10 L Mount alliance users here. Pairing this with my S1 and S5. I've noticed I have to stop down to around f/7.1 to get sharp focus at the end of the focal range. Loving the lens though. Kind of wish I kept my Sigma 100-400 though as a lighter walk around lens.
Nice review Jared. How would this lens hold up against the canon 800mm f11, vs this or the Tamron with a 1.4 telecomverter at f11. Given good light outdoor shooting.
Im hoping yah see this - I bought this lens today along with a Polar Pro 95mm VND. I went with this instead of the Sony so I could get the VND and the lens and spend less... Straight to the point the 95mm VND filter is not fitting the lens properly? Idk why the lens says 95.. its cross threading or not on totally flush
Jared, it would have been nice to see the difference in the AFC drive hit rates between these 2 with a runner coming straight at you since the Sony uses a linear drive (as does the Tamron 150 -500) and the Sigma is using a stepping motor. Does it matter, it just might.
I rented Sony 200-600 for a week, and I tried it for a week, I didn't get a single sharp enough image that I could use, all of them on close up had very little to no details. I used a Tamron 150-600 before and it was pretty sharp and most images was usable. So I hope Sigma is more like Tamron.
Hi Jared. Great review like always. I have a question. Do you use any specific color profile / creative style in your sony camera when taking pictures in general? Your colors are amazing and seem to pop nicely. I know you most likely use your presets in post, but straight out of your camera it looks dope as well! I have the sony a7iii and my creative style is set on standard and take a lot of landscape and sports photos and straight out of the camera It doesn't seem as nice as yours. Maybe you have tips?
Picture profiles don’t affect RAW images. Jared edits his photos then places them over his viewfinder video so that’s why it looks straight out of camera but it’s actually not
I am currently trying to figure out which one to get and I am so happy I found this video. I trust your no bull and understanding of professional and enthusiasts. Leaning towards the sigma for the close range focusing (birds are unpredictable) . Although i do like the internal zoom on the Sony. This is hard as hell my friend !
I am planning on buying the sony a7iv in 2023 feb 16 but i can't decide between the tamron 150-500 and sigma 150-600. The tamron has a slightly faster autofocus but the sigma has more reach and slightly better image quality. Could someone tell which one to buy.
A t/c added does equate to f11 more like 8.9 facts ,we know you do not like t/c but you have to know when and when not too use them ,me for the most part would like to crop especially on high mp sensors
Lots of wildlife photographers use APS-C bodies because the crop sensor acts like a teleconverter. An A6400 has a 24MP sensor, same as an A7III/A7C. But the smaller sensor with its finer pixels gives you more detail than you would get if you cropped a full-frame image to APS-C size. Mount a 600mm lens on an APS-C camera and it gives the field of view of a 900mm lens. If you can't afford an uber-res body, such as the Alpha 1 or the A7RV, mounting the lens on an APS-C body is a good option.
You are a little bit to much for me 😉 (take it easy) BUT still a great review. Thanks! I have L mount cameras and I am leaving Canon now as it is for me just now. (lacking a type Canon tracking and speed) Otherwice I once again would go for the Canon with type sports pictures.
Great review as always! I have a choice to make as I have a 5d MK4 and the A73 , I can use the Sigma with both cameras using the adapter , but I haven's seen a adapter for the Sony lens to be used with the Canon . I do prefer the Sony 200-600mm though .
i have the sigma 150-600c its a great lens, with planetary photography the x2 canon teleconverter is perfect esp jupiter and the moon as they have stupid amounts of light to give away
I have the canon R5 and R6 but also the LUMIX S1. I was going to sell the LUMIX camera but then they brought out the latest firmware that gives me external 5.9K prores RAW recording. So guess what? I’m keeping the S1. Long live the L Mount alliance…
Used to shoot Minor League ball. Was poor and shooting for a weekly on my on dime. Only needed one image a week. Have tried everything from a 200 F/2 and 300 f/2.8 Nikon AIS glass. THAT was tough! Was about to leave and there was a guy at 2nd base that had been hitting and running all over the local team. Understand the game and anticipate! Said if there is a hit there will be a play at the plate. Sure enough (after pre focusing... lol) he comes around. James McCann was the catcher with ball in glove turning to tag Jacoby Ellsbury shooting thru the net full frame. Hard drive crashed and I eventually lost the image. Just my luck.
