The 60-600mm is a parfocal lense this allows one to zoom in to focus, then zoom back out to compose an image. This is sort of operation is absolutely crucial for camera operators, for whom manipulating focus manually while zooming at the same time would be almost impossible. Photographers almost never need this kind of functionality, so manufacturers make varifocal lenses, which are far cheaper to construct. But most photographers are shooting both photography and video nowadays so this Sigma 60-600mm is a steal Cine lense at this price point.
I'm not quite sure what you are basing that off of, but if you look at Sigma's own MTFs, they don't even suggest that. They show the 150-600 Sport to the be the sharper lens, though not by a wide margin.
@@lonnieclemens8028 Hi .Yes it arrived two weeks ago ,Just running it through it's paces at the minute .Im not easily pleased ,but this ticks all the boxes for me .Just know ,it's HEAVY and tripod and a good gimbal are a must .Ya i had several primes 300 up to 600 nikkors and this is a good compromise . Just know ,it's HEAVY and when you zoom out it is very front HEAVY.
@@eduardofreitas8336I have the sigma 150 -600 sport and had the nikon,The sigma is so HEAVY and the Nikon so LIGHT + IQ wise the two are on par with an edge to the sig @500
Thanks for the fantastic review. I'm waiting for mine to arrive tomorrow. I ordered it used from a reputable source for $1600. Was a pretty good chunk off. I have the 150-600 Contemporary but I miss having that wider zoom in front sometimes. I often have to just swap lenses back and forth. I currently have a 16-35mm L F4 IS Canon wide angle which I love for landscape and indoor photography and such where I need a wide angle. It also has a very low minimum focus distance. I have a Canon F2.8 40mm pancake which I use for general photography like road trips when I just wanna take quick snaps. When I don't want to carry a heavy lens around and it takes great photos. I've wanted a 70-200mm Canon F2.8 for awhile but I don't see my using that range all that much. Sometimes I wanna zoom a bit further and figure the 60-600 is probably gonna be perfect for me when I do wildlife photography. Often I have animals get super close and I can't get a picture of them. Also in the summer when they group up, all the cygnets, ducklings and such. It's tough getting them all into frame. Was also a bit worried with the lack of weather sealing so happy to have that also. From what I read, F8 aperture seems to be the sharpest for the 60-600mm Sigma all through the zoom range. It helps with the slight bit of softness you get at 600mm too I believe. I'm excited to get this. I think it'll help me really get into some professional photography and out of amateur. I'm thinking this would be perfect for race tracks this summer, auto cross events, maybe even dirt racing and such.
how would you sum up sharpness vs the 150-600 C and S some have said its sharper noted jared polin thinks its sharper than the 150-600 sport what do you think?
I think this is designed to be an all round events lens for people and sports subjects. Airshows and motorshows spring to mind. Shooting into the sky for planes or birds for wildlife won't be too bad at f6.3. Ill be sticking with the Contemporary. Probably the most versatile and adaptable tele lens ever made for outdoor sports and wildlife at least. Out of the super zooms its the only one which will f5.6 up to 380mm and is very light and robust for its size. Its not as quick AF as the Canon 100-400II but since using it with an mc-11 on an A7III Ive found it much quicker than it was coupled on Canon bodies. If I buy any Sigma telezoom in future itll likely to be Contemporary if they revamp it with an AF boost and f4-5.6. As far as top tier, these lenses can be super sharp tuned if you buy a decent lens calibration tool and the Sigma dock. I see many reviews claiming the Tamron G2 is sharper than the Sigma Sport/Contemporary but that is subjective until the Sigma is calibrated to a specific camera body.
I'm glad you enjoy your lens. Your final point, however, is not valid when it comes to the kinds of tests I do. When I do lens comparisons, I eliminate autofocus from the equation by manually focusing (using at least 10x zoom and often a monitor). That allows me to draw accurate conclusions.
Thanks once again .This lens is a sports photogs dream as it covers mid field -up close and wide to tele foreward lines at either end of the field .And to be honest most of the images will appear news pages and books etc ..So iq would be secondary for any one availing of the versatility of this unit.
Dustin, did you happen to calibrate the lens with the Sigma dock before the review? I wonder if that would have impacted the random focus lag you identified in the burst shots.
You know that by extending the length lens hood, the image will vignette when approaching to a 60mm wide-angle view. While the extension will shade the lens better at long focal lengths but with a consequence to pay when rolling back to 60mm.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You mentioned in your video that you wished the hood were longer to offer more weather protection. While I agree, but a longer hood would shadow out the edges of the image when zoomed in at the minimum 60mm. The hood Sigma provides works just fine, though be it short to accommodate the minimum focal length.
Appreciate the in-depth review 💚 Currently losing it trying to decide between this, the 150-600mm, Tamron's 150-600, and Canon's own super telephoto lenses for my R5 📷
Thanks for doing this real world review Dustin. I'm a little bit disappointed in the final wash up regarding the image quality at the long end compared to the 150-600 sport version, however I still think this lens will sell well due to what it offers in its total package , build quality and reasonable price tag compared to canon or Nikon lenses. Great job.
Others (reviewers) have found the image quality comparable the 150-600 S, but that wasn't the case with the two lenses I tested (though they were close). I certainly don't think expecting improved image quality (over the 150-600 lenses) would be fair considering how much larger the zoom ratio is.
I'm deciding between this 60-600 and the 150-600 and I'm seeing varying reviews of sharpness at the long end. Some say both are sharp and hard to tell the difference, some say the 150-600 is sharper, and some say the 60-600 is sharper. I'm wondering if there is a mayor variance in copies. I'd love to have the range of the 60-600 but not if I'm going to get soft images on the long end, plus the 150-600 C is much more affordable.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm now currently looking at 150-600 C, 60-600 S, and the new RF 100-500. So hard to make this choice. Budget and weight are an issue but don't think any of these are deal breakers except for maybe the 6 lbs of the 60-600.
Just to follow up, I was able to acquire a 60-600 and the new RF 100-500 to shootout in real world applications. Both are very impressive lenses. The 60-600, I can confirm is incredible sharp throughout the focal range and dare I say consistently a tad sharper than the RF 100-500. Granted both are incredible sharp and both will get the job done. There was CA on the Sigma but not as extreme as I’ve seen in other reviews. I believe Sigma has probably improved on it in production since those earlier reviews. Color wise, Canon was great as expected and consistent with the other fantastic RF lenses, while the Sigma leaned a hair green on the tint. Not much though but enough you can see it when comparing side by side. Globally the Canon had a more pleasing color and feel image quality wise. Obviously this is a personal taste and I’ll reiterate splitting hairs. The elephant in the room, is the weight. The 60-600 is simple a beast. The built like a tank and it’s straight up heavy. If you are not prepared to use this lens it can be a really hassle. While the 100-500 drops into my existing bags and cases with no change, the 60-600 is a chore just to take along. Shooting handbell with the 60-600 is challenging. Good technique and endurance strength is definitely needed if you plan to shoot handheld. With a monopod it’s a joy to use but unfortunately I won’t always have a monopod. The 100-500 is like shooting with a little heavier RF 70-200 and pretty similar to a regular 70-200. It’s way more pleasant to shoot with over then 60-600 So, I can’t keep both, and it’s a hard choice to decide. The Sigma has the 10x zoom of 60-600 that is sharp through the range and actually a tad sharper than the 100-500. The price is a fantastic value at $2k with this kind of performance and build. The weight is the only deciding factor as it’s really something to have to think about. Especially if you plan to handhold sports/events or wildlife/hiking. The Canon 100-500 pretty much gives you everything that the EF 100-400 mkii but with 100mm more in the similar sized package. It drops into the kit easy and it’s very light weight and compact in comparison to the 60-600. The one bad thing is the price at $2700. Tough choice but I’m leaning to the Canon 100-500 for its sizing and overall image quality.
