Sigma increased the price in the US market to $1499 USD at the last minute - my remarks in the video reflect the price we were told during the evaluation period
@@stas15cool Interesting, as the time these came out, the Sigma(Not Sport) and Tamron were at $989 or so (I think the Tamron was 899 just before the "update"). Then the Sigma Sport was close to $2K. So now they are about 300-400 over their initial price. WOW.
Thank you for this information One advantage of the Sony is the soft control button, the white paint for thermal protection and lastly, the focus rings have good rubber grips. No projection means less intrusion of dust and sand.
I was in the market for a big zoom and originally wanted to get the tamron but after careful consideration... went with the sony. The biggest factors that swayed me to spend more on the sony were: ability to use teleconverters, no extending zoom and first party support. I've been using my zony on a sony A7R4 for a couple months now and can say I think I made the right choice. The few hundred in extra cost is soon forgotten and I have really enjoyed the shots I can get in good light with the sony long zoom.
I've been using the 100-400gm for couple years and loved it. I just got the 200-600g and a new A1 body. That combo is awesome, especially with 30 fps and a reach of 840 with 1.4x teleconverter. Love, love love it.
This one is hard for me. I shoot kids baseball games and love the Sigma 100-400. I’m torn between the 150-600 and the Sony. The autofocus on the Sony is the biggest attraction but being able to zoom out to 150 vs 200 is really helpful when the action gets close. I can’t get off the fence.
It's really simple to me, the internal zoom is what wins my dollars. I fell in love with the 70-200 f/2.8 being that way and now try to avoid crazy zoom cascading lenses when possible. The extra money is worth it to me to avoid all the dust issues down the line. My experience also was that the Sony's sharpness led to some awesome APS-C mode shots on my A7r4 that allowed me to turn this into a 300-900mm lens and still have 26 mp
As someone who owns/owned both, Sigma is a good substitute lens if you have no other choice, a used one can be found 2nd hand for $800-1000 for the sport and $600-800 for the contemporary, the Sony was a better choice regardless even with the price tag.
hi Jeff, you may be confusing the older EF or F mount versions of the Sigma lens with the new DN version that is just coming out for Sony. No one has previously owned this new version.
Thanks for the great review! I didn't know that Sony outperforms Sigma so much in tracking fast-moving objects. I picked up my Sony 200600G lens yesterday and going to use it at an airshow next month so tracking really matters to me. The real reason why I chose Sony over Sigma was actually the appearance. I know this doesn't really matter in photography but I just can't get over it lol. The massive body of the Sony lens is quite an issue since I have to buy a new backpack for it, but I believe Sony's internal zooming compensates for that. Anyway, you have my sub!
Excellent review! Very nuanced and differentiated. Sigma has really taken their mirrorless line up several levels further. I find the semi macro features very useful. They did it some of their older tele lenses by having a macro switch which would change the mfd of part f their range. But they seemed to have evolved it much further now. Native sony lenses will however have certain advantages with their higher end action cameras but otherwise Sigma & Tamron have so much to offer.
Now that's the way to do a lens review! You have to compare it against a benchmark - in this case the Sony. You have to compare the two lenses side by side on an identical subject - the bank note. You need to compare autofocus performance - your running dog. Then you need the physical comparisons and opinions - which you did. Good job Dustin.
8:40 - "another SIGNIFICANT advantage is that the auto focus (on the Sony) is just better than what we found on the Sigma" - thank you Dustin - I've been contemplating between Sigma (2021) and Sony (2019). So will go with Sony. Are you to be able to guess when the new series of Sony will be released? The Sony will reach minimum aperture of F6.3 at 300mm or so but the Sigma is at 383mm - which is a SIGNIFICANT comparison 😊 especially for lower light photography. So I'm hoping Sony will address that in the next series!
There have been a firmware updates for both Sigma and Tamron since this was recorded. Both got better AF supposedly, would be nice to refresh the reviews
@@DustinAbbottTWI You might be shocked if I told you I just bought a brand new 200-600mm at $1650 (635 Omani Rials)! Thanks again for your amazing, and essential reviews.
@@rkjsll It's priced now at 670 Omani Rials ($1742) but it's in Oman. If you are interested I can get you to contact the owner of thr shop directly, but expecting %5 VAT from here and not sure if you can maneuver your tax there by sending it from here as "gift". Let me know what you think.
@@Bo_Hazem thanks buddy. I'm based in Salalah. Is it from SKT? And if I'm not wrong, I think you met my wife at Diwan hospital. Nice to connect on Dustins channel 😄. Small world. We should catch up sometime
Thank you, as ever, for your detailed review. I am a Canon shooter and mount Sigma glass. I look forward to Sigma releasing RF mount lenses and your future appraisal of them.
If it wasn’t for Sony capping third party lenses in af and tc, it would be a closer fight. Apart from this I would go Sony. The extra money is paid back. One thing I would look into for the use I do of such long lenses is the twin screws at the foot. So much practical when attached to a monopod walking all day. No side movements and no super tightening of the single screw. Great review build on bare facts
Thanks for your review. You covered a lot of ground. I subscribed The 2 Sigma Sports super zoom lenses weigh 5.9 and 5.5 pounds each. The Sony, and now Nikon's 180-600 weigh 4.5 pounds. Big difference. Not a few ounces.
Hi Dustin thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I am currently using A9 and G master 100-400 and very happy with these pairing. I am looking into this new lenses you have just explained. I am doing a lot of bird photography. I do have Leica SL2 with 90-280mm lens. Would like to ask your advice. If i decided to buy additional lens what would be your recommendation whether I should buy Sigma L mount or go for Sony 200-600? Would appreciate your thoughts. 🙏
I'm not familiar with the SL2 and the quality of its focus, so I can't really make an informed recommendation. The 200-600 is a great lens if you need that reach, though.
Ok sigma it is. I like all black lenses, compact to carry, wider aperture, wider zoom and cheaper. That's what I like. The sony lens is obviously better in quality but in a weird way Sigma checked all my necessary boxes.
Another reviewer noted that the Tamron 150-500 has jerky VC that makes it almost unusable for video. It is especially noticeable when you pan (e.g. for handheld birds in flight footage). This flaw is a carryover from Tamron's 150-600 G2 for DSLR, to which I can attest from personal experience. You talked about photo IS, but video IS is increasingly important. Any comment on any of these lenses' IS when shooting video?