Because Nikon (and Canon) didn't open their mount to third parties. They have to retro engineer the body/lens communication to create the lense. Big up to Sony to have opened it.
My dog, who is no longer with me (I still miss her!) weighed five pounds. At first, she was easy to carry around, but after ten minutes, my arms started to hurt. Five pounds doesn't sound like much, but when you're carrying it and moving around, OUCH. I bought a pouch for her and got a monopod for the Sigma (I have the contemporary version). ;) That being said, if I could afford the Sony 200-600mm lens, I'd buy it. Sharper images and features I'd really like to have.
I currently have a Sony A7S III and a Sony f2.8 70-200. I mainly shoot football and basketball in less than ideal lighting situations. Do you feel the light sensitivity of the SIII will make up for the loss in aperture of the 200-600? I really just want more focal length and am concerned I will lose too much light with these lenses and not get crisp images.
Which would you go with and why?
@Anna I didnt know that 😨
Another great video Jared! Thank you for the time and effort you put into these videos. I would choose the sony but worry about focus breathing when I'm hiking and need maximum reach close up.
Make up your mind Jared with Canon RF 70-200 you preferred extension zoom over Internal zoom of EF version, but now you say you prefer Internal zoom of Sony over Sigma extension. I don't get it.
I love the push pull for whale watching, its so usefull on the 100-400
Any that I can eventually afford.
Jared, I always appreciate it when you say "Is there a difference? Yes. Does it matter? No/In most cases, no/Probably not." because when it comes down to so many things, "Can you find a difference," is not equivalent to, "Does this make a difference?"
The nits one picks should be the ones that count.
I made your “L Mount alliance” a Ringtone! It’s awesome
How did you do that? It's hysterical.
Can you share it somehow? 😎👍
Here's a free beer as payment: 🍺☺️
@@elram2649 i’ll be able to get to that this evening. I’ve got a note made. Maybe going to get a friend to do an animation character for it also
@@richmediaarts
Dude, that'd be so cool!
The epitomy of awesomeness! 😎
imagine hearing that in the wilds 🤣
I watched this video 2 years ago but no need super-zoom lens that day. I bought the Sigma for my a6700 for bird photography this weekend. Thank you for honest review.
Luv it...the "L Mount Alliance" is back!
Btw, Jordan from DP Review uses the "L Mount" for his productions.
Definitely agree that taking one shot instead of using the motor drive is a great idea to learn 'anticipation'.
I worked for a newspaper many many years ago and was given two rolls of film (yep, film) per day and expected to deliver 20+ 10x8 b/w glossies at the end of each day. That's 72 shots to grab everything! This stood me in great stead for the rest of my photography career and I would recommend everyone try it.
Thanks Jared, love your work.
Use to watch so many of your videos, glad to see you’re still here.
When Olympus released their $7,500 150-400mm F4.5, I went to their website to read about it. No way I want to buy something so expensive. To capitalize on the interest in that fancy lens, they put their $550 75-300mm II f4.8-6.7 lens on sale for just $399. So I bought that. It was backordered and took 3 months before I got mine. It weighs less than a lb. I had never been interested in such a long lens, but it has proven to be a powerful muse for my wildlife photography. I learned to grab birds on the wing through a lot of practice. I live next to a huge lake. I've also taken it and another body backpacking along with my usual 12-45mm zoom. Maybe not the sharpest lens, but sharper than I thought it would be and it has great contrast. So, that long focal length has opened up a lot of new opportunities for my craft.
For birding on my a6700, I had both lenses, first the Sigma, which turned out to be clearly more soft in the long end (600mm). Once i tried the Sony, to see the difference, i was all the sudden getting tack sharp, and thus I let go the Sigma (sold it to MPB that same day). My experience confirms like you said - use native glass !
