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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My 150-600 is *meh*. It’s fine. But that’s the best thing I have to say about it. My 60-600 is consistently sharper at all the crossover focal lengths. Neither is close to the 500mm 5.6. My 500 is world class. It competes well against the best from Sony and Canon. It’s still better than the zooms with a 1.4x (but not 2x). But you do lose flexibility and more often than not pixels on subject matters more than outright sharpness.

Personally I prefer to carry a 100-400 and the 500 vs the SIgma zooms. The 90-280 is a genuine bag of primes but the AF is slower than the 100-400.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

There is probably some sample variation. When the 60-600 came out, I asked Michali ( who had both)  whether it was worth it to trade. He found that the difference in IQ was too small to make it worthwhile. I am quite happy with 150-600 and 70-200 ( which is one of the best lenses I ever owned) on two bodies. I would certainly not describe the 150-600 as meh. 

[Manicouagan1]

Either of these lenses takes a lot of practice to figure out what setting to use in different situations on my SL3 with its high resolution.  By a lot I mean several months, not few days or even a few weeks.  I use both lenses without a tripod.  These are sunny day lenses especially if I use a teleconverter.    Even with stabilization a shutter speed of 1 over 2 times the focal length is marginal.    Shorter than 1/2000 second gets best results for any subject that is moving.   As of  image quality these are tradeoffs between the two lenses.    The heavier zoom lens's mass makes it easier to hold steady and is more flexible.  The prime is much easier to carry but harder for this old man to hold steady.   In looking at my portfolio the zoom seems to yield more very sharp images.  I do not know if the difference in highest quality image yield is due to inherent optical quality, heavier mass minimizing shake, or something else.   If I do not need to carry the lens far, I choose the zoom.  

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 5/7/2025 at 12:56 AM, jaapv said:

There is probably some sample variation. When the 60-600 came out, I asked Michali ( who had both)  whether it was worth it to trade. He found that the difference in IQ was too small to make it worthwhile. I am quite happy with 150-600 and 70-200 ( which is one of the best lenses I ever owned) on two bodies. I would certainly not describe the 150-600 as meh. 

This is my second copy of the lens. The second is better than the first. It’s still not as good as almost any other super telephoto I own, which includes

Sony 200-600, 400-800, 100-400GM, 300GM.

Fuji 150-600 and GFX250 and 500mm.

Sigma 100-400, 150-600, 500 and 60-600. All L mount.

Canon 100-300 2,8, 100-500L and 200-800.

Leica 100-400 and 90-280.

Nikon 200-500.

Olympus 100-400 and Panasonic 50-200.

It’s fine. Just fine. Five years ago it would have been considered very good for a long tele zoom but things have improved dramatically in that time. It has some advantages. The tripod foot is great and it packs small. It accepts the 1.4x pretty well on L mount. But almost every lens above is optically better with more contrast and resolution (not the old Nikon). And most of the reviews agree with me.

Good to very good but not great. So meh. The 500 prime on the other hand is world class. It’s a bit slow but the incredible size makes up for that. It’s still very very good with the 1.4x. Focus is faster than the 150-600 and more reliable. An incredible bargain. I’m seriously thinking of an E mount version, (even though it can’t take TC’s) to run next to my 300mm 2.8GM. If Leica would only add EFCS on the SL3 it could be my main long lens going forward. For now either the S1Rii or Sonys will fill that role. The Fuji now belongs to my son and K took over the Canon kit.

I really wish the 150-600 was as good as the Sony 200-600 even. That’d make my life simpler. But the difference is obvious at any comparable focal length. It’s not huge but once you see it it’s hard to go back. And the 400-800 is better again (like really really good). It’s not that you can’t get great photos from the 150-600 but it needs to be rated next to its peers. I have no experience with the new Nikon PF primes but apparently they’re incredible as well. For my personal needs I have little interest in the bulk of a 400 2.8 or 600 f4, although I’m currently trying to arrange a test of the new Sigma 300-600 in L mount. It’d need to be brilliant for me to lug around a 4kg lens anymore.

I wish the 90-280 has fast focus motors. It’s spectacular. I’d happily have that and the 500 on a second body (even with a TC). My replacement copy of the 100-400 is really good but not really long enough. But for this year’s Botswana safari I’m taking the 70-200GM, 300 2.8GM and 400-800G (for birds) with the TC’s. All Sony unfortunately. 

Gordon

p.s. In case anyone cares which of the above is the *best*? It’s the GFX500mm on a GFX100ii. The detail available is extraordinary. Followed fairly closely by the Sony 300GM and then the Sigma 500mm. But that’s what I would have expected from three brilliant primes.

[BillCB]

I bought the Sigma 500 primarily because it is light and eminently hand-holdable. (Unlike my 90-280 which I find awkward.) I've never used it on a tripod!

These were taken yesterday through a closed window

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!

 

Edited May 8 by BillCB

[Planetwide]

You want fast AF:

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!