Hi John, first of all, the Tamron does have different modes for the VC, and it is important to choose the right one for your application. I did not see the jerkiness that reviewer described. That being said, I did feel like the Sigma OS was a bit better in performance - about in line with the Sony, if not better.
Excellent thorough review as always. I just started intensely BIF during the last month with Sony a7RIV and Tamron 150-600. Getting some very nice results and am like the Tamron more and more. I sure could use the extra reach of the Sony 200-600 with potential to use Tele and can't justify having two long zooms so would sell my Tamron if it came to getting the Sony. Your review listed the Sony as having excellent AF and could use better AF though I am now getting a high sharp capture rate of Osprey flying in front of cottonwoods at maybe 100+ yrds. I wouldn't have expected. The question is can I get at least equal keeper rate with the Sony 200-600 as my Tamron with the advantage of the extra 100mm. I don't need the extra fps. I am pilling my HDD full as it is with 61mp and 5+ fps. I just shoot 2-5 bursts.
I can't see a really compelling option for the Sigma. Tamron seems great for portability and price but if I wanted something that almost as big as the Sony I'd just get the Sony so I can do the 30fps shooting on the a1
The Tamron isn't so great for price in Europe. Where I'm at the Sigma is the cheapest and significantly cheaper than the Sony. Then again, the short throw zoom action is pretty awesome. (I wish it had a foot you didn't feel the need to immediately replace)
@@Vantrakter Yes the comments reflect where someone lives. In Europe the Tamron is very poor value compared to the Sigma and Sony. The Tamron only goes to 500mm, isn't much lighter and is a slower aperture lens. In Europe it's between Sigma and Sony. The Sigma has the advantage of price, closer minimum focusing distance and the Arca compatible tripod collar. The Sony has the advantage of internal zoom and the ability to use teleconverters.
Thank you for this information. There was a small glitch that Sony has provided the full E mount protocol to Sigma so it wasn't reverse engineered. Nevertheless, no one knows if Sony has some sort of private backdoors. Also, Sony has a long history of developing precise motors since the walkman age with a lot of patents, so Sony's focusing motor designs are probably just one of the best in the industry.
Thanks for the review Dustin! I’ve been researching these three lenses the last couple weeks. Looking for a lens I can use for landscape to isolate a subject and get some nice compression effect but also need it to be packable for day hikes. Not too concerned about the weight. Also want the lens to be capable for wildlife, and maybe double as a BIF lens for some rarer instances. I feel I’m asking too much from a single lens. Leaning towards the sigma since it has the extra focal length compared to the tamron and is also a bit more packable than the sony.. by 5 cm at least. Any thoughts? I also never see much commented about the landscape abilities of the sony lens, but that may be due to it not being its intended purpose. Thanks!
If you're not concerned about the weight and want more versatility, the Sigma 60-600mm Sport might be a good option. I definitely prefer it to the 150-600mm Sport for a variety of reasons I detail in that review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I had the riv last year but I was one of the unlucky ones with sensor out of line and that was with covid in full swing here in UK. Unfortunately I missed the 30days returns date and didn't get any help from Sony 😭😭 so I had to sell up. Shame as I realy loved the resolution 👍
@@jasonpalmer2497 What issues did the sensor give you? I bought an A7r mark 3 last year and have horrible performance unless I’m in a REALLY bright environment. Pictures even at around 2000 ISO look extremely grainy, and to make it work in lower ISO’s (100-500 max, because I do mostly macro work) I have to drop the shutter speed waaaaay down. I’m talking 1/30 to 1/50 to get a nicely exposed image. Sadly this means I miss a lot of shots I wouldn’t otherwise miss if I could just crank the shutter speed to at least 1/250 so I could freeze the image of a bee or a flower in the wind in conjunction with my Meike speedlite. I sent the camera back to Sony but they said nothing was wrong with it, and yet when I use my lens on my friend’s older a7r mark 2, I don’t have this super dark image issue. It’s really disappointed/frustrated me as I paid a lot of money for this setup! Thinking of cutting my losses, selling the camera on e-bay and upgrading to an a1. I love shooting birds and the a1 has bird eye detection! That would be a game changer for me.
@@groundcontrol6876 I just bought the a1 upgrading from my older a7r3. I love it! I never had a noise issue with my a7r3 though. I personally think the color on the a1 is much better as well. The images start out better in RAW. The autofocus is light years better and a joy to shoot with for birds and animals, and is also great for landscape. My a7r3 might start collecting dust.
I think you are referencing the DSLR Sport and Contemporary lenses, which are both optically different than the lens covered in this review, which is a brand new design for Sony FE and Leica L only.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Oh course Dustin, I forgot about this lens is just for E mount. I own the canon fit and I have compared it against the sport model for canon, and the C is slightly sharper.
I think its important to note that the 200-600mm by Sony does have a compatibility issue with Sony's A7RIV where the 2 products do not preform well together (terrible sharpness quality) , not everyone has this issue but there is a good handful of users that have come across this
That’s interesting. I had not heard that, and I have a hard time believing it. A lens optical qualities should not really change from camera to camera. Yes, higher resolution can magnify certain flaws, but an otherwise sharp lens does not become “terrible” when paired with a higher resolution camera.
Hi Dustin, i from Chile.....i have dude.....regardless of the money and considering that I am a SONY A7R IV user and a nature photographer.....IS TAMRON A BETTER OPTION THAN THE SONY??.....And I would like your opinion regarding the Sony 100-400 f4 even though the range is smaller but the 1.4 or 2 adapters from Sony one goes further .... but in performance compared to Sigma and Tamron
Great video. Still hesitating for my a7r5. Preference for sony but which bag accepts it with camera attached? Do you have tuto and avises for sony 100-400 ? Makes 600mm on a7r5 crop mode avec 840mm with 1.4 converter. Mark galler advises it. But old 2018 design, 2600 euros, not internal zoom
Understood. I would actually recommend taking a look at the Sigma 60-600mm DN over the 150-600 - it's the better lens in several key areas (autofocus, stabilization, etc...). I still love the Sony 200-600 the most, but the Sigma 60-600 would be my second choice.