I actually went with the Tamron 150-500, and I shoot with the A1. I love wildlife photography but it’s not my bread and butter, the compactness of the lens allows me to put it in my bag easily and still fit a 14-24, a couple primes, a 2nd body, and a drone (mavic mini)! I have been loving the Tamron.
Quit impressive to buy the A1 if it's not your " bread and butter. But quit odd to pay over 6000USD for a pro camera and then put a cheap third party lens on it? But I guess it's your taste. If I could afford an A1 I would certainly have chosen the native 100-400 mm or the prime lenses.
@@jalilhosseini621 i wanted more reach than 400mm, I don’t want to use teleconverters, and the primes are MASSIVE. I need a lens that I can fit in a bag as I travel but gives me good reach for wildlife when needed (as in Africa). The Tamron checks all the boxes, having used it for a few more months now I can say that I recommend that lens to anyone.
Also, it’s always easy to spend someone else’s money. Lol the 400 prime is a 13k usd lens, since wildlife photography is a hobby, and not my source of income I’ll stick with the $1,400 usd lens. Lol
If wildlife/sports photography became my main gig, of course I’d go for the 400/600 prime.
@@totalwargamer183 Fair enough, still it's odd to buy a pro camera and mount it to a cheap third party lens. I have the 200-600 mm with my A9 and it fit fine in a smal bag and give med the reach and super sharp images.
@@jalilhosseini621 Cheap doesn't mean bad though. Optically the lens is similar to the Sony
@@RiposteThis The tampon is no way near Sony's GM 100-400 og the 200-600. ;)
As a sports fan, I love seeing the fans in the stands and a slight bokeh which is fine with me. I know bokeh nerds love it, but it seems anytime I look at Sport Illustrated the images include the fans making it interactive.
They should be obliterated or they become a distraction.
Sports Illustrated photographers are notoriously bad
@@froknowsphoto yes. And the fans blown out is just like having multicolored christmas lights in the background ; all their different colored shirts and hairs make it so cool when blurred out
We're planning on upgrading to the sigma, as a wildlife film company the cheaper costs is worth as it'll go into rigging (we need rail support with our FS7) thanks for the comparison, was helpful to know that we definitely don't need the Sony, looks like the sigma had a few features that are going to be better for filming anyway
Hey man, just curious if you went ahead and bought the sigma? How was it better for filming like you mentioned just wondering?
The fact that you had one shot and captured the ball in frame is absolutely insane considering those balls are going 90mph very impressive 🙏
I love the 200 to 600! Yes slow at 5.6. But for shooting sports during the day outside it’s incredible. It’s heavy
I have the EF version, oh goodness is it heavy.
Thanks for the review ! I hope the sigma 150-600 sport will soon have an RF mount …
The sigma is preordered for two weeks now, time is ticking so slowly. Hopefully the a7iii will be decent. I played ice hockey for 25 years after picking up photography five years ago I’m so ready to test this lens at the rink also.
I hate the external zooms. Sony definitely did a great job with the 200-600. I just returned my Canon 100-500mm because the throw is way to long for fast action! I would rather have a slightly heavier lens that functions well than a small, compact lens.
If i’m not completely wrong there is no Teleconverter Option for the eMount Sigma or the Tamron 150/500. Only the Sony has one (1.4x/2x) or the L Mount one. I ‘ve heard that 3rd Party Manifactures are not allowed to build one for eMount. The only solution ist the ef Mount Sigma 150/600 (c/sport) with mc11 and Sigma ef TC.
I went with the Sony 200-600, it was the only super tele zoom available for Sony when I bought it. But I would also still buy it over the Sigma & the Tamron as the internal zooming and quick throw because of the internal zooming are features I appreciate and are willing to spend the extra money for them. The Sigma and Tamron are still great lenses if your budget can't stretch to 2 grand though.
I would like to know though why almost none of the 1st Party lens makers are including Arca Swiss compatible tripod feet or even offering one for their big lenses. Canon, Nikon, Sony what gives :| SIgma and Tamron include them and their lenses cost less.