I shoot mostly video of wildlife, all manual focus. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary on my Panasonic GH5 with MetaBones Speedbooster is a great video combo. My only gripe with this lens is the wimpy and narrow little manual focus ring. Otherwise one of the best "lens for the money" ever for wildlife shooters, video or stills. The lens reviewed here, the 60-600 I've heard is parfocal...is that true? That would be a big deal for us bird filmmakers, as we could zoom out to locate the bird in flight or flitting through a tree, zoom in to catch focus and get the tele shot and still zoom out with focus maintained throughout. This isn't a concern for stills shooters, but for videographers, it's a big deal.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I just bought this lens, EF mount version for shooting wildlife video and it is not parfocal. This would be a really nice feature for those of us who shoot video, but that would crank the price up a lot. Parfocal lenses are typically ENG video lenses and they are VERY expensive. This is, for me, a great lens, nonetheless.
Might upgrade in 2-3 years to this when price goes down.. my 50-500mm on 7D Mark2 still doing great for middle school football, soccer, track, and softball..
Absolutely. It will let in much more light and allow you to keep the shutter speed down. Not the same reach, obviously, but often enough for gym sports.
Nice one Dustin, enjoyed this. I was thinking of 'upgrading' from the 150-600 but you galvanised my concern over the 10x zoom being a little ambitious to maintain perfect quality. As someone mentioned earlier, a prime F.5 at the 600mm end with less internal mechanics (obviously) would be nice and great for birding which seems to always be at the 600mm end anyway.
Good point, I do some shots at the wider end alright. I guess I just wanted the versatility. Also, I thought it being substantially more expensive that the quality might be better than the Contemporary. Thanks for the reply.@@DustinAbbottTWI
@@DustinAbbottTWI I was thinking 85-100mm, which seems to work for me. It's mostly for those days when you just have one lens with you. I guess I'm wondering if the quality is good enough
Hello my friend, I'm a beginner photographer and I'm photographing Surf and Birds, I bought a Canon 90D and now I'm in doubt if I buy the Sigma 150-600mm C or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports or the Sigma 60-600mm, every time I see a video I have a little more doubt, which model to choose with the best image definition and faster auto focus, can you help me? Just to make it clear that I normally use Al Servo, a 9-point zone and matrix measurement that I don't even know is the best for surfing
Sir, Thank you for the review on this lens. I have been considering purchasing a super telephoto lens. I would like to photograph landscapes, wildlife, both in the wild, and at local zoos. I also enjoy going to Indianapolis and Michigan International Speedway for the auto races. My question is, would you recommend this lens, or would you suggest going with the 150-600 version? What I like about the 60-600 is the possibility of being able to shoot both in the pit area as well as from the stands. The camera that I currently have is a Canon D80. Thank you for your time, and any feedback you might be able to offer.
I want to try this one deffinitely! But, you've mention that the 150-600 had some balance issues, still when i tried the sports on my D3 it was just perfect, i could put a finger on the tripod mount and it was perfectly balanced. The contemporary, on the other had, was a bit light on the far end so the weight went a bit back to the camera body. But well, a D3 isn't light, i think since most sports photographers uses full body cameras (being the nikons d3, d4, etc or the canons eos 1) maybe, just maybe, sigma took that into consideration and hence why the sports balances so perfectly on that camera
Hi Ryker, I actually meant the balance for handholding, not on a tripod. The lens has a lot of weight away from your body, which means you get more fatigued quickly.
Thank for the review ! So i'm a filmmaker and i had a great idea when i saw this lens. First this lens has minimal focus breathing according to many reviews, second and most important people say that this lens is parfocal. My dream lens is the Angenieux 24-290U but cost the same price as my car+++ so obviously i cannot afford that but i was thinking buying this lens just to make some TV SHOW like crazy zoom outs using a tilta follow focus. Did you try to focus while it was on 600mm and zoom out? Thanks Dustin
Hi Bill, it's been several years and at least 75 lenses since I did this review, so my memory can't be relied on. I've heard others say the same thing, but my tests are more focused on the photography side than on video.
I saw that, yes. Maybe it was just me, but I just didn't love images from it. Funny, as I did like the 150-600 Sport quite a bit. Maybe it was the copy I used.
Nice presentation Dustin. I do disagree with you on the AF speed and tracking. I use this lens for sports on my Canon 1DX2 at 14 fps and focus tracks perfectly and lighting fast, like my Canon 400mm 2.8 V2. Of course, the Canon 5D4 is not designed as a sports camera and does not have a dedicated processor for AF like the later 1DX series. Also, much depends on the Case # used, especially if the Tracking is set to a slower speed, then AF will be delayed to catch up to the next frame. Typically I use Case 4 with Tracking Sensitivity at a +1, instead of the default 0. I use 4-point AF, but it is important to keep the center AF point as close to the target area when using higher tracking sensitivity. Another big plus for this lens is the stablization-very rock solid for situations when a much slower shutter speed is needed during low light situations. I have used this lens with a Canon 1.4x TC III with great results, including fast focus and exceptional sharpness. Just remember that good autofocus will depend if the camera body is properly AF microadjusted for the lens in both W and T. Hope this helps.
Hi John, you are right that performance may vary from body to body. My comparison, however, was based on my vast experience with a wide range of lenses on 5D Mark IV. I'm glad you are getting better results than what I did, but I stand by my results under the circumstances I describe. I'm also very familiar with the concept of doing proper AFMA.
THANK YOU! I've been trying and failing at finding a blunt and clear comparison on this lens as a long option over my workhorse canon 70-200 2.8 mk ii (with 1.4 TC some times) for sport coverage. I have used the Tamron 150-600 and was less than happy with some results, but looking to rent a SIGMA sport to try out for the long shots I really need on some sports (Dogs) I cover. Think you wrapped it up great for my questions. Its that long range more than versatility I need and if the 150-600mm is better at the max range, it's a no brainer.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. I saw the "lab" tests showed only incremental, but getting real world feedback from a good source is hard to find. Have a Herding event coming up and will get to see for myself.
How is this lens quality for video? Does it's color match the sigma art series lenses better than the sigma 100-400mm? Also, which is better image quality for video and photo the sigma 100-400 or this sigma 60-600 ?
Hi Charles, I'm afraid you're asking me to reach to far back in memory to answer some of these questions, particularly those that weren't the focus of my review. Maybe someone else will chime in with more recent experience.
Dustin, good detailed review, as always. one small detail: it's not a Burmese Mountain Dog (Burma - Myanmar) but a Bernese Mountain Dog - from the mountainous area of the Canton of Bern in Switzerland...
Thank you for this review. I am concern to buy my first wildlife lense. I did some research they said there is some color fringing in 60mm in this lense, So what do you think about this issue. is it noticeable to you or it doesn't matter? my second question is, I like 60-600mm for the more wide-angle that gives us compared to sigma150-600mm sport but I also a concern for speed autofocus, and sharpness. please can you help me to answer those questions so I can build my decision on your experience? Thank you in advance.
Thanks for your awesome review! I have a D500, so what do you recommend me to buy please for Wildlife, Bird and nature shooting? 1. A Nikkor 200-500mm ? 2. Or this Sigma 60-600mm?
I'm not familiar enough with the Nikkor to make a great recommendation. The Sigma definitely has the more flexible focal range, and I think it is close in IQ.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you so much for taking time to reply! That's an amazing character of a great RUclipsr 🙏🏼 God bless your Channel and looking forward for your next videos 😊
I had the 150-600 mm Sport and I was pretty happy with it. It was sharp and I used it fully extended to 600mm most of the time. What I also liked about the 150-600mm is that Sigma also suggested to pull the hood in or out to zoom, instead of turning the ring, which is nice when shooting action. Now I would like to have a 600mm back and I'm not sure which one to pick. Is the new 60-600mm as good and sharp as the 150-600, or better?
As I mention in this review, I liked the optical performance better on the 150-600S, but found the weight and balance much better on the 60-600. Others have been more positive about the sharpness of the 60-600, so it is probably worth exploring.