There is no Sony E-mount version of that lens, so it isn't a reasonable comparison. Autofocus performance, for example, is not even in the same conversation once you adapt it.
That's a good question, but not one that I have the answer to as I didn't test it (and no longer have the loaner to test). I would suspect it is somewhere in between the two figures; it doesn't suddenly jump to the maximum distance at 600mm
Ciao Dustin your videos are very interesting !! I would like to know what would you recommend between the Sigma 150/600 and the Sony 200/600 I want the best possible AF quality I have a Sony A7III I do not want blurry photos thanks
I do think that people also say that it doesn't produce good results on the 200-600, even though you can technically use it. Only works on the big primes I think. But I have no experience with it myself.
I have used the 2x teleconverter and there is no way to get a steady shot with it on a tripod. However, as contrary as this sounds, it gives nice sharp shots handheld or on a monopod, provided you keep the shutter speed up
@@alsteiner7602 did you disable the optical steady shot? When using tripod you need to disable the steady shot from the lens (also from camera if you have that feature).
Very good review! COST! First You will have either for a VERY Long Time! Ah! did not know Sigma did not have New teleconverters for the new lens like the old Canon mount . Teleconverters are very important but also with a button selection you can get on sensor crop in APS-C mode exp. 2x 1200mm + APS-C (1.5X) = 1800mm (sensor crop) and super sharp. Unlike Canon/Nikon on a Sony AF works with the 2X and above f/13 only tracking is disabled. The nice thing also an available LensCoat that comes in many different camo patterns that protects from weather rain cold or heat but mainly hides the white that can scare wildlife and someone that see $'s. There are also some black skins raps to hide the white.
Wow, I like the look of the Sony lens, in the video it actually looks fake like its not even on your desk, looks like a picture taken off the sony website and place on the video haha. I actually even own the 200-600mm but but a camo cover on it right away so ive never really got to look at it 'naked'.
@9'42" you say, "whereas Sigma is having to reverse engineer that." This is incorrect because Sigma and Tamron license the E-mount algorithms from Sony!
Thanks a lot for the comparison, Dustin. My NON-pro usage would then favour the SIGMA lens with my Sony A7r3: given image quality are comparable, I do mostly prefer that better PORTABILITY and lower COST (especially in Italy). As well as the integrated arca plate and broader range. Only a bit disappointing is the "forbidden compatibility" (by Sony rules) with the 2 teleconverters (but I know that for still subjects... you anyhow lose in resolution): I still hope this will change. The 15fps cap is not a problem for me, neither is the (current?) AF precision, the "potential dust" (limited usage, not being a pro), nor the white design (not expecting to stay under the sun for hours).
Yes it does work my wife uses this combo but you loose a stop compared to the 200-600 which can really count if you are doing bird photography and technically the 200-600 is sharper.
The 100-400 GM combo is a good one for there reasons you suggest, but the downside is cost (50% more than the 200-600) and the fact you have a slower maximum aperture with the TC attached.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I shoot motor sports. So for my use I don't find it an issue. The GM lens provides superb results as a stand alone lens. When I need extra reach, the teleconverter does for me. Treking for 12+ hour days often with thousands of spectators around bulk and length are an issue with the other gear I have to carry.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have the A9. Shoot sports. I hust sold 3 lenses to get the 200-600. I know with Sony you get 20fps on the A9. Shooting 3rd party you won't get 20. But thanks for responding. Your reviews are always informative.
IMO Sigma made a big mistake by using a stepper motor for its lens. This could have been the perfect competitor for 200-600 if it had the quick AF of a linear motor. The advantages of Sigma over Sony aren't so much related to the end result, but rather auxiliary in nature - from better macro to smaller size, and price to a certain degree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any Sigma E mount lens with Linear motor, perhaps they don't have the tech ready, yet for mirrorless. this would be a better sell of L mount than E mount, but I'm not sure how many will let an L mount body for doing birds and wildlife.
I'm not sure if you are referring to a lens motor technology that Sigma currently employs in other lenses. If you are referring to the HSM then the 35/1,2 has that kind of af motor. www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a019_35_12/
@@Vantrakter im talking about the actual lens motor. Stepper vs Linear motor. from dustin abbott's review, this sigma is slower than both the tamron and Sony when it comes to tracking and keeping up with the subject, bif.
@@anulearntech Hyper Sonic Motor, different than Sigmas "stepper motor". Whether it's "linear" I couldn't tell you. I don't think Sigma or anyone else calls their motor "Linear Motor". I do know the HSM is different than the "stepper" used in most of Sigma's mirrorless.
@@Vantrakter sigma and all reviewers have said that they use the stepper motor in the lens. And as far as I know stepper motors are slower than linear motor. And the results show this. It's the most lagging lens compared to sony and Tamron. In fact the Tamron would have been a no brainer 3rd party if it were to go till 600mm.
I too was surprised to see the reference to the stepping motor and not multiple motors. Most competing lenses will utilize multiple motors (typically linear type motors, which are basically better stepping motors) in concert.
Why does every video on RUclips on this topic ignore the Sony 100-400? It's sharper and has better contrast even cropped in to 600mm!! Dustin, you have great content, thanks for all the work you do! Just hate that it keeps getting overlooked.
@@Vantrakter That's true. I'm just saying that when people are considering super telephoto options for Sony, they should be aware that the 100-400 contends equally or better than the 600s that are available.
@@subutai8392 Yes definitely! I understand the different classes of lenses. On paper, the 600mm lenses SHOULD be better for birding. However, I've done side by side comparisons and I'm saying that with the Sony GM 100-400 I've gotten sharper results even after cropping in 1.5x to match the Sony G 200-600 at 600mm. That's why I'm saying it should be considered to be in the same category, because it's that good!
I have both the 100-400 and the 200-600, and the 200-600 is comfortably sharper than the 100-400 cropped to 600mm, or with the 1.4 and compared at 560mm (tested properly on high res bodies, A1 and A7Riv).
If you do a follow up comparison with the latest version 3 firmware update from sigma which introduces the new “OS2” image stabilization which gives the lens 6.5 stops of stabilization and newly updated autofocus speeds as tracking speeds you will see that the sigma has surpassed the sony and makes the sony show its age. Its time for sony to update the 200-600 with a mark 2
I think that video makes me also get the Sony if/when I buy one of the 600mm telephoto zoom lenses. The close focus of the Sigma is great but I think better AF, internal zoom and optional teleconverters convince even me to not get the better macro.
