Sigma 150-600 vs. Sigma 500 your personal experience?

[Ning Ning]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone. I have a question for those of you who know both the Sigma 150-600 and the Sigma 500 from personal experience. I am currently using the 150-600 from Sigma on my Leica SL 3. I think it's a good lens, especially for the price. However, it is too soft at the long end in my opinion. I don't like it when sharply focused photos still lack detail afterwards. Of course, I can touch it up in Photoshop, but it's not the same as if the photo is crisp from the start. On the other hand, the 500 mm is considerably more expensive. In your opinion, is the higher price worth it? Are the results really significantly better with an open aperture?

[Advertisement]

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

[jankap]

A zoomlens has the advantage, that the aiming at the scene and the selection of what to take is much simpler. I use the R-lenses with focal lengths of 280 and 500mm. But unsharpness at exposure time is a nogo.

[Doc_P]

Many Forum members seem to be happy with their copy of the Sigma 150-600. I really tried it for some time with SL2 and SL2-S and sold it with significant loss: I was unhappy with the quality... (rendering, contrast, resolution). I simply preferred the output of my Leica S 180 ApoElmar (bought afterwards), some enlargement wit Topaz Gigapixel as necessary...

Might have been bad luck on my side, because my Sigma 14-24. Sigma 70 Macro and Sigma 150-600 were inappropriate for my needs... I really considered the 500 -some great reviews - but hesitate due to prior experience

[jaapv]

26 minutes ago, jankap said:

A zoomlens has the advantage, that the aiming at the scene and the selection of what to take is much simpler. I use the R-lenses with focal lengths of 280 and 500mm. But unsharpness at exposure time is a nogo.

Not only that, but if you are doing wildlife, sports or something similar, it will often be from a fixed position and you will want to control the framing. Fixed focal lengths are impractical. All three long Sigma lenses are very close in sharpness, even general IQ, and all three require electronic shutter for best results(*). The difference in aperture has been negated by the ISO performance of present-day cameras and is largely irrelevant at these focal lengths AKA shooting distance -  forget about DOF. 

(*) and are soft when used with mechanical shutter, even at high shutter speed or on a tripod.  EFCS is fine as well, of course. This has been well documented over the years on this forum.

This is the 150-600 @ 600 mm handheld:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Ivar B]

I owned the 150-600 and has no issues with optical performance, but the lens is bulky and does not handle so well.

I sold it and bought the 5.6/500mm and it arrived just a couple of days ago. I haven`t tested it out yet, but what you immediately notice is how light and compact the lens is. I think you need to hold it in your hands to fully appreciate this.

Everyone seems to be very happy with optical performance, but I don`t know how much you would notice in ordinary use compared to the 150-600. I fully appreciate that the 150-600 is more versatile and many will chose that lens for this reason. 

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, Ivar B said:

does not handle so well.

It does, if you add a handgrip (about 15$ at Amazon) For extended handheld use I have a small shoulder pod. 

[Biotar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 23.4.2025 um 17:35 schrieb Doc_P:

Many Forum members seem to be happy with their copy of the Sigma 150-600. I really tried it for some time with SL2 and SL2-S and sold it with significant loss: I was unhappy with the quality... (rendering, contrast, resolution). I simply preferred the output of my Leica S 180 ApoElmar (bought afterwards), some enlargement wit Topaz Gigapixel as necessary...

Might have been bad luck on my side, because my Sigma 14-24. Sigma 70 Macro and Sigma 150-600 were inappropriate for my needs... I really considered the 500 -some great reviews - but hesitate due to prior experience

Yes - unfortunately there is no direct comparison. Unfortunately, I can't find anything special in any of the Sigma images shown so far. We should use the old R-Apos as a reference for the IQ and not be satisfied with what is on offer.

[Biotar]

Apart from Leica, I am mainly at home with Canon and recommend trying one of the white EF lenses on the MC-21. They behave exactly like the Sigmas here (at least on the SL 2), but are in a different class in terms of IQ.

[Biotar]

I'm not a wildlife photographer, I'm more interested in the (quite sophisticated) reproduction of skin tones and micro-contrasts. Here I am currently convinced by an old FD 4.5/500 from 1979 in the 500,- class. Precise and fast manual focusing without focusing aid is no problem with the SL2-S.
As examples here ooc-JPGs (profile NAT, no crop) with open aperture ...

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

TBH, I prefer a more modern contrast rendering. On my monitor they are a bit flat and lack bite. I can see that the reduced microcontrast makes skin tones more pleasing. The only Canon tele I ever liked was the 300 L. 

[Biotar]

Yes, I have also been using the FD 300L for over 25 years. It renders pretty much identically. The 500L was just recently added.

[Ning Ning]

Today I borrowed a demonstration model of the Sigma 500 f5.6 from my trusted dealer and compared it with my Sigma 150-600.
My first impression: small and light (731 g lighter, 3 cm shorter or 12 cm if you extend the zoom to 500 mm). In other words, more portable than the 150-600.
But with a little distance: I carry the SL3 and lens combination in a kind of "baby carrier" in front of my stomach anyway, so the weight is well distributed on my shoulders and the tripod clamp is harder to grip than with the zoom, as it is closer to the body. 
Image quality is perhaps slightly better with the Sigma 500, but less than expected and not consistently so. 
I will save myself the money, because the advantages come at the cost of not having the flexibility of a zoom. 