I was just looking at Your Coments on the Sigma 60-600mm Sports, what about the 150-600mm Sigma! My Question is that My Hobbies are Air Shows and I'm using a Tamron 18-400mm, But I want Something to get a Closer Shot, what Lens will do the job,
Thank you so much for sharing the information about the infinity focusing difficulties in some weather at long focal lengths. Thought it was just me because i couldn't get sharp (enough) photos with my Tamron 150-600 G2, because this problem didn't always occur... And great review once again :)
I learned that one the hard way. I shot with the first 150-600 at a wildlife preserve, and thought the lens was really soft on the long end, but then realized that some photos were much sharper. I eventually realized that the pattern was that the sharp photos were taken when I had the lens outside the vehicle. When I shot across the warm vehicle out into the cold (-20C), my sharpness went "out the window"
That's an interesting comment regarding the car shooting. A large portion of my shooting is done from my car and there are times when my images appear to be out of focus or image stabilization doesn't seem to work properly I can't figure it out? When I use the SIgma 150-600 on a monopod the images are sharp and crisp.
Make sure that the lens is well out of the car when you shoot, as if there is a difference in temperature in the car and the outside, that thermal issue can come into play.
Thank you for another great review! I found a pair of minor mistakes in the text version. 1) The lens "EX 50-500mm F4.5-6.3" doesn't exist. There was 4.0-6.3 EX version (BTW, it holds F5.6 until 416 mm, which is nice), and its successor 4.5-6.3 (it drops to F6.3 at 244 mm), which lost EX badge, but gained OS. TDP website has reviewed both of them. 2) Actually there're 5 switches (counting the zoom lock), not 4. :)
It is interesting that you said that this Sigma lenses are compatible with Canon's "auto correct" for distortion, chromatic aberration, etc.with jpegs. Do the Sigma lenses have this same advantage with Nikon cameras? Thanks!
Tnx for the wonderful and thorough review. Would you say the AF and IQ of the Sigma 60-600 is better than the Tamron 150-600 G2? Cause the message I got from your G2 review was that it was better than the Sigma 150-600. Tnx in advance.
Dustin Abbott : tnx Justin I do not care much for the 60- 400mm range I have all sorts of ways of accomplishing these. My interest is in the 400-600 part mainly. A tamron 150-600 G2 is almost half the price of the 60-600 and 2/3s of its weight plus a much smaller filter thread so it makes a lot more sense to me. If you have any other lens suggestions in the 400-800 range that don’t cost and weight as much as a car let me know :-) I hope sigma revises soon it’s 300-800 ; I’ve been saving for it. In the meantime i suppose the tamron will have to do. My only reservation is how the tamron plays with Sony a9. Since you own a Sony e-mount, the tamron G2 and several adapters (metabones, mc-11) could you try this please in one of your walks with your dog running. Af would be my main concern as I’ll be getting this for wildlife. I’m sure a lot of people would be interested to watch how the tamron performs on a Sony E-mount body. Tnx in advance carry on the excellent work.
What a great review. Thanks for all the attention to detail. I am still curious though, how the autofocus/tracking compares to the 150-600 contemporary. I am currently shooting football with the Nikon D500 paired with an 80-400mm. This setup tracks VERY well and produces exceptional results. I am leaning toward the 150-600mm for some extra reach at a great price point but the tracking capabilities are my biggest concern. Thanks
The D500 is (I understand) a very good focusing camera, which helps. I would say that I personally had better tracking success with the 60-600 than the 150-600 C. YMMV
I am currently in the market for a superzoom, and currently looking at the Tamron and Sigma (both contemporary and sport) 150-600. Since they've both cut off my camera mount, my choices are limited. This one seems new enough that makes it unavailable.
I still got a lot of great information from the video, and it’s helping me make my decision. I do like Sigma I picked up one of their 72-200 f2.8 for my a99 ii, and love it. They have some of the A-mount and sport and contemporary lenses left out there. I haven't given up on Sony yet, since they've come out with a 100mp medium format sensor. If they really are considering a medium format camera or better yet a mirrorless camera then the A-mount will be better suited for the new sensor with its larger barrel diameter. Unless of course Sony designs a new mount for the new camera.
You can pretty well expect that I'll cover all new Sigma releases, as I have a great working relationship with Sigma Canada. My next two Sigma reviews, however, are the 40mm F1.4 ART along with the 56mm F1.4 C for Sony APS-C.
There are people this is perfect for, but not really for those that don't need the additional 90mm on the wide end. And yes, a lens that can focus purely on optical performance (even at a smaller maximum aperture) at 500 or 600mm would be awesome.
This lens vs a Canon 300mm f2.8 with an 2x v3 Canon extender.. What would be your pick Dustin? (esspecially in terms of Image quality) Btw.. great review series, as usual!
A big white prime VS a 10x ultra zoom.... im no expert but my guest would be the 300 prime for IQ. Especially with the 2x v3. Also by 300mm the siggy will be f5.6... 2 stop difference.
@@DustinAbbottTWI agree, in fact i own the 150-600 sport for more than 3 years now paired with the 80D and loved it. Here a link to some photos i got from the setup. portraitmoments.smugmug.com/BIRDS/2016-Spring/ For value and convenience, the Sigma are hard to beat.
did this 'replace' the 150-600..? It would be nice to have 60mm at the short end vs 150... I think the 150-600 Sport performs well, but not sure if this would be worth the upgrade/transition
This is more a replacement of the 50-500mm "Bigma" lens. I think it is a decent alternative to the Sport lens because it offers fairly similar image quality, better balance, and obviously a longer focal range.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Good to know! I have the 150-600 Sport and I've used it for surf photos with good results. The slower aperture isn't a huge deal to me because I shoot mid day at the beach. I was thinking about getting the 2x TC for it but not sure I want to shell out $400 for it... Nice videos! Thanks!
Great review as always. Any idea how the 60-600 compares to the Sony 100-400mm GM + 1.4x in AF tracking and IQ at full zoom on A7RIII? Can the Sigma + MC-11 be used for something like birding?
I think it depends on what you are doing. I felt like I liked the 150-600 better optically. The 60-600 has better balance and obviously more flexibility in the zoom range.
I just bought the A7iii, I have the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens e mount. I am looking for a telephoto lens. I've been looking at the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the sigma 60-600mm sports lens, which one would you recommend? I feel the sony lenses are too expensive.
IF you're not in a rush, I would wait to see what native FE mount lenses get announced this year. I suspect Tamron will announce a 70-200ish lens to match your 28-75 in the second half of the year.
Is this pretty okay to hand-hold? It seems it would be the upper end in that category. Between this one, 150-600C, Nikon 200-500 and Tamron 150-600G2... which is the sharpest in their ranges?
I haven't shot the Nikon, so can't comment there. I shot this lens almost exclusively hand-held, so it can be done. I doubt there is a big sharpness difference with any of the four lenses you are looking at. Choose build quality and autofocus (and what weight you are comfortable with) as your main criteria.
Hi Dustin. . Qq. I have a 1200d and an EOS r. When the R is busy with someone else I am left using my old 1200. Looking at this lens or the 150.600 sport or contemporary, would you agree the sport wins, but then the 150- or the 60- wins on the crop, or even the 150c would suffice?
The Contemporary is a nice value pick, and easier on the back in terms of carrying it around. I'm afraid the price and weight of the Sport might be wasted on your camera combo.
Thanks @@DustinAbbottTWI So if I play on that response, optically the contemporary does a great job, but on the crop I get the 960mm advantage but perhaps more noisy, and on the R, I would expect improved picture clarity and advantageous focussing capability...
Know that feeling when you don't need something, but you want it because you have that idea where you want to set your own machine gun (i.e: lens + tripod)? Yup, I'm in that phase right now. Please help! 😂
Thanks for the amazing review! I am currently looking for a budget Tele-Zoom for a Safari through Africa... and I am torn between the new 60-600 and the tamron 150-600 g2. So the hint with shooting mostly in Tele one should go for a 150-600 was very useful! (And was exactly what I wanted to hear, since the Tamron is lighter and cheaper ; D )
Very informative and interesting review. I am more interested in the 400-600 telephoto range. From what I've heard and seen here, you feel the 150-600 is better suited for my purposes. Thanks again. Great review! 😀 📸 👍 👌
This review confirms my gut feeling. You cannot make a 60 to 600mm lens and not give up optical quality. I'd much rather would have seen them release a 200-500 (ala Nikon) with an F4 to F5.6 aperture and higher optical quality than the 150-600s. That would be a no brainer for me (in native Sony mount please, Sigma).