Curious. I don't view either of those lenses as true competitors to those that need longer reach, and they both suffer the same challenges as the longer Tamron and Sigma.
Seems like a really nice lens. It's great to get more and more tele options, but I can't help but feel that I want to save a bit more money and get the Sony lenses. It would really be a nice look for them, if they started selling the 100-400 and 200-600 with a revised food that fits Arca. Is it even a tripod foot if it doesn't go onto a tripod? Then it's just a foot that needs a tripod foot. It seems like it would be quick and easy to make a new foot and just put that in the boxes instead. It's baffling. Instead people are taking off the Sony feet and buying 3rd party feet that fit Arca. Why, Sony? Why? The only reason I can come up with is that they plan on selling an Arca version themselves and get even more money out of us, but then why isn't it out yet? A delayed release to make the cash-grab less obvious?
I've been asking these same kinds of questions since I was primarily a Canon reviewer...and I don't know the answer. It seems like the first party lenses never have Arca feet.
I feel like if they would’ve just said 1499 at the beginning it would’ve been better so I wouldn’t feel cheated paying that now knowing what it almost was 🤷♂️
And purchase what exactly instead? On Canon, there's no true equivalent lens to either of these, and the 100-500 costs considerably more. The top Canon body at the moment gives you 20FPS (with blackout), so I'm not sure you're advantaged.
@@jochenkraus7016 I am worrying about modern cameras. I use Sony A7 IV. It's pretty good, but I have a few complaints (card reader cover wobbles when I use a heavy lens, rolling shutter, only 8 FPS, they use CFExpress Type A instead of Type B). Also, I don't like when the lens colour and the body colour don't match. Maybe I should have bought A1 because it fixes the rolling shutter and has real 20+ FPS, but it is a bit worse in terms of ergonomics.
@@tshev I think there are camo covers for some lenses. So maybe you can turn the lens into another color than white. I don't know if that exists for cameras but if yes, maybe there are matching colors/patterns.
Sigma increased the price in the US market to $1499 USD at the last minute - my remarks in the video reflect the price we were told during the evaluation period
They should put it at the same price than the Tamron. It will sweep the market at $1399
@@migueljimeno6875 the Tamron is now $1299 on Amazon
@@stas15cool Interesting, as the time these came out, the Sigma(Not Sport) and Tamron were at $989 or so (I think the Tamron was 899 just before the "update"). Then the Sigma Sport was close to $2K. So now they are about 300-400 over their initial price. WOW.
The internal zoom and ridiculously fast autofocus performance is the reason I went for Sony 200-600.
Two good reasons.
Thank you for this information
One advantage of the Sony is the soft control button, the white paint for thermal protection and lastly, the focus rings have good rubber grips. No projection means less intrusion of dust and sand.
I do think the Sony is probably the better sealed lens for that reason.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes
I was in the market for a big zoom and originally wanted to get the tamron but after careful consideration... went with the sony. The biggest factors that swayed me to spend more on the sony were: ability to use teleconverters, no extending zoom and first party support. I've been using my zony on a sony A7R4 for a couple months now and can say I think I made the right choice. The few hundred in extra cost is soon forgotten and I have really enjoyed the shots I can get in good light with the sony long zoom.
It's hard to argue against the Sony if the size and price don't throw you off. It's a very high performing lens.
I've been using the 100-400gm for couple years and loved it. I just got the 200-600g and a new A1 body. That combo is awesome, especially with 30 fps and a reach of 840 with 1.4x teleconverter. Love, love love it.
Yup. It is fantastic!
This one is hard for me. I shoot kids baseball games and love the Sigma 100-400. I’m torn between the 150-600 and the Sony. The autofocus on the Sony is the biggest attraction but being able to zoom out to 150 vs 200 is really helpful when the action gets close. I can’t get off the fence.
It is a hard decision, for sure.
It's really simple to me, the internal zoom is what wins my dollars. I fell in love with the 70-200 f/2.8 being that way and now try to avoid crazy zoom cascading lenses when possible. The extra money is worth it to me to avoid all the dust issues down the line. My experience also was that the Sony's sharpness led to some awesome APS-C mode shots on my A7r4 that allowed me to turn this into a 300-900mm lens and still have 26 mp
Yeah, the Sony is pretty sweet. I own one, too.
Do you think I can use the sony 200-600 on my a6400?
As someone who owns/owned both, Sigma is a good substitute lens if you have no other choice, a used one can be found 2nd hand for $800-1000 for the sport and $600-800 for the contemporary, the Sony was a better choice regardless even with the price tag.
hi Jeff, you may be confusing the older EF or F mount versions of the Sigma lens with the new DN version that is just coming out for Sony. No one has previously owned this new version.
It's so crazy to see the old Deutsch Marks bill I grew up with nearly two decades before the Euro was established. 🤯
A lot of people enjoy seeing the old currency.
Thanks for the great review! I didn't know that Sony outperforms Sigma so much in tracking fast-moving objects. I picked up my Sony 200600G lens yesterday and going to use it at an airshow next month so tracking really matters to me. The real reason why I chose Sony over Sigma was actually the appearance. I know this doesn't really matter in photography but I just can't get over it lol. The massive body of the Sony lens is quite an issue since I have to buy a new backpack for it, but I believe Sony's internal zooming compensates for that. Anyway, you have my sub!
I LOVE the internal zooming of the 200-600 once I’m in the field
@@DustinAbbottTWI It's so damn big though! It won't fit into the Wandrd Prvke 31 unless you take out the top compartment.
I am more inclined for Sony, specially for internal zoom. But price of Sigma is not yet out in India. Lets see, how much less it costs than Sony.
Fair point.
Ive used the Sony for about a year. No complaints. An honest and detailed review. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent review! Very nuanced and differentiated. Sigma has really taken their mirrorless line up several levels further. I find the semi macro features very useful. They did it some of their older tele lenses by having a macro switch which would change the mfd of part f their range. But they seemed to have evolved it much further now. Native sony lenses will however have certain advantages with their higher end action cameras but otherwise Sigma & Tamron have so much to offer.