[Stuart Richardson]

When you say you are not impressed with the performance, what are you shooting, and how are you doing it? In my experience, a lot of people who don't have good results with long telephotos are not using good enough support and/or suffering from mechanical vibration. When I first started shooting 8x10 cameras, I thought the camera was unstable and my lens was not good. People asked me if I was using a wooden tripod and a platform head. I said no. I had a Really Right Stuff TVC33 tripod and Arca Swiss cube and BH55. All those are very strong and stable tripods. Or so I thought. I bought a wooden tripod and all of a sudden my "soft" camera was sharp. I have noticed that the 90-280mm Leica is also better on this wooden tripod than on a heavy duty carbon fiber tripod. I also noticed that it is sharper without the mechanical shutter on and with stabilization off on a sturdy tripod. I think shooting any 500-600mm lens without strong support is a risk. Sometimes stabilization can save you and you wind up with a decent shot, but mostly you are risking a lot. Between the mechanical shutter vibration, tripod movement, stabilization errors and atmospheric distortion/softening and the extreme high resolution of current cameras, there are a lot of things challenging the sharpness chain with a lens like these, long before the sharpness of the lens comes into play.

I think the best way to check the lens is to photograph something far, but not so far that atmospheric distortion comes in. Say 100m or less. Then use a super heavy duty stable tripod, turn off IS, turn off the mechanical shutter and use a 12s timer or remote trigger. If the lens is sharp in those conditions, then you are likely suffering from lack of support. If it isn't sharp in those conditions, then yes, the problem might be the lens.

Edited April 26 by Stuart Richardson

[Ning Ning]

Thanks for the comments and tips. 

With the 150-600 I only use the electronic shutter and image stabilization. Tripods are out of the question for me, or at most in the field of architecture. I'm not flexible enough with that. Monopods or bean bags are fine. 

As far as the quality is concerned: the photos are sometimes kind of “soft” at the long end, not really out of focus, but the details are somewhat lacking. But maybe I'm just asking too much.

[jaapv]

It is the exaggerated motion blur caused by the long focal length and high MP count. Added to atmospheric distortion. I’m sure you’ll find the same with the 500. 

[jaapv]

17 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

When you say you are not impressed with the performance, what are you shooting, and how are you doing it? In my experience, a lot of people who don't have good results with long telephotos are not using good enough support and/or suffering from mechanical vibration. When I first started shooting 8x10 cameras, I thought the camera was unstable and my lens was not good. People asked me if I was using a wooden tripod and a platform head. I said no. I had a Really Right Stuff TVC33 tripod and Arca Swiss cube and BH55. All those are very strong and stable tripods. Or so I thought. I bought a wooden tripod and all of a sudden my "soft" camera was sharp. I have noticed that the 90-280mm Leica is also better on this wooden tripod than on a heavy duty carbon fiber tripod. I also noticed that it is sharper without the mechanical shutter on and with stabilization off on a sturdy tripod. I think shooting any 500-600mm lens without strong support is a risk. Sometimes stabilization can save you and you wind up with a decent shot, but mostly you are risking a lot. Between the mechanical shutter vibration, tripod movement, stabilization errors and atmospheric distortion/softening and the extreme high resolution of current cameras, there are a lot of things challenging the sharpness chain with a lens like these, long before the sharpness of the lens comes into play.

I think the best way to check the lens is to photograph something far, but not so far that atmospheric distortion comes in. Say 100m or less. Then use a super heavy duty stable tripod, turn off IS, turn off the mechanical shutter and use a 12s timer or remote trigger. If the lens is sharp in those conditions, then you are likely suffering from lack of support. If it isn't sharp in those conditions, then yes, the problem might be the lens.

And photograph in cold air. A bean bag is better than a tripod in my experience. Like a wooden tripod it absorbs vibration. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think the temperature differential might be more important than the temperature? But maybe I am wrong about that...I have certainly still had shimmering effects be very visible even when it is very cold here, most noticeable when you are shooting an area in sunlight, no matter how cold it is. I noticed this most readily when I was trying to do digiscoping with the SL2 and a Swarovski spotting scope. The quality of the scope is very very high, but using it for digital photography does not yield the best results for distant objects. When you get to those extreme distances the air simply gets in the way, especially if there is any sun. The same scope when shot at closer distances yields much better results. Unfortunately there is only so much that can be done optically when shooting through the atmosphere.

[jaapv]

Possibly -  The sun heats up the ground, causing the air to rise, especially in the Tropics but I can quite imagine this happening at lower temperatures as well. 

In general, for my wildlife, I avoid shooting at extreme distances, using the focal length to get really close in. For individual larger animals normally not more than 20 m. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ning Ning]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Es ist die übertriebene Bewegungsunschärfe, die durch die lange Brennweite und die hohe MP-Anzahl verursacht wird. Hinzugefügt zur atmosphärischen Verzerrung. Ich bin sicher, Sie werden das Gleiche mit den 500 finden.

That's exactly how it is.

[Bohns]

Hi,

I will never replace my 150-600 !

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

All taken with electronic shutter and SL2.