I had a Sony 200-600mm and never liked the sharpness even after send it under warranty for repair/ tuneup. I may do a comparison with Sigma 100-400 and the 150-600 mm I have on order. I sold my Sony 200-600 to B&H and don’t regret it. I’ll rent another 200-600 and do a comparison but think both Sigmas will out shine it. I already love my Sigma 100-400 and think it is superior to the Sony in terms of sharpness on my Sony a7RIV.
I bought the Sigma 150-600 and did a great job on my Nikon Z 7ll . It was on sale at $899.00. Such a deal.Very Very Sharp
Great comparison Jared, I like how down to earth you are with the conclusion. Some photographers are really elitist in terms of first party lenses and will only ever have something disparaging to say about third party brands, even though they have all been doing really well in recent times - especially Sigma and Tamron. I've not been lucky enough to have a big budget for photography most of my life as it's mainly a hobby. So $500 would make a big difference to me if the results are pretty much the same. That said, I'm sure there are photographers that would consider even my own photo gear budget unattainable and can only afford a $50 second-hand 50mm but an artist would still be able to make that work and get some great pictures. I do appreciate Sigma making some affordable lenses especially when I was starting out with photography, even before the Art/Sport/Contemporary lines they had a number of lenses with great price-to-performance ratio, enabling a budding young photographer to enjoy some brand-new lenses. But of course a professional can easily justify that extra $500 for the peace of mind that the lens will work perfectly with their body - or even if it's a hobbyist, if they comfortably afford it why not if they feel like they are getting a few extra features.
One thing I do really want to compliment you on Jared is being so invested in your subjects and knowing everything about them. For your baseball shots, you seem to know all the lingo and the players. I know next to nothing about sports, and even less about baseball being from the UK! I would enjoy shooting sports though, for the challenge of capturing the right moments but that would certainly be a whole lot easier having the knowledge you do about the game and being able to predict what the players are going to do next. Maybe you are just particularly interested in baseball but I get the impression that it's more than that - you seem really professional in your approach to your photography subjects and are genuinely interested about who or what you're shooting. Even the zoo animals weren't just another snapshot but took on a new dimension as you were talking about the flamingos.
@7:36 correction: The 1.4 teleconverter added will give a max aperture of f9 and not f11 at 600mm
Also add it to crop sensor doesn't actually give you extra zoom,600 is always 600 just fills the sensor up at the equivalent of a full at longer length.
I'm presently using the Sigma 150-600C on my Canon R6 as the lighter weight and half the cost made it the more attractive option compared with the Sport. However I must admit if Sigma produce this lens in a Canon RF mount I think I might be looking to swap.
Especially if they could get the weight down.
I sold my sigma 150-600 sports including the 1.4 converter used on my Nikon D850. The image quality in range 500-600 was poor in chromatic abbreviation. I’m now waiting for a good bargain on a 400 or 500 2.8.
You have to wait for a while to find a bargain for 500 mm f/2.8 :P
I bought the 200-600 from Sony, due to the benefit of using tele-converter if I need to.
Now we just need this on the RF mount
yes this
I wouldn't have known, or bothered, about the L-Mount Alliance until i saw your announcement.
What about filmmaking?
You certainly take great shots at the Phillies Games! Nice stuff! I have the Sony 200-600 and the A9. I bought the Sigma Sports F4 few years ago and have it also matched to the A9 using a Sigma MC-11. I like the Sigma lens, decent stuff.
I’m looking at getting the Sony 200-600 !
The difference between 15 fps and 21 fps is significant when shooting baseball. The key is the time between frames. The faster the better which means the higher frames per second the better, not that you want to shoot that many frames. I shoot with the 400mm F2.8 at 1/2500 second (cause that matters too) at 30 fps which allows me to get bat on ball frairly often which is what I want.
F6.3 is F9 with 1.4x teleconverter (it's F13 with the 2x TC, which most people don't use). And it should be noted that the α1 + 200-600mm CAN do 30fps in compressed RAW. I'm assuming you were shooting in uncompressed RAW... Yes, we all know you only shoot in uncompressed RAW, but I personally have no issues shooting in compressed RAW, the only time I shoot in uncompressed RAW is when perhaps the subject (like a bird) is backlit by the sun
ISO should be no problem at 1600 for any camera that's currently out.