Good points.
Once again, an impressive comparison video which will certainly help people to make a well informed buying decision.
👍👍👍
Thank you very much!
For buying decisions between this 2 lenses that the best review I had seen
I'm glad it helped.
Now that's the way to do a lens review! You have to compare it against a benchmark - in this case the Sony. You have to compare the two lenses side by side on an identical subject - the bank note. You need to compare autofocus performance - your running dog. Then you need the physical comparisons and opinions - which you did. Good job Dustin.
Thanks, John
8:40 - "another SIGNIFICANT advantage is that the auto focus (on the Sony) is just better than what we found on the Sigma" - thank you Dustin - I've been contemplating between Sigma (2021) and Sony (2019). So will go with Sony. Are you to be able to guess when the new series of Sony will be released? The Sony will reach minimum aperture of F6.3 at 300mm or so but the Sigma is at 383mm - which is a SIGNIFICANT comparison 😊 especially for lower light photography. So I'm hoping Sony will address that in the next series!
That's a good question, though I still find the Sony better than just about anything else I test.
There have been a firmware updates for both Sigma and Tamron since this was recorded. Both got better AF supposedly, would be nice to refresh the reviews
That's not always possible to do, as it requires cooperating with multiple companies to get lenses in.
Wonderful review! Was hesitant about the Sigma and after this I'll not even consider it. 200-600mm G Lens all the way.
The 200-600 does have a few downsides, but if you don't mind the size it is a truly exceptional lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You might be shocked if I told you I just bought a brand new 200-600mm at $1650 (635 Omani Rials)! Thanks again for your amazing, and essential reviews.
@@Bo_Hazem hey buddy, would love to know if theres a similar offer still around the corner
@@rkjsll It's priced now at 670 Omani Rials ($1742) but it's in Oman. If you are interested I can get you to contact the owner of thr shop directly, but expecting %5 VAT from here and not sure if you can maneuver your tax there by sending it from here as "gift". Let me know what you think.
@@Bo_Hazem thanks buddy. I'm based in Salalah. Is it from SKT? And if I'm not wrong, I think you met my wife at Diwan hospital. Nice to connect on Dustins channel 😄. Small world. We should catch up sometime
Thank you, as ever, for your detailed review. I am a Canon shooter and mount Sigma glass. I look forward to Sigma releasing RF mount lenses and your future appraisal of them.
Here's hoping that day comes sooner rather than later!
If it wasn’t for Sony capping third party lenses in af and tc, it would be a closer fight. Apart from this I would go Sony. The extra money is paid back. One thing I would look into for the use I do of such long lenses is the twin screws at the foot. So much practical when attached to a monopod walking all day. No side movements and no super tightening of the single screw.
Great review build on bare facts
It would be a closer fight, yes, but that's probably not what Sony is looking for.
Just the comparison I was looking for! Thank you!
You're welcome.
Hey great comparison as always. Is both true 600mm or is it any difference?
It didn’t seem like any difference when I was framing my test chart
@Dustin Abbott thank you:)
Thanks for your review. You covered a lot of ground. I subscribed
The 2 Sigma Sports super zoom lenses weigh 5.9 and 5.5 pounds each. The Sony, and now Nikon's 180-600 weigh 4.5 pounds. Big difference. Not a few ounces.
That's very true.
Love this comparison!
Thank you.
Hi Dustin thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I am currently using A9 and G master 100-400 and very happy with these pairing. I am looking into this new lenses you have just explained. I am doing a lot of bird photography. I do have Leica SL2 with 90-280mm lens. Would like to ask your advice. If i decided to buy additional lens what would be your recommendation whether I should buy Sigma L mount or go for Sony 200-600? Would appreciate your thoughts. 🙏
I'm not familiar with the SL2 and the quality of its focus, so I can't really make an informed recommendation. The 200-600 is a great lens if you need that reach, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. 🙏
Thank you for this detailed and balanced review! It really helped me in my buying decision.
Great to hear!
Ok sigma it is. I like all black lenses, compact to carry, wider aperture, wider zoom and cheaper. That's what I like. The sony lens is obviously better in quality but in a weird way Sigma checked all my necessary boxes.
What matters most is if it works for you!
Another reviewer noted that the Tamron 150-500 has jerky VC that makes it almost unusable for video. It is especially noticeable when you pan (e.g. for handheld birds in flight footage). This flaw is a carryover from Tamron's 150-600 G2 for DSLR, to which I can attest from personal experience. You talked about photo IS, but video IS is increasingly important. Any comment on any of these lenses' IS when shooting video?
Hi John, first of all, the Tamron does have different modes for the VC, and it is important to choose the right one for your application. I did not see the jerkiness that reviewer described. That being said, I did feel like the Sigma OS was a bit better in performance - about in line with the Sony, if not better.
Excellent thorough review as always. I just started intensely BIF during the last month with Sony a7RIV and Tamron 150-600. Getting some very nice results and am like the Tamron more and more. I sure could use the extra reach of the Sony 200-600 with potential to use Tele and can't justify having two long zooms so would sell my Tamron if it came to getting the Sony. Your review listed the Sony as having excellent AF and could use better AF though I am now getting a high sharp capture rate of Osprey flying in front of cottonwoods at maybe 100+ yrds. I wouldn't have expected. The question is can I get at least equal keeper rate with the Sony 200-600 as my Tamron with the advantage of the extra 100mm. I don't need the extra fps. I am pilling my HDD full as it is with 61mp and 5+ fps. I just shoot 2-5 bursts.
You can definitely get an even higher keeper rate with the 200-600G
I can't see a really compelling option for the Sigma. Tamron seems great for portability and price but if I wanted something that almost as big as the Sony I'd just get the Sony so I can do the 30fps shooting on the a1
The Tamron isn't so great for price in Europe. Where I'm at the Sigma is the cheapest and significantly cheaper than the Sony. Then again, the short throw zoom action is pretty awesome. (I wish it had a foot you didn't feel the need to immediately replace)
@@Vantrakter Yes the comments reflect where someone lives. In Europe the Tamron is very poor value compared to the Sigma and Sony. The Tamron only goes to 500mm, isn't much lighter and is a slower aperture lens.
