Sigma 150-600 Sport Lens

[johntobias]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just a heads up, I pre-ordered the 150-600 in the UK and estimate is mid September so perhaps 5 or 6 weeks yet...seems the demand is big worldwide.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Boojay]

5 minutes ago, johntobias said:

Just a heads up, I pre-ordered the 150-600 in the UK and estimate is mid September so perhaps 5 or 6 weeks yet...seems the demand is big worldwide.

 

LCE say stock expected late August (27th the date I was given) of course, it's an estimate but I pre-ordered the Sigma 100-400 when it was announced, I was surprised when that actually arrived on the predicted date.  That was without the Covid effect of course.

 

 

[johntobias]

Just now, Boojay said:

LCE say stock expected late August (27th the date I was given) of course, it's an estimate but I pre-ordered the Sigma 100-400 when it was announced, I was surprised when that actually arrived on the predicted date.  That was without the Covid effect of course.

 

 

I've pre-ordered from my most excellent dealer...FFordes of Beauly

 

[Shawn30]

On 8/5/2021 at 4:21 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

This is not a problem I'm having with the 100-400. It performs well at any aperture. Sure my 90-280 is better but the Sigma is surprisingly good.

Gordon

Not to hijack this thread. I was super unhappy with the lens and almost returned it. I won't go into all the testing I did, but I really worked with it. I thought I got a copy that the Sigma QC department missed. I finally got fair results doing what I stated above, so I kept it. Anyway, I took the SL2 and 100-400 to the Zoo the other day and got some very good results, hand held, at max zoom, and at wide open apertures. I have no explanation for the improvement, but now I totally agree with you.

[caissa]

It (150-600 DG DN) seems very affordable compared to the Leica. And it is smaller and less front heavy than the older SLR version. Up to 300mm I would use the Leica. So I would use it mainly at 400 and 600 mm, it seems slightly weaker at 500. The open question is how good is it with the 1.4x extender (resulting in 840mm) ?

And by the way it is not a good idea to discuss aps-c vs extender. The use of 1.4 extender plus cropping is simply mandatory for small objects. Is AF then still usable ? OS still ok ? (I assume IBIS is no help ?!)

A question at owners of the EF 400 DO IS II: Is the Sigma AF better ? (When used on SL2) IS vs OS ?

Is the 400 DO with 2x extender (8/800mm) better than the 150-600 with 1.4x extender (8.8/840mm) ?  And EF 400 DO plus 1.4x (5.6/560) vs Sigma at 6.3/600. (or 8/600) ?

Edited August 10, 2021 by caissa

[michali]

9 hours ago, caissa said:

It (150-600 DG DN) seems very affordable compared to the Leica. And it is smaller and less front heavy than the older SLR version. Up to 300mm I would use the Leica. So I would use it mainly at 400 and 600 mm, it seems slightly weaker at 500. The open question is how good is it with the 1.4x extender (resulting in 840mm) ?

And by the way it is not a good idea to discuss aps-c vs extender. The use of 1.4 extender plus cropping is simply mandatory for small objects. Is AF then still usable ? OS still ok ? (I assume IBIS is no help ?!)

A question at owners of the EF 400 DO IS II: Is the Sigma AF better ? (When used on SL2) IS vs OS ?

Is the 400 DO with 2x extender (8/800mm) better than the 150-600 with 1.4x extender (8.8/840mm) ?  And EF 400 DO plus 1.4x (5.6/560) vs Sigma at 6.3/600. (or 8/600) ?

I have the VE90-280mm L, Canon 400mm DOll & Sigma 100-400mm L, which I use according to destination & type of photography. My answers are based on my experience with these 3 lenses on SL2 & SL2-S. 

Agree that there are many times that use of a Tele Converter & cropping are necessary, it's not an either or situation.

The Leica has no TC available. On the Sigma 100-400mm & Canon 400mm there's no loss of IQ with the 1.4x TC.

With the Leica & Sigma you have AFS & AFC which aren't affected. On the Canon only AFS is available, it slows down slightly with the TC mounted.

IBIS isn't affected with the 2 native L mount lenses. With the Canon 400mm no IBIS , however the lens' the OS works very well. 

Canon 400mm & 2x Canon lll TC on the SL2-S is excellent, no loss of IQ.

On SL2 I very seldom use the 2x TC there is a noticeable loss in IQ.

The Canon 400mm is an outstanding lens, probably the best tele lens I've ever used.  & even though I've not tried the Sigma 150-600mm, I'm very confident the Canon will still come out on top.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by michali

[Michael Markey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, michali said:

I have the VE90-280mm L, Canon 400mm DOll & Sigma 100-400mm L, which I use according to destination & type of photography. My answers are based on my experience with these 3 lenses on SL2 & SL2-S. 

Agree that there many times that use of a Tele Converter & cropping are necessary.

The Leica has no TC available. On the Sigma & Canon there's no loss of IQ with the 1.4x TC.

Canon & 2x TC on the SL2-S is excellent, no loss of IQ.

With the Leica & Sigma you have AFS & AFC which aren't really affected. On the Canon only AFS is available, it slows down slightly with the TC mounted.

IBIS isn't affected with 2 native L mount lenses. On the Canon the lens' the OS works very well. 

