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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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'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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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'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
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Okay, n00b question here, but are newer cameras able to record video and then allow you to take raw snaps at the same time? Like the cheetah and flamingo and other examples in this 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.
Hi Jared I have a big problem, I have a Nikon Z9 and I am waiting for a Nikon 200-600 lens. too long. That's why I decided to buy a Sony 200-600 with a Megadap ETZ 21 adapter. Do you have any experience with this combination and do you recommend this SONIKON Frankestine combo :-)
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 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
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.
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!!
Heyy, so I have a question I am Sony A6700 user with a sigma 150-600mm. I am just wondering if the Sony 200-600mm lens is more faster in focusing the subject (like an flying bird) than the sigma? because Well sometime the thing is even when the camera detects the subject and shows a green box around the subject as it is flying, when I go and check the image and press the zoom button(which zoom to the spot where it is most focused on) it doesn't zooms to bird but it zooms somewhere behind the bird as it missed to focus on it. Do you know a cause for it?
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
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.
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
Hi Jared, could you tell me which of the two is faster in focus, ie (AF) birds in flight? I have an A7III I want to buy the Sony 200/600 but I have seen your review then since I can save money? would you recommend me this instead from the Sony also for the AF? thanks I have to decide
I didn't know this lens was coming out 7 months ago and bought a 400 Sigma lens. Damn. My wife is going to be mad at me. I will now need to sell that one to buy this one. Hope I don't get burned to badly.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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 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. ;)
What about filmmaking?
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?
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 !
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'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 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 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.
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
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.
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
Thanks for the review ! I hope the sigma 150-600 sport will soon have an RF mount …
I wouldn't have known, or bothered, about the L-Mount Alliance until i saw your announcement.
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-
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
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.
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.
Where is the link about tele-converters ? I’m interested in your views…
That Moment when all his camera gear is worth more than a house
Best line you’ve said in a hot minute! “I got boned the first time….not by a cougar” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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.
Now we just need this on the RF mount
yes this
Thank you. Really blessed by all your videos. Thank you.
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 bought the 200-600 from Sony, due to the benefit of using tele-converter if I need to.
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
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
Could you compare the 3-4 years old SONY RX 10 IV vs this 600 mm lens?
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'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 was waiting for this, thank you sir. And could you do a comparison between 100-500 canon and 200-600 sony😍
Ive always wondered how your getting pics while your recording in video mode
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
Thank you for super review! Have a more video and nice photos!
Hi, thank you for this video. How did you taking photos, during video?
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.
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.
Thank you for this. Looking to buy one for my LUMIX S5ii in a few weeks time 😊
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.
Been waiting for this
Is there an adapter for L mount for that Sony lens?
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.
I’m looking at getting the Sony 200-600 !
Can the Fmount versioun keep up with the Z9?
Thanks for all the great info you share!
i love the 200-600 . well balanced and internal zoom, fast and sharp
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.
Do u still need to custom the focus for front or back focus
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.
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.
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
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.
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
the link to the raw files are down :c
5:24 how much of a person would be in frame at that distance?
Is this lens suitable for photographing sports competitions inside sports halls? Sports like basketball, weightlifting, etc.
make a comparison video of the sony 00-600 and nikon 180-600
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.
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.
Thank you Jarred, very useful video for my decision
which one do you think would be better at a night football game?
May i know which camera do u shoot. I mean these lens mount on which camera ?
Question? Will I still get 10 fps on the sony a7 iv with the sigma 150-600mm lens?
Okay, n00b question here, but are newer cameras able to record video and then allow you to take raw snaps at the same time? Like the cheetah and flamingo and other examples in this video
Yeah, my question is the same. :D
Would like to know as well!
I believe he was using an external monitor to record and then taking the picture. The camera itself was not recording video
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
Will sigma ever make lenses for nikon z mount?
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.
Hi Jared
I have a big problem, I have a Nikon Z9 and I am waiting for a Nikon 200-600 lens. too long. That's why I decided to buy a Sony 200-600 with a Megadap ETZ 21 adapter. Do you have any experience with this combination and do you recommend this SONIKON Frankestine combo :-)
Congrats on the z9. Amazing camera.
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.
Great video as usual…. What about comparison with the tamaron 150-500?
He’s already done that one
This is great, awesome work!
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
Time to enjoy, cheers Fro
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.
Thanks so much! I'm thinking Sigma, and buy another accessory,LOL. Excellent review!
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!!
Heyy, so I have a question I am Sony A6700 user with a sigma 150-600mm. I am just wondering if the Sony 200-600mm lens is more faster in focusing the subject (like an flying bird) than the sigma? because Well sometime the thing is even when the camera detects the subject and shows a green box around the subject as it is flying, when I go and check the image and press the zoom button(which zoom to the spot where it is most focused on) it doesn't zooms to bird but it zooms somewhere behind the bird as it missed to focus on it. Do you know a cause for it?
Great review. Thank you.
I’m getting chromatic aberration, is this normal? Some photos I can’t get the edges of blue out?
You wouldn't have to "keep twisting" with the Sigma if you did the push and pull, thus why it's there.
Creates imbalance.
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
Pulling for zoom is awesome!
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.
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
Hi Jared, could you tell me which of the two is faster in focus, ie (AF) birds in flight? I have an A7III I want to buy the Sony 200/600 but I have seen your review then since I can save money? would you recommend me this instead from the Sony also for the AF? thanks I have to decide
You are the total best 🎉
I'm using the "L-MOUNT ALLIANCE" too :)
Went with the Sigma, thank you sir.
I didn't know this lens was coming out 7 months ago and bought a 400 Sigma lens. Damn. My wife is going to be mad at me. I will now need to sell that one to buy this one. Hope I don't get burned to badly.
I just want to know how he did video and photo of the same sequence at the same time!? Is there a setting for that?
External device attached