Oh yeah absolutely, you can push way further than it tbh-
I hesitate between the Sony mount and the panasonic mount .... I have a sony a7 M3 and a panasonic s1r, which mount you will choose for sports photos at night, but with good lighting ... Thank you
Thank you for this. Looking to buy one for my LUMIX S5ii in a few weeks time 😊
I'm tempted to get this, but after having used the Sigma 120-300 on my Nikon D500 and now the Sigma 100-400 for Sony I think I'll trade it all in to get the Tamron 150-500. Granted it's f2.0/2.8, I really like how the Tamron 35-150 looks. I've also previously used the Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 G2 and I just really like the way those photos come out; even tho the 70-200 I had didn't necessarily have sharpness near the corners.
Is this lens suitable for photographing sports competitions inside sports halls? Sports like basketball, weightlifting, etc.
I was waiting for this, thank you sir. And could you do a comparison between 100-500 canon and 200-600 sony😍
I'm using the "L-MOUNT ALLIANCE" too :)
I can see the use of push/pull especially for me, being smaller (the lens is 5 percent my bodyweight). I would get extra leverage at the end, therefore being able to hold it more steadily.
The zoo is a horrible place to test a wildlife lens; all photos look good at the zoo. Go to your neighborhood park and shoot some birds; if you don't like birds, get one of your neighborhood Fros to take it out for you.
No thanks. Lol
Yeah, I much rather see an AF test with a dog running at full speed towards the camera, you can just go to a dog park for that
As credos97 stated below, the Sony is capable of 30fps. I have that very combination and checked the speed. To quote Sony "20 fps max. when shooting uncompressed or lossless RAW". You are shooting uncompressed RAW, as can be seen e.g. in the EXIF of your RAW files. Which is why you see the lower speed of 20fps. With that setting you would not get 30fps with any lens whatsoever.
Yep, Sony says on their A1 30fps lens compatibility list that the 200-600 can do it, lots of other non GMaster lenses on that list too, so saying only GM have that feature is wrong.
I just found your channel and my lord I normally hate it when review videos have humor (I think it wastes time) BUT YOU ARE FUNNY DUDE😂 Subbing
Nice review and perfectly fine with your reasoning. The price difference however is in the mean time wider. Here in Europe we pay 1650 Euro for the Sony and about 850 for the Sigma. Got my Sigma for 630 - 100 Sigma mail in rebate = 530 Euro. So the Sony is 2-3 times more expensive.
Thank you Jarred, very useful video for my decision
Thank you for super review! Have a more video and nice photos!
I wonder how sharp it would be with the Sony a7iii instead? A1 looks great!
Would be basically on par. If they both lock focus then there will be no sharpness difference apart from when you crop/zoom into the photo you’ll see a quality difference between 24 megapixels and 50 megapixels
I recently borrowed the Sony 200-600 to shoot an airshow and it was very nice. I had the Tamron 150-600 g2 DSLR lens before I switched to mirrorless and I didn’t like the external zooming. I also suspect the AF would be better with the native lens too. I have the Sony 100-400 now and have a hard time justifying a longer telephoto but I would probably pay the extra for the Sony if I did too.
Great video! Can you review the new tamron 35-150 when it comes out? I’m getting my first decent lens for e mount and am having a tough time deciding if I should wait for it!!
Jared question for you. How did you get in the photo pit at the Phillies game? Been trying for year to do that. Can you help me out with that Can’t seem to fine the right contact. Keep up the great work
Thanks so much! I'm thinking Sigma, and buy another accessory,LOL. Excellent review!
I put the 600mn F4 on the ZV E10, pretty balanced.
Hi,
I'm thinking to do the same for the extra cropped zoom. How were your results with it can you share some thoughts.
@@SanjayK-GoldenRatio good as expected
I've got the Sigma since more than a year and I'm satisfied. I'm not ready to spend 500$ more for the benefits I'd get from a Sony 200-600. It'd be also less versatile in its focal length
I know you don't like cropping but would it be a good idea to just use one Sony 135mm 1.8 for all of it on a high MP Sony camera? ISO could be set to 100 because it's F1.8 and if you want a tighter shot you can crop it to the max. If you use the Sony A1 you can crop to 1/4th of your image and still have a 4k photo.