There are a few other reviewers saying that the 60-600 S is as good or better than the 150-600 lenses, but that's not what I felt I saw. I think it is close, but not quite there, which seems logical to me.
VS the G2? They are both fairly equal in performance. The Sport is bigger and heavier and more expensive, but has a more useful focal range. The Tamron is lighter, cheaper, but has good performance. What works better for you?
That depends on the sports and the lighting. It isn't top of the heap in terms of focus speed, and a variable aperture lens like this needs a fair bit of light.
Great review Mr Abbott!!. As you mentioned in the review about the Mc-11 Adapter, have you used it on your Sony’s by any chance? How is the tracking with the a7 bodies? Thank you so much. Hope you have a wonderful new year!!
@@ImadogGarcia you want a unicorn then. Even a crop sensor 600 f4 would be big and cost as much as a car. So why would someone waste the r&d to make it slightly lighter and smaller when that difference wont matter in the end, would still cost a fortune, and probably wouldn't sell very well? Might as well go for the full frame lens. Full frame lenses on crop sensors look awesome because the part you lose is the edge which is usually where lenses are the softest. And you dont have to worry if you ever upgrade to full frame that your lens is now useless on your new body.
I think so, Shawn. Get the focus dialed in. Focus speed is good enough, and I think there is good image quality to be had. That's a great focal length!
I have no interest in photographing Sports .. at all .. But What i want to know how good is it at capturing High flying passenger jets .. how good is the detail .. ??????????? Can the detail rival the Long range captures of Groom lake from Tikaboo peak back in the 80s/90 when that peak was still public access
@@DustinAbbottTWI No worries .. cheers for replying .. much appreciated indeed . What i've noticed with numerous reviewers .. it's a subject matter that's never touched upon , same with Ships . . Whilst they will all cover the same subject .. Wildlife /scenery . As am giving it some consideration in getting the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens for my Canon
Thanks for the Review I guess I’m stuck carrying around my 12 pound 600 mm cannon lens because this one will just not do for motorsports yes it’s cheap enough but the quality still sucks
Dustin Abbott yes you correct but as lens manufacturers get better and better I can only pray that I don’t have to carry that 12 pounds canon lens around a track, and the racing tracks in Japan can be huge Suzuka at Fuji are massive tracks thank you for the review
Great review as always! I've been waiting for this final review! I will not buy this lens!! Sadly Sigma seems to focus on Sport-Zooms!! After a 150-600mm Zoom costumers get a 60-600mm Zoom! What's next??? A 300-600mm Sports lens??? I can't understand why Sigma is not willing/able to give us customers a handholdable 6,3/600mm lens!! Maybe Nikon gets tue Job done….
That's not a bad suggestion - I'd like a 500mm F5.6 even better. If they could shave even 500g off the weight, it would make for a very versatile lens.
The review is absolutely first class. Many thanks to you as a reliable source of information
Thanks, Jay.
It seems like Sigma is making some improvements. For years there has been a skepticism about the company. Now I am hearing extremely positive reports.
They have really grown in the past few years.
Dustin is an absolute legend, great guy
Thank you!
Well spoken and researched, what a pro you are! Thanks and kind regards from Peter Bennett (Melbourne, Australia)
Thank you, Peter
As a "Swiss Army Knife" of a lens, the 60-600 performs really well adapted via the control ring adaptor on my Canon R&R3
Nice. It is definitely an extremely useful focal range.
The 60-600mm is a parfocal lense this allows one to zoom in to focus, then zoom back out to compose an image. This is sort of operation is absolutely crucial for camera operators, for whom manipulating focus manually while zooming at the same time would be almost impossible. Photographers almost never need this kind of functionality, so manufacturers make varifocal lenses, which are far cheaper to construct. But most photographers are shooting both photography and video nowadays so this Sigma 60-600mm is a steal Cine lense at this price point.
I'm not quite sure what you are basing that off of, but if you look at Sigma's own MTFs, they don't even suggest that. They show the 150-600 Sport to the be the sharper lens, though not by a wide margin.
Outstanding and clear review. Thank you for taking the time to put this out.
My pleasure.
Thanks again .Im going for the 150-600 sport
Hi Mike, did you ever get the Sigma Sport? I am curious to know how you like it.
@@lonnieclemens8028 Hi .Yes it arrived two weeks ago ,Just running it through it's paces at the minute .Im not easily pleased ,but this ticks all the boxes for me .Just know ,it's HEAVY and tripod and a good gimbal are a must .Ya i had several primes 300 up to 600 nikkors and this is a good compromise . Just know ,it's HEAVY and when you zoom out it is very front HEAVY.
@@brotherdom1 Thank you Mike. It is interesting to hear you compare the Sigma Sport to the Nikon prime lenses.
@@brotherdom1 Im sooo torn between the 150 600 sport and the nikkor 200 500
@@eduardofreitas8336I have the sigma 150 -600 sport and had the nikon,The sigma is so HEAVY and the Nikon so LIGHT + IQ wise the two are on par with an edge to the sig @500
Thanks for the fantastic review. I'm waiting for mine to arrive tomorrow. I ordered it used from a reputable source for $1600. Was a pretty good chunk off. I have the 150-600 Contemporary but I miss having that wider zoom in front sometimes. I often have to just swap lenses back and forth. I currently have a 16-35mm L F4 IS Canon wide angle which I love for landscape and indoor photography and such where I need a wide angle. It also has a very low minimum focus distance. I have a Canon F2.8 40mm pancake which I use for general photography like road trips when I just wanna take quick snaps. When I don't want to carry a heavy lens around and it takes great photos.
I've wanted a 70-200mm Canon F2.8 for awhile but I don't see my using that range all that much. Sometimes I wanna zoom a bit further and figure the 60-600 is probably gonna be perfect for me when I do wildlife photography. Often I have animals get super close and I can't get a picture of them. Also in the summer when they group up, all the cygnets, ducklings and such. It's tough getting them all into frame.
Was also a bit worried with the lack of weather sealing so happy to have that also. From what I read, F8 aperture seems to be the sharpest for the 60-600mm Sigma all through the zoom range. It helps with the slight bit of softness you get at 600mm too I believe. I'm excited to get this. I think it'll help me really get into some professional photography and out of amateur. I'm thinking this would be perfect for race tracks this summer, auto cross events, maybe even dirt racing and such.
I think you should enjoy the added versatility. This is an amazing zoom range.
how would you sum up sharpness vs the 150-600 C and S some have said its sharper noted jared polin thinks its sharper than the 150-600 sport what do you think?
I think this is designed to be an all round events lens for people and sports subjects. Airshows and motorshows spring to mind. Shooting into the sky for planes or birds for wildlife won't be too bad at f6.3.
Ill be sticking with the Contemporary. Probably the most versatile and adaptable tele lens ever made for outdoor sports and wildlife at least. Out of the super zooms its the only one which will f5.6 up to 380mm and is very light and robust for its size. Its not as quick AF as the Canon 100-400II but since using it with an mc-11 on an A7III Ive found it much quicker than it was coupled on Canon bodies.
If I buy any Sigma telezoom in future itll likely to be Contemporary if they revamp it with an AF boost and f4-5.6.
As far as top tier, these lenses can be super sharp tuned if you buy a decent lens calibration tool and the Sigma dock. I see many reviews claiming the Tamron G2 is sharper than the Sigma Sport/Contemporary but that is subjective until the Sigma is calibrated to a specific camera body.
I'm glad you enjoy your lens. Your final point, however, is not valid when it comes to the kinds of tests I do. When I do lens comparisons, I eliminate autofocus from the equation by manually focusing (using at least 10x zoom and often a monitor). That allows me to draw accurate conclusions.
Thanks once again .This lens is a sports photogs dream as it covers mid field -up close and wide to tele foreward lines at either end of the field .And to be honest most of the images will appear news pages and books etc ..So iq would be secondary for any one availing of the versatility of this unit.
It is true that this is an extremely versatile focal length and lens...particularly if you are working with a well-lit venue.
Dustin, did you happen to calibrate the lens with the Sigma dock before the review? I wonder if that would have impacted the random focus lag you identified in the burst shots.