In Europe it's between Sigma and Sony. The Sigma has the advantage of price, closer minimum focusing distance and the Arca compatible tripod collar. The Sony has the advantage of internal zoom and the ability to use teleconverters.
AS others have pointed out, the Tamron is less of a value in some world markets, and that obviously changes the calculus.
Thank you for this information.
There was a small glitch that Sony has provided the full E mount protocol to Sigma so it wasn't reverse engineered. Nevertheless, no one knows if Sony has some sort of private backdoors. Also, Sony has a long history of developing precise motors since the walkman age with a lot of patents, so Sony's focusing motor designs are probably just one of the best in the industry.
Glad to help out.
Great comparison. Thank you
You're welcome!
Thank you. You answered all my questions :P
Happy to help!
Thanks for the review Dustin! I’ve been researching these three lenses the last couple weeks. Looking for a lens I can use for landscape to isolate a subject and get some nice compression effect but also need it to be packable for day hikes. Not too concerned about the weight. Also want the lens to be capable for wildlife, and maybe double as a BIF lens for some rarer instances. I feel I’m asking too much from a single lens. Leaning towards the sigma since it has the extra focal length compared to the tamron and is also a bit more packable than the sony.. by 5 cm at least. Any thoughts? I also never see much commented about the landscape abilities of the sony lens, but that may be due to it not being its intended purpose. Thanks!
If you're not concerned about the weight and want more versatility, the Sigma 60-600mm Sport might be a good option. I definitely prefer it to the 150-600mm Sport for a variety of reasons I detail in that review.
Thanks Dustin! I’ll take a look. Too many options although maybe not a bad thing.
Great review Dustin any chance you had the sigma on a7riv compared to 200-600 👍
Hi Jason, I'm afraid I don't have an RIV in my kit.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I had the riv last year but I was one of the unlucky ones with sensor out of line and that was with covid in full swing here in UK. Unfortunately I missed the 30days returns date and didn't get any help from Sony 😭😭 so I had to sell up. Shame as I realy loved the resolution 👍
@@jasonpalmer2497 What issues did the sensor give you? I bought an A7r mark 3 last year and have horrible performance unless I’m in a REALLY bright environment. Pictures even at around 2000 ISO look extremely grainy, and to make it work in lower ISO’s (100-500 max, because I do mostly macro work) I have to drop the shutter speed waaaaay down. I’m talking 1/30 to 1/50 to get a nicely exposed image. Sadly this means I miss a lot of shots I wouldn’t otherwise miss if I could just crank the shutter speed to at least 1/250 so I could freeze the image of a bee or a flower in the wind in conjunction with my Meike speedlite. I sent the camera back to Sony but they said nothing was wrong with it, and yet when I use my lens on my friend’s older a7r mark 2, I don’t have this super dark image issue. It’s really disappointed/frustrated me as I paid a lot of money for this setup! Thinking of cutting my losses, selling the camera on e-bay and upgrading to an a1. I love shooting birds and the a1 has bird eye detection! That would be a game changer for me.
@@groundcontrol6876 I just bought the a1 upgrading from my older a7r3. I love it! I never had a noise issue with my a7r3 though. I personally think the color on the a1 is much better as well. The images start out better in RAW. The autofocus is light years better and a joy to shoot with for birds and animals, and is also great for landscape. My a7r3 might start collecting dust.
@@groundcontrol6876 very thew in sharp images even when stationary you might get 1 out of 10 in a burst if lucky so I sold up 😒
I believe the sigma comtempory version is slightly sharper than the sport model. It may be as weathered sealed, though it is not a heavy.
I think you are referencing the DSLR Sport and Contemporary lenses, which are both optically different than the lens covered in this review, which is a brand new design for Sony FE and Leica L only.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
Oh course Dustin, I forgot about this lens is just for E mount. I own the canon fit and I have compared it against the sport model for canon, and the C is slightly sharper.
I think its important to note that the 200-600mm by Sony does have a compatibility issue with Sony's A7RIV where the 2 products do not preform well together (terrible sharpness quality) , not everyone has this issue but there is a good handful of users that have come across this
That’s interesting. I had not heard that, and I have a hard time believing it. A lens optical qualities should not really change from camera to camera. Yes, higher resolution can magnify certain flaws, but an otherwise sharp lens does not become “terrible” when paired with a higher resolution camera.
Hi Dustin, i from Chile.....i have dude.....regardless of the money and considering that I am a SONY A7R IV user and a nature photographer.....IS TAMRON A BETTER OPTION THAN THE SONY??.....And I would like your opinion regarding the Sony 100-400 f4 even though the range is smaller but the 1.4 or 2 adapters from Sony one goes further .... but in performance compared to Sigma and Tamron
I actually really like the Sony, but it only makes sense if you can handle the higher price and bigger size.
Great video. Still hesitating for my a7r5. Preference for sony but which bag accepts it with camera attached? Do you have tuto and avises for sony 100-400 ? Makes 600mm on a7r5 crop mode avec 840mm with 1.4 converter. Mark galler advises it. But old 2018 design, 2600 euros, not internal zoom
Understood. I would actually recommend taking a look at the Sigma 60-600mm DN over the 150-600 - it's the better lens in several key areas (autofocus, stabilization, etc...). I still love the Sony 200-600 the most, but the Sigma 60-600 would be my second choice.
Would love tp see comparison with the Contemporary version of sigma 150-600mm too
There is no Sony E-mount version of that lens, so it isn't a reasonable comparison. Autofocus performance, for example, is not even in the same conversation once you adapt it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI with the mc-11 converter maybe
I'm looking at a couple of Sony teleconverters on B&H right now, a 1.4 and a 2.0, compatible with this very Sony lens.
That's correct.
Sigma
1：3 magnification at 180mm
made in japan
35% off price in my place
25% shorter collapse size
Clearly the winner
If it is the winner for you, that's all that matters.
Dustin,So which one is better for moon shooting, with A7c?
I lean the Sony 200-600 as being the best available option in this class.
How about the sigma 150-600C compared? since the C is a bit different from the sports.
There isn't a C version on the Sony platform, so that's not going to be a competitive option here as it will have to be adapted.
Thank you for a very honest, great review. 1 question though... What is the minimum focus distance of the 150-600 in the middle of the range?