I have looked at the sigma 150-600 lens but don't know if I should choose sport or their c model. plus I have been considering a new camera for mirrorless. I currently have a Canon 70D but have been considering the Canon R6 or Sony a7 III what would you recommend
Where is the link about tele-converters ? I’m interested in your views…
One cannot put teleconverter on this lens for Sony mount for a simple reason that no such teleconverter exists. Sony does not let Sigma develop teleconverters for Sony mount, and Sony's own teleconverter would not be recognized by the camera if attached to this lens. And yes, as many people already noted, teleconverters could be quite beneficial even for f6.3 lens (by the way, with 1.4TC aperture becomes 9, not 11), and TCs are made by Sigma for L mount, but not for Sony mount.
Do the fro packs work on Lightroom mobile? Also could you do a video on Lightroom mobile and your opinion on it? A lot of times it’s much more convenient to edit my photos on my iPad rather than lug around my laptop
Yes
Are you going to do a real-world review of the Sony A1? Been waiting patiently :)
One of the 10 L Mount alliance users here. Pairing this with my S1 and S5. I've noticed I have to stop down to around f/7.1 to get sharp focus at the end of the focal range. Loving the lens though. Kind of wish I kept my Sigma 100-400 though as a lighter walk around lens.
The Fe200-600 is heavily discounted in the UK, and a "shop-soiled" example costs the same as the new Sigma... I'd take the used Sony every time
You wouldn't have to "keep twisting" with the Sigma if you did the push and pull, thus why it's there.
Creates imbalance.
Could you compare the 3-4 years old SONY RX 10 IV vs this 600 mm lens?
which one do you think would be better at a night football game?
Question? Will I still get 10 fps on the sony a7 iv with the sigma 150-600mm lens?
Went with the Sigma, thank you sir.
Hi, thank you for this video. How did you taking photos, during video?
Nice review Jared. How would this lens hold up against the canon 800mm f11, vs this or the Tamron with a 1.4 telecomverter at f11. Given good light outdoor shooting.
Im hoping yah see this - I bought this lens today along with a Polar Pro 95mm VND. I went with this instead of the Sony so I could get the VND and the lens and spend less... Straight to the point the 95mm VND filter is not fitting the lens properly? Idk why the lens says 95.. its cross threading or not on totally flush
Jared, it would have been nice to see the difference in the AFC drive hit rates between these 2 with a runner coming straight at you since the Sony uses a linear drive (as does the Tamron 150 -500) and the Sigma is using a stepping motor. Does it matter, it just might.
I rented Sony 200-600 for a week, and I tried it for a week, I didn't get a single sharp enough image that I could use, all of them on close up had very little to no details. I used a Tamron 150-600 before and it was pretty sharp and most images was usable. So I hope Sigma is more like Tamron.
Best line you’ve said in a hot minute! “I got boned the first time….not by a cougar” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hi Jared. Great review like always. I have a question. Do you use any specific color profile / creative style in your sony camera when taking pictures in general? Your colors are amazing and seem to pop nicely. I know you most likely use your presets in post, but straight out of your camera it looks dope as well! I have the sony a7iii and my creative style is set on standard and take a lot of landscape and sports photos and straight out of the camera It doesn't seem as nice as yours. Maybe you have tips?
Picture profiles don’t affect RAW images. Jared edits his photos then places them over his viewfinder video so that’s why it looks straight out of camera but it’s actually not
Ive always wondered how your getting pics while your recording in video mode
May i know which camera do u shoot. I mean these lens mount on which camera ?
I am currently trying to figure out which one to get and I am so happy I found this video. I trust your no bull and understanding of professional and enthusiasts. Leaning towards the sigma for the close range focusing (birds are unpredictable) . Although i do like the internal zoom on the Sony. This is hard as hell my friend !