I did, so I don't think that was the issue.
You know that by extending the length lens hood, the image will vignette when approaching to a 60mm wide-angle view. While the extension will shade the lens better at long focal lengths but with a consequence to pay when rolling back to 60mm.
I'm not sure that was the case, actually. I don't recall seeing more vignette with the hood attached.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You mentioned in your video that you wished the hood were longer to offer more weather protection. While I agree, but a longer hood would shadow out the edges of the image when zoomed in at the minimum 60mm. The hood Sigma provides works just fine, though be it short to accommodate the minimum focal length.
Appreciate the in-depth review 💚
Currently losing it trying to decide between this, the 150-600mm, Tamron's 150-600, and Canon's own super telephoto lenses for my R5 📷
Tough choices. I haven't tested many of them on the R5; I will say that the EF 100-400L II adapts very well.
Thanks for doing this real world review Dustin. I'm a little bit disappointed in the final wash up regarding the image quality at the long end compared to the 150-600 sport version, however I still think this lens will sell well due to what it offers in its total package , build quality and reasonable price tag compared to canon or Nikon lenses. Great job.
Others (reviewers) have found the image quality comparable the 150-600 S, but that wasn't the case with the two lenses I tested (though they were close). I certainly don't think expecting improved image quality (over the 150-600 lenses) would be fair considering how much larger the zoom ratio is.
I'm deciding between this 60-600 and the 150-600 and I'm seeing varying reviews of sharpness at the long end. Some say both are sharp and hard to tell the difference, some say the 150-600 is sharper, and some say the 60-600 is sharper. I'm wondering if there is a mayor variance in copies. I'd love to have the range of the 60-600 but not if I'm going to get soft images on the long end, plus the 150-600 C is much more affordable.
I've wondered the same thing, as it seemed like some reviewers came to a completely different conclusion from me.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm now currently looking at 150-600 C, 60-600 S, and the new RF 100-500. So hard to make this choice. Budget and weight are an issue but don't think any of these are deal breakers except for maybe the 6 lbs of the 60-600.
Just to follow up, I was able to acquire a 60-600 and the new RF 100-500 to shootout in real world applications. Both are very impressive lenses.
The 60-600, I can confirm is incredible sharp throughout the focal range and dare I say consistently a tad sharper than the RF 100-500. Granted both are incredible sharp and both will get the job done.
There was CA on the Sigma but not as extreme as I’ve seen in other reviews. I believe Sigma has probably improved on it in production since those earlier reviews.
Color wise, Canon was great as expected and consistent with the other fantastic RF lenses, while the Sigma leaned a hair green on the tint. Not much though but enough you can see it when comparing side by side. Globally the Canon had a more pleasing color and feel image quality wise. Obviously this is a personal taste and I’ll reiterate splitting hairs.
The elephant in the room, is the weight. The 60-600 is simple a beast. The built like a tank and it’s straight up heavy. If you are not prepared to use this lens it can be a really hassle. While the 100-500 drops into my existing bags and cases with no change, the 60-600 is a chore just to take along. Shooting handbell with the 60-600 is challenging. Good technique and endurance strength is definitely needed if you plan to shoot handheld. With a monopod it’s a joy to use but unfortunately I won’t always have a monopod. The 100-500 is like shooting with a little heavier RF 70-200 and pretty similar to a regular 70-200. It’s way more pleasant to shoot with over then 60-600
So, I can’t keep both, and it’s a hard choice to decide. The Sigma has the 10x zoom of 60-600 that is sharp through the range and actually a tad sharper than the 100-500. The price is a fantastic value at $2k with this kind of performance and build. The weight is the only deciding factor as it’s really something to have to think about. Especially if you plan to handhold sports/events or wildlife/hiking.
The Canon 100-500 pretty much gives you everything that the EF 100-400 mkii but with 100mm more in the similar sized package. It drops into the kit easy and it’s very light weight and compact in comparison to the 60-600. The one bad thing is the price at $2700.
Tough choice but I’m leaning to the Canon 100-500 for its sizing and overall image quality.
I shoot mostly video of wildlife, all manual focus. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary on my Panasonic GH5 with MetaBones Speedbooster is a great video combo. My only gripe with this lens is the wimpy and narrow little manual focus ring. Otherwise one of the best "lens for the money" ever for wildlife shooters, video or stills. The lens reviewed here, the 60-600 I've heard is parfocal...is that true? That would be a big deal for us bird filmmakers, as we could zoom out to locate the bird in flight or flitting through a tree, zoom in to catch focus and get the tele shot and still zoom out with focus maintained throughout. This isn't a concern for stills shooters, but for videographers, it's a big deal.
It's been a while, but I do seem to remember that being the case.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I just bought this lens, EF mount version for shooting wildlife video and it is not parfocal. This would be a really nice feature for those of us who shoot video, but that would crank the price up a lot. Parfocal lenses are typically ENG video lenses and they are VERY expensive. This is, for me, a great lens, nonetheless.
I really appreciate your video. Very practical, real world applications very helpful.
Glad it was helpful!
Very thorough review. Tremendous thanks to you Dustin. That was great!
Glad you liked it!
Excellent review. Crossing my fingers for the 70-200 sport review soon.
Probably February at the earliest. My schedule is booked solid for a while, and I've still got a month's worth of content from 2018 to release.
Might upgrade in 2-3 years to this when price goes down.. my 50-500mm on 7D Mark2 still doing great for middle school football, soccer, track, and softball..
That will probably be the case if history bears true.
Do you know if the Sigma and 7D Mark II, work with the “cases” in the 7D autofocus?
@@jjblackmore4818 I don't know that, but you might be able to run that by Sigma and get an answer.
Great reviews, I appreciate all the work you put into looking at this lens!
Thanks!
Dustin do you feel the f2.8 Tamron 70-200 G2 is a better option for shooting indoor sports especially with all the different types of gym lighting??
Absolutely. It will let in much more light and allow you to keep the shutter speed down. Not the same reach, obviously, but often enough for gym sports.
It would be very interesting to revisit this lens with the R5 and/or the R7 for AF speed and accuracy.
If they made it in a native RF mount, I would do it, but I'm just too busy to revisit lenses via adapter.
@@DustinAbbottTWI tnx - fair enough
I was hoping to find out if it is an improvement over the 50-500, especially if they have improved IQ! If you ask Sigma direct they are vague.
I took a quick look at the MTFs, and it looks like the 60-600mm is considerably better on the wide and marginally better on the telephoto end.
Excellent and Comprehensive Review !!
Glad it helped!
Nice one Dustin, enjoyed this. I was thinking of 'upgrading' from the 150-600 but you galvanised my concern over the 10x zoom being a little ambitious to maintain perfect quality. As someone mentioned earlier, a prime F.5 at the 600mm end with less internal mechanics (obviously) would be nice and great for birding which seems to always be at the 600mm end anyway.
I would say it is only an upgrade if you need the extra focal range. If you mostly shoot at the long end, why move from what you have?
Good point, I do some shots at the wider end alright. I guess I just wanted the versatility. Also, I thought it being substantially more expensive that the quality might be better than the Contemporary. Thanks for the reply.@@DustinAbbottTWI
Sigma have a 500mm f4 sport Prime already
I think the point people are making is that a smaller aperture lens would be both cheaper and lighter.
Thanks for the great review. How does it perform as a portrait lens? Can it replace dedicated one?
Thanks
It probably could be used in the first half of the zoom range, but it's not really a portrait oriented lens per se.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I was thinking 85-100mm, which seems to work for me. It's mostly for those days when you just have one lens with you. I guess I'm wondering if the quality is good enough
It probably would, though depth of field won't be tiny
I love your reviews, very helpful
Glad you like them!