That's a good question, but not one that I have the answer to as I didn't test it (and no longer have the loaner to test). I would suspect it is somewhere in between the two figures; it doesn't suddenly jump to the maximum distance at 600mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI Do you know if both Are true 600mm? Or if the one has longer reach than the other?
I watched a video of these on fronophotos and the Sigma was much better in this area due to the 150mm minimum.
Ciao Dustin your videos are very interesting !! I would like to know what would you recommend between the Sigma 150/600 and the Sony 200/600 I want the best possible AF quality I have a Sony A7III I do not want blurry photos thanks
The Sony is the easy choice.
Will the Sony 2x teleconverter work with Sigma 150 - 600?
No, Sony's TCs don't work with third party lenses
@@turanturanturan thank you for your kind information. 😊
I do think that people also say that it doesn't produce good results on the 200-600, even though you can technically use it. Only works on the big primes I think. But I have no experience with it myself.
I have used the 2x teleconverter and there is no way to get a steady shot with it on a tripod. However, as contrary as this sounds, it gives nice sharp shots handheld or on a monopod, provided you keep the shutter speed up
@@alsteiner7602 did you disable the optical steady shot? When using tripod you need to disable the steady shot from the lens (also from camera if you have that feature).
It's a very helpful review, thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks Dustin. Great video
Thank you
Very good review! COST! First You will have either for a VERY Long Time! Ah! did not know Sigma did not have New teleconverters for the new lens like the old Canon mount . Teleconverters are very important but also with a button selection you can get on sensor crop in APS-C mode exp. 2x 1200mm + APS-C (1.5X) = 1800mm (sensor crop) and super sharp. Unlike Canon/Nikon on a Sony AF works with the 2X and above f/13 only tracking is disabled. The nice thing also an available LensCoat that comes in many different camo patterns that protects from weather rain cold or heat but mainly hides the white that can scare wildlife and someone that see $'s. There are also some black skins raps to hide the white.
The loss of TCs is a big loss, for sure.
how is the glass quality of the two?
They are optically pretty close...though the Sony is the slight winner.
Are both the lenses are compatible with Sony zve10
Yes, any camera with an e-mount.
Why don't compare it with Tamron 150-500mm ?
I do a brief comparison at the end, but I already did a video like that comparing the Tamron to the Sony, so it felt a little redundant.
Wow, I like the look of the Sony lens, in the video it actually looks fake like its not even on your desk, looks like a picture taken off the sony website and place on the video haha. I actually even own the 200-600mm but but a camo cover on it right away so ive never really got to look at it 'naked'.
LOL - that's a different kind of reaction!
@9'42" you say, "whereas Sigma is having to reverse engineer that." This is incorrect because Sigma and Tamron license the E-mount algorithms from Sony!
Are you saying that with actual authority, or just because you've heard that? I don't think that is accurate
Awesome review! Are you going to test the Sony 600 F4 ? It would be awesome to do a 600F4 vs 200-600
Getting my hands on a 600mm F4 might be challenging, but it is worth a shot.
@Dustin Abbott what about light transmission and focus breathing at minimum focus distance?
I'm not sure I saw a noticeable difference between the two. Nothing that caught my attention, for sure.
Thanks a lot for the comparison, Dustin.
My NON-pro usage would then favour the SIGMA lens with my Sony A7r3: given image quality are comparable, I do mostly prefer that better PORTABILITY and lower COST (especially in Italy). As well as the integrated arca plate and broader range.
Only a bit disappointing is the "forbidden compatibility" (by Sony rules) with the 2 teleconverters (but I know that for still subjects... you anyhow lose in resolution): I still hope this will change.
The 15fps cap is not a problem for me, neither is the (current?) AF precision, the "potential dust" (limited usage, not being a pro), nor the white design (not expecting to stay under the sun for hours).
It sounds like you are a good candidate for the lens. Probably just crop to give you more reach when needed.
You sound just like me, ordered the Sigma ;)
@@gortt7611 just received! :)
Thx a lot Dustin!
You’re welcome.
What about what matters most - AF performance?
Ummm, I deal with that at length in this video.
Sony 100-400GM 1.4 teleconverter does it for me. Far less bulk to haul around , more options and close enough to 600mm.
Yes it does work my wife uses this combo but you loose a stop compared to the 200-600 which can really count if you are doing bird photography and technically the 200-600 is sharper.
The 100-400 GM combo is a good one for there reasons you suggest, but the downside is cost (50% more than the 200-600) and the fact you have a slower maximum aperture with the TC attached.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I shoot motor sports. So for my use I don't find it an issue.
The GM lens provides superb results as a stand alone lens. When I need extra reach, the teleconverter does for me.
Treking for 12+ hour days often with thousands of spectators around bulk and length are an issue with the other gear I have to carry.
Felt like I was about to cheat on my wife with the flight attendant while the music for the wallet advertisement was playing.
LOL - well don't do that!
Put each lens on the A1 and there is no competition, 200-600 is best.
That's my conclusion.
Is the sony $600 better?
That's going to be up to you, obviously. I would say "yes" if you have either an a9 series or A1 body and track fast action.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have the A9. Shoot sports. I hust sold 3 lenses to get the 200-600. I know with Sony you get 20fps on the A9. Shooting 3rd party you won't get 20. But thanks for responding. Your reviews are always informative.
What is sharper? Sony or sigma??
IMO Sigma made a big mistake by using a stepper motor for its lens. This could have been the perfect competitor for 200-600 if it had the quick AF of a linear motor. The advantages of Sigma over Sony aren't so much related to the end result, but rather auxiliary in nature - from better macro to smaller size, and price to a certain degree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any Sigma E mount lens with Linear motor, perhaps they don't have the tech ready, yet for mirrorless. this would be a better sell of L mount than E mount, but I'm not sure how many will let an L mount body for doing birds and wildlife.
I'm not sure if you are referring to a lens motor technology that Sigma currently employs in other lenses. If you are referring to the HSM then the 35/1,2 has that kind of af motor. www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a019_35_12/
@@Vantrakter im talking about the actual lens motor. Stepper vs Linear motor. from dustin abbott's review, this sigma is slower than both the tamron and Sony when it comes to tracking and keeping up with the subject, bif.