Update* I found a used sigma 60-600mm sport
I am planning on buying the sony a7iv in 2023 feb 16 but i can't decide between the tamron 150-500 and sigma 150-600. The tamron has a slightly faster autofocus but the sigma has more reach and slightly better image quality. Could someone tell which one to buy.
i love the 200-600 . well balanced and internal zoom, fast and sharp
A t/c added does equate to f11 more like 8.9 facts ,we know you do not like t/c but you have to know when and when not too use them ,me for the most part would like to crop especially on high mp sensors
The difference in price is only 270€ in the EU (1399 vs 1669) - seems like too small a difference to grab the external zoom
Other then the cropped images, is there any reason I shouldn't consider either one of these lenses for my Sony A6500?
Lots of wildlife photographers use APS-C bodies because the crop sensor acts like a teleconverter. An A6400 has a 24MP sensor, same as an A7III/A7C. But the smaller sensor with its finer pixels gives you more detail than you would get if you cropped a full-frame image to APS-C size. Mount a 600mm lens on an APS-C camera and it gives the field of view of a 900mm lens.
If you can't afford an uber-res body, such as the Alpha 1 or the A7RV, mounting the lens on an APS-C body is a good option.
Great video, i tried bring my sony 200-600 lens to a White Sox game but was told I couldn't bring it in.
no, sometimes you need 840mm as i take super close ups of bird heads on 840 at ~3-4m away.
Pulling for zoom is awesome!
You are a little bit to much for me 😉 (take it easy) BUT still a great review. Thanks! I have L mount cameras and I am leaving Canon now as it is for me just now. (lacking a type Canon tracking and speed) Otherwice I once again would go for the Canon with type sports pictures.
Great review as always! I have a choice to make as I have a 5d MK4 and the A73 , I can use the Sigma with both cameras using the adapter , but I haven's seen a adapter for the Sony lens to be used with the Canon . I do prefer the Sony 200-600mm though .
Do u still need to custom the focus for front or back focus
Man! you can please make a Nikon 120-300mm 2.8 Vs Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 S video?! I can’t find anything regarding those lenses side by side :/
i have the sigma 150-600c its a great lens, with planetary photography the x2 canon teleconverter is perfect esp jupiter and the moon as they have stupid amounts of light to give away
I have the canon R5 and R6 but also the LUMIX S1. I was going to sell the LUMIX camera but then they brought out the latest firmware that gives me external 5.9K prores RAW recording. So guess what? I’m keeping the S1. Long live the L Mount alliance…
Used to shoot Minor League ball. Was poor and shooting for a weekly on my on dime. Only needed one image a week. Have tried everything from a 200 F/2 and 300 f/2.8 Nikon AIS glass. THAT was tough! Was about to leave and there was a guy at 2nd base that had been hitting and running all over the local team. Understand the game and anticipate! Said if there is a hit there will be a play at the plate. Sure enough (after pre focusing... lol) he comes around. James McCann was the catcher with ball in glove turning to tag Jacoby Ellsbury shooting thru the net full frame. Hard drive crashed and I eventually lost the image. Just my luck.
Mannnnn why can't Sigma put this out on the Nikon Z-mount too. Something to fill the gap in the long distance Z-mount options
Because Nikon (and Canon) didn't open their mount to third parties. They have to retro engineer the body/lens communication to create the lense.
Big up to Sony to have opened it.
I’m getting chromatic aberration, is this normal? Some photos I can’t get the edges of blue out?
My dog, who is no longer with me (I still miss her!) weighed five pounds. At first, she was easy to carry around, but after ten minutes, my arms started to hurt. Five pounds doesn't sound like much, but when you're carrying it and moving around, OUCH. I bought a pouch for her and got a monopod for the Sigma (I have the contemporary version). ;) That being said, if I could afford the Sony 200-600mm lens, I'd buy it. Sharper images and features I'd really like to have.
I currently have a Sony A7S III and a Sony f2.8 70-200. I mainly shoot football and basketball in less than ideal lighting situations. Do you feel the light sensitivity of the SIII will make up for the loss in aperture of the 200-600? I really just want more focal length and am concerned I will lose too much light with these lenses and not get crisp images.
How does it do with video?
I liked the Sigma pic better on the closeup of the eagle eye
Is there an adapter for L mount for that Sony lens?
make a comparison video of the sony 00-600 and nikon 180-600