They are distinctive and detailed. Clear precise and easy to understand
Hello my friend, I'm a beginner photographer and I'm photographing Surf and Birds, I bought a Canon 90D and now I'm in doubt if I buy the Sigma 150-600mm C or the Sigma 150-600mm Sports or the Sigma 60-600mm, every time I see a video I have a little more doubt, which model to choose with the best image definition and faster auto focus, can you help me? Just to make it clear that I normally use Al Servo, a 9-point zone and matrix measurement that I don't even know is the best for surfing
I think the 150-600 Sport has the most robust focus, followed by the 60-600, and then the 150-600 C.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks man
Sir, Thank you for the review on this lens. I have been considering purchasing a super telephoto lens. I would like to photograph landscapes, wildlife, both in the wild, and at local zoos. I also enjoy going to Indianapolis and Michigan International Speedway for the auto races. My question is, would you recommend this lens, or would you suggest going with the 150-600 version? What I like about the 60-600 is the possibility of being able to shoot both in the pit area as well as from the stands. The camera that I currently have is a Canon D80. Thank you for your time, and any feedback you might be able to offer.
I personally found the 150-600 sharper, but others have different findings.
I want to try this one deffinitely! But, you've mention that the 150-600 had some balance issues, still when i tried the sports on my D3 it was just perfect, i could put a finger on the tripod mount and it was perfectly balanced. The contemporary, on the other had, was a bit light on the far end so the weight went a bit back to the camera body. But well, a D3 isn't light, i think since most sports photographers uses full body cameras (being the nikons d3, d4, etc or the canons eos 1) maybe, just maybe, sigma took that into consideration and hence why the sports balances so perfectly on that camera
Hi Ryker, I actually meant the balance for handholding, not on a tripod. The lens has a lot of weight away from your body, which means you get more fatigued quickly.
I pre-ordered this lens and I really love it with my D850 Nikon Body
Nice!
@@DustinAbbottTWI As you can see the lens and camera are in the profile picture.
Perfect for my needs.
Definitely. Enjoy your lens!
Love the snow… what region are u based in??
Eastern Ontario, Canada
Thank for the review !
So i'm a filmmaker and i had a great idea when i saw this lens. First this lens has minimal focus breathing according to many reviews, second and most important people say that this lens is parfocal. My dream lens is the Angenieux 24-290U but cost the same price as my car+++ so obviously i cannot afford that but i was thinking buying this lens just to make some TV SHOW like crazy zoom outs using a tilta follow focus.
Did you try to focus while it was on 600mm and zoom out?
Thanks Dustin
Hi Bill, it's been several years and at least 75 lenses since I did this review, so my memory can't be relied on. I've heard others say the same thing, but my tests are more focused on the photography side than on video.
How did this lens work for video?
I note that this lens was recently awarded "Best DSLR telephoto zoom lens at the 2019 TIPA World Awards .Just thought that you may be interested.
I saw that, yes. Maybe it was just me, but I just didn't love images from it. Funny, as I did like the 150-600 Sport quite a bit. Maybe it was the copy I used.
Nice presentation Dustin. I do disagree with you on the AF speed and tracking. I use this lens for sports on my Canon 1DX2 at 14 fps and focus tracks perfectly and lighting fast, like my Canon 400mm 2.8 V2. Of course, the Canon 5D4 is not designed as a sports camera and does not have a dedicated processor for AF like the later 1DX series. Also, much depends on the Case # used, especially if the Tracking is set to a slower speed, then AF will be delayed to catch up to the next frame. Typically I use Case 4 with Tracking Sensitivity at a +1, instead of the default 0. I use 4-point AF, but it is important to keep the center AF point as close to the target area when using higher tracking sensitivity. Another big plus for this lens is the stablization-very rock solid for situations when a much slower shutter speed is needed during low light situations. I have used this lens with a Canon 1.4x TC III with great results, including fast focus and exceptional sharpness. Just remember that good autofocus will depend if the camera body is properly AF microadjusted for the lens in both W and T. Hope this helps.
Hi John, you are right that performance may vary from body to body. My comparison, however, was based on my vast experience with a wide range of lenses on 5D Mark IV. I'm glad you are getting better results than what I did, but I stand by my results under the circumstances I describe. I'm also very familiar with the concept of doing proper AFMA.
THANK YOU! I've been trying and failing at finding a blunt and clear comparison on this lens as a long option over my workhorse canon 70-200 2.8 mk ii (with 1.4 TC some times) for sport coverage. I have used the Tamron 150-600 and was less than happy with some results, but looking to rent a SIGMA sport to try out for the long shots I really need on some sports (Dogs) I cover. Think you wrapped it up great for my questions. Its that long range more than versatility I need and if the 150-600mm is better at the max range, it's a no brainer.
The Sigma MTFs show that advantage to be slight, but it was a little more pronounced in the copies I tested.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. I saw the "lab" tests showed only incremental, but getting real world feedback from a good source is hard to find. Have a Herding event coming up and will get to see for myself.
How is this lens quality for video? Does it's color match the sigma art series lenses better than the sigma 100-400mm? Also, which is better image quality for video and photo the sigma 100-400 or this sigma 60-600 ?
Hi Charles, I'm afraid you're asking me to reach to far back in memory to answer some of these questions, particularly those that weren't the focus of my review. Maybe someone else will chime in with more recent experience.
Awesome review, thanks so much.
You're welcome.
Dustin, good detailed review, as always.
one small detail: it's not a Burmese Mountain Dog (Burma - Myanmar) but a Bernese Mountain Dog - from the mountainous area of the Canton of Bern in Switzerland...
Oh, good catch...and that makes more sense, as I can see some genetic relations to a St. Bernard.
Thank you for this review. I am concern to buy my first wildlife lense. I did some research they said there is some color fringing in 60mm in this lense, So what do you think about this issue. is it noticeable to you or it doesn't matter? my second question is, I like 60-600mm for the more wide-angle that gives us compared to sigma150-600mm sport but I also a concern for speed autofocus, and sharpness. please can you help me to answer those questions so I can build my decision on your experience? Thank you in advance.
I personally though that the 150-600 Sport was the sharper lens, but other disagree. There is some fringing, but you can correct for it in post.
Hi mate , I am an aviation photographer. I currently use a Nikon D5600 and a 70-300mm lens. What would you recommend for me to upgrade too.
You would definitely get a lot more reach.
@@DustinAbbottTWI what would you recommend
Thanks for your awesome review!
I have a D500, so what do you recommend me to buy please for Wildlife, Bird and nature shooting?
1. A Nikkor 200-500mm ?
2. Or this Sigma 60-600mm?
I'm not familiar enough with the Nikkor to make a great recommendation. The Sigma definitely has the more flexible focal range, and I think it is close in IQ.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you so much for taking time to reply! That's an amazing character of a great RUclipsr 🙏🏼 God bless your Channel and looking forward for your next videos 😊
Thanks for the review and hard work, Which is better this lens 60-600 mm or the Nikon 200-500mm ( I have already nikon 70-200mm) ?
I can't really answer that question as I have zero experience with the Nikon lens.
I had the 150-600 mm Sport and I was pretty happy with it. It was sharp and I used it fully extended to 600mm most of the time. What I also liked about the 150-600mm is that Sigma also suggested to pull the hood in or out to zoom, instead of turning the ring, which is nice when shooting action. Now I would like to have a 600mm back and I'm not sure which one to pick. Is the new 60-600mm as good and sharp as the 150-600, or better?
Some say yes, but I didn't personally find that to be true.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'll get the old one back then. Thanks for your reply! Greetings from Germany!
나온지 벌써 5년이나 지났나요??
번개다
Price this lens ?
This really depends on what market you are in. I can't answer that for you.
I am pleased with this lens; it is sharp. Recommended My Nikon D850
Glad you're happy with it!
Hello Dustin..between this and the 150-600 sport? which one do you prefer? optically and photographic yield, sharpness etc ...
As I mention in this review, I liked the optical performance better on the 150-600S, but found the weight and balance much better on the 60-600. Others have been more positive about the sharpness of the 60-600, so it is probably worth exploring.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i need one between 150-600 sport and 60-600 sport to add at my king 500 f4 sport sigma..i think that i will chose 150-600 sport..
I was just looking at Your Coments on the Sigma 60-600mm Sports, what about the 150-600mm Sigma! My Question is that My Hobbies are Air Shows and I'm using a Tamron 18-400mm, But I want Something to get a Closer Shot, what Lens will do the job,
If you look on my channel, I also have reviews of the 150-600 Sport and Contemporary.