@@anulearntech Hyper Sonic Motor, different than Sigmas "stepper motor". Whether it's "linear" I couldn't tell you. I don't think Sigma or anyone else calls their motor "Linear Motor". I do know the HSM is different than the "stepper" used in most of Sigma's mirrorless.
@@Vantrakter sigma and all reviewers have said that they use the stepper motor in the lens. And as far as I know stepper motors are slower than linear motor. And the results show this. It's the most lagging lens compared to sony and Tamron.
In fact the Tamron would have been a no brainer 3rd party if it were to go till 600mm.
I too was surprised to see the reference to the stepping motor and not multiple motors. Most competing lenses will utilize multiple motors (typically linear type motors, which are basically better stepping motors) in concert.
Why does every video on RUclips on this topic ignore the Sony 100-400? It's sharper and has better contrast even cropped in to 600mm!! Dustin, you have great content, thanks for all the work you do! Just hate that it keeps getting overlooked.
If he did then why wouldn't he also include the Sigma 100-400 DN and then where would we be?? It's also in a different price bracket
@@Vantrakter That's true. I'm just saying that when people are considering super telephoto options for Sony, they should be aware that the 100-400 contends equally or better than the 600s that are available.
@@mikehines14 It is true in the sense that it is set apart from other lenses of equal range not just in price but also TC compatibility
@@subutai8392 Yes definitely! I understand the different classes of lenses. On paper, the 600mm lenses SHOULD be better for birding. However, I've done side by side comparisons and I'm saying that with the Sony GM 100-400 I've gotten sharper results even after cropping in 1.5x to match the Sony G 200-600 at 600mm. That's why I'm saying it should be considered to be in the same category, because it's that good!
I have both the 100-400 and the 200-600, and the 200-600 is comfortably sharper than the 100-400 cropped to 600mm, or with the 1.4 and compared at 560mm (tested properly on high res bodies, A1 and A7Riv).
Just what i wanted!
Glad to hear it.
Anyone else spend the whole video worried that one of his gestures was going to knock that Sigma lens off the table???
I've heard that about a number of my reviews (I'm an expressive speaker!), but thus far I've never hit a lens yet.
the fps cut on third party lens is such a dicc moves from sony, how could a1, a 30fps camera can only shoot 15 -_-
It is unfortunate, but, at the same time, Sony is under no obligation to enable its comptitors.
If you do a follow up comparison with the latest version 3 firmware update from sigma which introduces the new “OS2” image stabilization which gives the lens 6.5 stops of stabilization and newly updated autofocus speeds as tracking speeds you will see that the sigma has surpassed the sony and makes the sony show its age. Its time for sony to update the 200-600 with a mark 2
Call me skeptical. I've tested the newer 60-600mm that has all of those things, and it doesn't beat the 200-600 except perhaps in the OS department.
Sony please for my a7 iv❤
Fair enough. That's the one I personally own.
Dustin thanks very much for a great review. I am leaning more to the Sony 200-600mm lens
It's incredibly good
I think that video makes me also get the Sony if/when I buy one of the 600mm telephoto zoom lenses.
The close focus of the Sigma is great but I think better AF, internal zoom and optional teleconverters convince even me to not get the better macro.
amazing in depth review on both lenses but was hard to focus after 2:28 without staring at "IT" the rest of the video lol.
Hmmm, not exactly sure what you're referring to.
The only third-party telephoto zooms to consider are Sigma 100-400 DN and Tamron 70-300.
Curious. I don't view either of those lenses as true competitors to those that need longer reach, and they both suffer the same challenges as the longer Tamron and Sigma.
Seems like a really nice lens. It's great to get more and more tele options, but I can't help but feel that I want to save a bit more money and get the Sony lenses. It would really be a nice look for them, if they started selling the 100-400 and 200-600 with a revised food that fits Arca. Is it even a tripod foot if it doesn't go onto a tripod? Then it's just a foot that needs a tripod foot. It seems like it would be quick and easy to make a new foot and just put that in the boxes instead. It's baffling. Instead people are taking off the Sony feet and buying 3rd party feet that fit Arca. Why, Sony? Why? The only reason I can come up with is that they plan on selling an Arca version themselves and get even more money out of us, but then why isn't it out yet? A delayed release to make the cash-grab less obvious?
I've been asking these same kinds of questions since I was primarily a Canon reviewer...and I don't know the answer. It seems like the first party lenses never have Arca feet.
Malaysian market....sigma 150-600mm sport version costs higher than Sony 200-600 G OSS
Wow - that makes it a tough sell there.
I feel like if they would’ve just said 1499 at the beginning it would’ve been better so I wouldn’t feel cheated paying that now knowing what it almost was 🤷♂️
Agreed. Typically Sigma's projection for price holds true at release. Not this time.
The Sony has a severe focus breathing: what about the sigma please?
I don't recall strong focus breathing on the Sigma, but I'm not sure I tested specifically for that.
Sony the fast autofocus king!🥰
It’s impressive
The weight is a pain
True - but you don't get a quality telephoto like one of these without some weight.
Sounds like the biggest "reality" decision is to not buy a Sony camera. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And purchase what exactly instead? On Canon, there's no true equivalent lens to either of these, and the 100-500 costs considerably more. The top Canon body at the moment gives you 20FPS (with blackout), so I'm not sure you're advantaged.
Lucky for me I cant afford the sony. Easy choice for me. :D
That does simplify things ;)
Why Sony is white?
The usual reason given is that the white paint makes the lens less likely to heat up in hot weather.
@@DustinAbbottTWI good point, but then I'd like to see white rings, white camera body, and white lenses :)
@@tshev I think there were white variants of some old Nex cameras. But their AF is not even close to let's say an A6400.
@@jochenkraus7016 I am worrying about modern cameras. I use Sony A7 IV. It's pretty good, but I have a few complaints (card reader cover wobbles when I use a heavy lens, rolling shutter, only 8 FPS, they use CFExpress Type A instead of Type B). Also, I don't like when the lens colour and the body colour don't match.
Maybe I should have bought A1 because it fixes the rolling shutter and has real 20+ FPS, but it is a bit worse in terms of ergonomics.
@@tshev I think there are camo covers for some lenses. So maybe you can turn the lens into another color than white. I don't know if that exists for cameras but if yes, maybe there are matching colors/patterns.
paid promotion is for Sony or the wallet or both?
Wallet