Hi Mike 

IS there any discernible difference in quality at the long end between those three lenses (without the TC`s) ?

Based on my experience with the Mark one version of the Canon DO I expect the Mrk 2 to be out in front  .

Mike

[michali]

3 minutes ago, Michael Markey said:

Hi Mike 

IS there any discernible difference in quality at the long end between those three lenses (without the TC`s) ?

Based on my experience with the Mark one version of the Canon DO I expect the Mrk 2 to be out in front  .

Mike

Based on my use, yes there is a discernible difference in IQ. The Leica & Canon at their respective max focal lengths are just outstanding.

The Sigma 100-400mm punches above it weight but comes nowhere near the Canon at 400mm, given the lens design & cost it would be unreasonable to expect it to. However the  Sigma is still a decent lens for the price & is very versatile in the field. 

Prior to purchasing the Canon 400mm vers.ll my dealer loaned me a Canon 400mm vers.l. IMO there is a significant difference between the 2 versions & I ended up buying the vers.ll.

[didier]

On 8/6/2021 at 11:01 AM, michali said:

If only Leica made at least a 1.4x L mount converter........

+1

[caissa]

27 minutes ago, didier said:

+1

You forget that there is another option, 1.7x.

And rather than spending twice the amount on a pair of 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, I would much prefer a single 1.7x extender. Hasselblad has shown that this is a good choice. (X1D)

Often the 1.4 is too short (not enough of a difference in focal length) and the 2.0 looses too much quality (general IQ and also AF quality - two stops less light are often too much). The 1.7x is often the best compromise. (It would e.g. extend the 280 mm into a fl close to 500 mm (476)).

Edited August 11, 2021 by caissa

[johntobias]

14 minutes ago, caissa said:

You forget that there is another option, 1.7x.

And rather than spending twice the amount on a pair of 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, I would much prefer a single 1.7x extender. Hasselblad has shown that this is a good choice. (X1D)

Often the 1.4 is too short and the 2.0 looses too much quality (general IQ and also AF quality - two stops less light are often too much). The 1.7x is often the best compromise.

which 1.7 extender would you suggest for the 150-600 on an SL2?????

[Michael Markey]

4 hours ago, michali said:

Based on my use, yes there is a discernible difference in IQ. The Leica & Canon at their respective max focal lengths are just outstanding.

The Sigma 100-400mm punches above it weight but comes nowhere near the Canon at 400mm, given the lens design & cost it would be unreasonable to expect it to. However the  Sigma is still a decent lens for the price & is very versatile in the field. 

Prior to purchasing the Canon 400mm vers.ll my dealer loaned me a Canon 400mm vers.l. IMO there is a significant difference between the 2 versions & I ended up buying the vers.ll.

Thank you ....Yes , I`ve had two copies of the V1 Canon and its a low contrast lens .

[caissa]

6 hours ago, johntobias said:

which 1.7 extender would you suggest for the 150-600 on an SL2?????

It’s about a Leica adapter. The Sigma adapters are inexpensive. No problem to buy both. But the 2x is weaker than the 1.4x . So I would not want to use it.

But Leica offers two problems: First Karbe does not want to offer an extender at all. And second 1.4x is not very useful for the 90-280, and 2x probably not working well with AF (too dark). (And we know the Leica prices, a Leica extender will cost more than the Sigma 150-600.)

Edited August 11, 2021 by caissa

[didier]

4 hours ago, caissa said:

It’s about a Leica adapter. The Sigma adapters are inexpensive. No problem to buy both. But the 2x is weaker than the 1.4x . So I would not want to use it.

But Leica offers two problems: First Karbe does not want to offer an extender at all. And second 1.4x is not very useful for the 90-280, and 2x probably not working well with AF (too dark). (And we know the Leica prices, a Leica extender will cost more than the Sigma 150-600.)

The main problem is NOT having any Leica adapter. I’d really like to be able to get one. Then, having the choice between 1.4, 1.7 or 2 would be even better 😊😊

for my use, 1.4 would be great, but if Leica made a 1.7, I’d be very happy as well !

[beewee]

Karbe says a CL makes a great tele-extender.  

Edited August 12, 2021 by beewee

[michali]

2 hours ago, beewee said:

Karbe says a CL makes a great tele-extender.  

Been there done that. That's Leica marketing nonsense.

The issue is that the CL is quite clumsy to handle with big lenses mounted e.g. VE90-280mm or Canon 400mm f4........

[beewee]

32 minutes ago, michali said:

Been there done that. That's Leica marketing nonsense.

The issue is that the CL is quite clumsy to handle with big lenses mounted e.g. VE90-280mm or Canon 400mm f4........

Yeah, I can imagine. I was just being facetious.

[T.J.]

Any updates from those of you that have purchased and use this lens?  Thanks!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[johntobias]

3 minutes ago, T.J. said:

Any updates from those of you that have purchased and use this lens?  Thanks!

Yup, it’s bloody marvellous but obv not as good as my Leica glass.  To be honest, not used it as much as I thought I would , perhaps due to the winter light and dull conditions sun scotland but for the money, it’s a belter of a lens !

[Boojay]

6 hours ago, T.J. said:

Any updates from those of you that have purchased and use this lens?  Thanks!

Yes, it's a very welcome addition for L mount bodies.