So helpful thank you...
Excellent review. Thanks.
You're welcome.
Tremendously well done review; laboriously researched and practised, and it shows! ^.^
Glad you liked it!
Great review Dustin. How is this compared to the Canon EF100-400 Mk2 in terms of IQ and focusing?
I like the 100-400L II better, myself, in both metrics, but that's a matter of preference.
Thank you
You're welcome.
Thank you so much for sharing the information about the infinity focusing difficulties in some weather at long focal lengths. Thought it was just me because i couldn't get sharp (enough) photos with my Tamron 150-600 G2, because this problem didn't always occur...
And great review once again :)
I learned that one the hard way. I shot with the first 150-600 at a wildlife preserve, and thought the lens was really soft on the long end, but then realized that some photos were much sharper. I eventually realized that the pattern was that the sharp photos were taken when I had the lens outside the vehicle. When I shot across the warm vehicle out into the cold (-20C), my sharpness went "out the window"
That's an interesting comment regarding the car shooting. A large portion of my shooting is done from my car and there are times when my images appear to be out of focus or image stabilization doesn't seem to work properly I can't figure it out? When I use the SIgma 150-600 on a monopod the images are sharp and crisp.
Make sure that the lens is well out of the car when you shoot, as if there is a difference in temperature in the car and the outside, that thermal issue can come into play.
thank you for the review , absolutely first class. one question pls . is this a goos lens for birds ?
Yes, absolutely
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you very much
Thank you for another great review! I found a pair of minor mistakes in the text version. 1) The lens "EX 50-500mm F4.5-6.3" doesn't exist. There was 4.0-6.3 EX version (BTW, it holds F5.6 until 416 mm, which is nice), and its successor 4.5-6.3 (it drops to F6.3 at 244 mm), which lost EX badge, but gained OS. TDP website has reviewed both of them. 2) Actually there're 5 switches (counting the zoom lock), not 4. :)
Thanks for the feedback. I don't really consider the zoom lock a switch in the context I'm mentioning the others, but it's at least a debatable point.
Awesome reviews! Would love to see one about the new Sigma Sport 70-200 2.8
That's coming, though I'm backlogged at the moment.
Do you plan on reviewing the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM OSS? It would be amazing.
Probably at some point. At the moment, however, I'm backlogged with reviews for the next couple months.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ...look forward... keep up the great job!
Hello. I have canon 90D. I shoot wildlife and I can not decide should I buy sigma 60-600 sport or 150-600 sport. What would you do?
I would try the 60-600. It balances better and has a more useful range.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i decided the buy 150-600. Lets see what happen. I hope it will make me happy 😊
It is interesting that you said that this Sigma lenses are compatible with Canon's "auto correct" for distortion, chromatic aberration, etc.with jpegs. Do the Sigma lenses have this same advantage with Nikon cameras? Thanks!
I don't think that it does, as Sigma's literature only mentions Canon. I don't shoot Nikon bodies so haven't personally tested that.
@@DustinAbbottTWI No, 0 support on nikon camera's.
Tnx for the wonderful and thorough review. Would you say the AF and IQ of the Sigma 60-600 is better than the Tamron 150-600 G2? Cause the message I got from your G2 review was that it was better than the Sigma 150-600. Tnx in advance.
No, I don't think that the Sigma is better in those metrics. It's not really any worse, however, and gives you a bigger focal rnage.
Dustin Abbott : tnx Justin I do not care much for the 60- 400mm range I have all sorts of ways of accomplishing these. My interest is in the 400-600 part mainly. A tamron 150-600 G2 is almost half the price of the 60-600 and 2/3s of its weight plus a much smaller filter thread so it makes a lot more sense to me. If you have any other lens suggestions in the 400-800 range that don’t cost and weight as much as a car let me know :-) I hope sigma revises soon it’s 300-800 ; I’ve been saving for it. In the meantime i suppose the tamron will have to do. My only reservation is how the tamron plays with Sony a9. Since you own a Sony e-mount, the tamron G2 and several adapters (metabones, mc-11) could you try this please in one of your walks with your dog running. Af would be my main concern as I’ll be getting this for wildlife. I’m sure a lot of people would be interested to watch how the tamron performs on a Sony E-mount body. Tnx in advance carry on the excellent work.
Great video thanks.
My pleasure.
What a great review. Thanks for all the attention to detail. I am still curious though, how the autofocus/tracking compares to the 150-600 contemporary. I am currently shooting football with the Nikon D500 paired with an 80-400mm. This setup tracks VERY well and produces exceptional results. I am leaning toward the 150-600mm for some extra reach at a great price point but the tracking capabilities are my biggest concern. Thanks
The D500 is (I understand) a very good focusing camera, which helps. I would say that I personally had better tracking success with the 60-600 than the 150-600 C. YMMV
I am currently in the market for a superzoom, and currently looking at the Tamron and Sigma (both contemporary and sport) 150-600. Since they've both cut off my camera mount, my choices are limited. This one seems new enough that makes it unavailable.
Are you referring to Sony A-mount?
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes, eventhough Sony has said that they haven't abandoned the A-mount.
Perhaps, but on a practical level they have.
I still got a lot of great information from the video, and it’s helping me make my decision. I do like Sigma I picked up one of their 72-200 f2.8 for my a99 ii, and love it. They have some of the A-mount and sport and contemporary lenses left out there. I haven't given up on Sony yet, since they've come out with a 100mp medium format sensor. If they really are considering a medium format camera or better yet a mirrorless camera then the A-mount will be better suited for the new sensor with its larger barrel diameter. Unless of course Sony designs a new mount for the new camera.
Hi Dustin. Are you planning on doing a review of the new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Sports ?
You can pretty well expect that I'll cover all new Sigma releases, as I have a great working relationship with Sigma Canada. My next two Sigma reviews, however, are the 40mm F1.4 ART along with the 56mm F1.4 C for Sony APS-C.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Looking forward to that. Thanks for the reply.
Wonderful thoughts.. seems this lens is not for me. Rather to stick with my 150-600. if sigma or Tamron make any 600mm 5.6 prime, ill buy it overnight
There are people this is perfect for, but not really for those that don't need the additional 90mm on the wide end. And yes, a lens that can focus purely on optical performance (even at a smaller maximum aperture) at 500 or 600mm would be awesome.
sigma has 300-800mm f5.6 and 800mm 5.6 prime and the expensive 200-500mm f2.8 if you have a house mortgage at hand
ted tedsen You got that right.
This lens vs a Canon 300mm f2.8 with an 2x v3 Canon extender.. What would be your pick Dustin? (esspecially in terms of Image quality) Btw.. great review series, as usual!
A big white prime VS a 10x ultra zoom.... im no expert but my guest would be the 300 prime for IQ. Especially with the 2x v3.
Also by 300mm the siggy will be f5.6... 2 stop difference.
Benjamin got it right, though that might not be a fair comparison considering that the Canon costs 3x as much.
@@DustinAbbottTWI agree, in fact i own the 150-600 sport for more than 3 years now paired with the 80D and loved it. Here a link to some photos i got from the setup.
portraitmoments.smugmug.com/BIRDS/2016-Spring/
For value and convenience, the Sigma are hard to beat.
did this 'replace' the 150-600..? It would be nice to have 60mm at the short end vs 150... I think the 150-600 Sport performs well, but not sure if this would be worth the upgrade/transition
This is more a replacement of the 50-500mm "Bigma" lens. I think it is a decent alternative to the Sport lens because it offers fairly similar image quality, better balance, and obviously a longer focal range.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Good to know! I have the 150-600 Sport and I've used it for surf photos with good results. The slower aperture isn't a huge deal to me because I shoot mid day at the beach. I was thinking about getting the 2x TC for it but not sure I want to shell out $400 for it... Nice videos! Thanks!
Great review as always. Any idea how the 60-600 compares to the Sony 100-400mm GM + 1.4x in AF tracking and IQ at full zoom on A7RIII? Can the Sigma + MC-11 be used for something like birding?
I can't imagine the 60-600 would be as good in that situation, but I do think you could probably successfully do lateral tracking at the last.
So which is better 60-600 or 150-600 ??
I think it depends on what you are doing. I felt like I liked the 150-600 better optically. The 60-600 has better balance and obviously more flexibility in the zoom range.
Great review!!
Thank you
I just bought the A7iii, I have the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens e mount. I am looking for a telephoto lens. I've been looking at the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the sigma 60-600mm sports lens, which one would you recommend? I feel the sony lenses are too expensive.
IF you're not in a rush, I would wait to see what native FE mount lenses get announced this year. I suspect Tamron will announce a 70-200ish lens to match your 28-75 in the second half of the year.
Thanks a lot for this, this was really great. You appear to be mentally sharper than ever!
LOL - not quite senile yet.
Is this pretty okay to hand-hold? It seems it would be the upper end in that category. Between this one, 150-600C, Nikon 200-500 and Tamron 150-600G2... which is the sharpest in their ranges?
I haven't shot the Nikon, so can't comment there. I shot this lens almost exclusively hand-held, so it can be done. I doubt there is a big sharpness difference with any of the four lenses you are looking at. Choose build quality and autofocus (and what weight you are comfortable with) as your main criteria.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the reply! I have the C and just always wonder if one of the others is that much better to upgrade.
Hi Dustin. . Qq. I have a 1200d and an EOS r. When the R is busy with someone else I am left using my old 1200. Looking at this lens or the 150.600 sport or contemporary, would you agree the sport wins, but then the 150- or the 60- wins on the crop, or even the 150c would suffice?
The Contemporary is a nice value pick, and easier on the back in terms of carrying it around. I'm afraid the price and weight of the Sport might be wasted on your camera combo.
Thanks @@DustinAbbottTWI So if I play on that response, optically the contemporary does a great job, but on the crop I get the 960mm advantage but perhaps more noisy, and on the R, I would expect improved picture clarity and advantageous focussing capability...
How much money for this lense ?
Hi Ismail, I don't even know what country you are in, so you'll have to research that in your own country.
Know that feeling when you don't need something, but you want it because you have that idea where you want to set your own machine gun (i.e: lens + tripod)? Yup, I'm in that phase right now.
Please help! 😂
Are you asking whether or not this lens is worth buying?
Is it wort upgrading from bigma 50-500 OS to the 60-600 ? I'm using eos 80d at the moment.
I think that it is, actually.
Thanks for the amazing review! I am currently looking for a budget Tele-Zoom for a Safari through Africa... and I am torn between the new 60-600 and the tamron 150-600 g2. So the hint with shooting mostly in Tele one should go for a 150-600 was very useful! (And was exactly what I wanted to hear, since the Tamron is lighter and cheaper ; D )
It's a solid choice, for sure.
Although one year later, another good choice is the sigma 150-600mm sports, I rather prefer it over tamron 150-600mm g2...
Any news on MC-11 performance?
I deal with it some in this review, and you can see more by reading the text review linked in the description.
RUclips.com/watch?v=BKEK-qukOtA
Does it work properly every focal length?
Yes
Very informative and interesting review. I am more interested in the 400-600 telephoto range. From what I've heard and seen here, you feel the 150-600 is better suited for my purposes. Thanks again. Great review! 😀 📸 👍 👌
That was my personal feeling, yes.
This review confirms my gut feeling. You cannot make a 60 to 600mm lens and not give up optical quality. I'd much rather would have seen them release a 200-500 (ala Nikon) with an F4 to F5.6 aperture and higher optical quality than the 150-600s. That would be a no brainer for me (in native Sony mount please, Sigma).
There are a few other reviewers saying that the 60-600 S is as good or better than the 150-600 lenses, but that's not what I felt I saw. I think it is close, but not quite there, which seems logical to me.
Sigma or tamron which is the best lens?
VS the G2? They are both fairly equal in performance. The Sport is bigger and heavier and more expensive, but has a more useful focal range. The Tamron is lighter, cheaper, but has good performance. What works better for you?
@@DustinAbbottTWI wildlife purpose..now i using 70-300 sigma lens...
Thanks for that very interesting review. Do you know if Sigma will adapt it for Pentax K-mount?
Not that I'm aware of. Pentax doesn't get a lot of third-party love.
Dustin Abbott yeah, that sounds about right😕 Thanks for the response though👍
2 years on, and I'm disappointed there is not a lighter weight Contemporary version of this lens.
And there is probably unlikely to be one. Almost all of Sigma's energy is on E-mount and Leica L mount right now.
@@DustinAbbottTWI They are probably working on Canon RF, too.
I certainly hope so!
How would you rate this lens in usage with sports?
That depends on the sports and the lighting. It isn't top of the heap in terms of focus speed, and a variable aperture lens like this needs a fair bit of light.
Great review Mr Abbott!!. As you mentioned in the review about the Mc-11 Adapter, have you used it on your Sony’s by any chance? How is the tracking with the a7 bodies? Thank you so much. Hope you have a wonderful new year!!
Take a look at the text review for more comments on that.
and please panasonic system if you get a gh5
How does the AF compare with the 150-600 sport?
Fairly similar in speed.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks!
This lens begs to sit on a monopod. I used to own a 300mm f/2.8 lens, one day of shooting made my arms sore for an entire week... That thing is heavy.
Yes, these types of lenses are often monopod lenses for many shooters.
Why is there no professional APSC Lense out with a focal range over 300mm and f4? There are professional bodies but no lenses
That's not entirely true. Fuji has a 200mm F2, which is a 305mm equivalent. But you're right, they are pretty few and far between.
You can use full frame lenses on apsc bodies
John Lees I want smaller lenses, a 600mm fullframe is way to heavy.
That's a solid point.
@@ImadogGarcia you want a unicorn then. Even a crop sensor 600 f4 would be big and cost as much as a car. So why would someone waste the r&d to make it slightly lighter and smaller when that difference wont matter in the end, would still cost a fortune, and probably wouldn't sell very well? Might as well go for the full frame lens. Full frame lenses on crop sensors look awesome because the part you lose is the edge which is usually where lenses are the softest. And you dont have to worry if you ever upgrade to full frame that your lens is now useless on your new body.
So for birds... 150-600mm Sport?
I think so, Shawn. Get the focus dialed in. Focus speed is good enough, and I think there is good image quality to be had. That's a great focal length!
I have no interest in photographing Sports .. at all ..
But What i want to know how good is it at capturing High flying passenger jets .. how good is the detail .. ??????????? Can the detail rival the Long range captures of Groom lake from Tikaboo peak back in the 80s/90 when that peak was still public access
I don't have enough experience with the settings you describe to give you context.
@@DustinAbbottTWI No worries .. cheers for replying .. much appreciated indeed .
What i've noticed with numerous reviewers .. it's a subject matter that's never touched upon , same with Ships . . Whilst they will all cover the same subject .. Wildlife /scenery .
As am giving it some consideration in getting the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens for my Canon
Thanks for the Review I guess I’m stuck carrying around my 12 pound 600 mm cannon lens because this one will just not do for motorsports yes it’s cheap enough but the quality still sucks
I don't think it would be fair to expect a 10x zoom to outperform (or even come close to performance) of a prime lens at that extreme focal length.
Dustin Abbott yes you correct but as lens manufacturers get better and better I can only pray that I don’t have to carry that 12 pounds canon lens around a track, and the racing tracks in Japan can be huge Suzuka at Fuji are massive tracks thank you for the review
Great review as always! I've been waiting for this final review! I will not buy this lens!!
Sadly Sigma seems to focus on Sport-Zooms!!
After a 150-600mm Zoom costumers get a 60-600mm Zoom!
What's next??? A 300-600mm Sports lens???
I can't understand why Sigma is not willing/able to give us customers a handholdable 6,3/600mm lens!!
Maybe Nikon gets tue Job done….
That's not a bad suggestion - I'd like a 500mm F5.6 even better. If they could shave even 500g off the weight, it would make for a very versatile lens.
6.3 is to slow... why not 5.6?
That would sell very well, I think.
F6.3 is one-third stop slower. I don't think that would be a deal-breaker, myself, though it might play with TCs a little better if it were F5.6
@@maxfactor4209 5.6 could be to heavy (for handheld BIF)!