Sigma's 150-600 Sport
Sep 16, 2014 01:07:49 #
Just received this new lens and boy what a dream! NOT, LOL! Has anyone got any comments based upon either what they have heard or read or perhaps based upon the experience with the 150-500 version. My dilemma is that I am now high on the waiting list for the Tamron, I'm thinking this lens might have more potential for a sports guy. Although I already have a 400/2.8, this is longer and lighter and could be of great value for the added reach in the right situations. OR am I just having another severe gas attack?
Sep 16, 2014 01:19:27 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
cjc2 wrote:
Just received this new lens and boy what a dream! ... (show quote)
Can I say it? You're mad!
You already have a 400/2.8?????
To be honest, with one of those in your kit, I do not understand you being on the waiting list for the either Tamron or the Sigma sports.
As far as I can see, the only consideration would be weight and the willingness to accept a drop in IQ.
I wouldn't expect either of those $1000/$2000 offerings to come within a bulls roar of a 400/2.8.
I love my 150-500mm but up against the big ticket lenses, its a whole different ball game.
Sep 16, 2014 01:32:00 #
Yes, I admit to being mad. For me, photography is both work and pleasure. I enjoy BIF as well and for the $$, the Tamron would be a bit easier, due to weight, to shoot the birds in my back yard. It would also be useful if I was working with a second shooter for either training or fun. I was impressed with what I've seen produced by this lens, especially at the price point!
Sep 16, 2014 09:24:16 #
cjc2, it is only words on paper or your monitor at this point. I'm interested also but am afraid we will have to wait until it is available and in the hands of some reviewers and/or actual owners to see. ;)
Sep 17, 2014 10:29:27 #
For most sports/wildlife, a zoom is always preferable - especially if it can be smaller/lighter and in good light !
Sep 17, 2014 10:37:13 #
And, of course, there is Sigma's recent track record. They are putting out some awesome glass!!
Sep 17, 2014 11:16:42 #
cjc2 wrote:
Just received this new lens and boy what a dream! ... (show quote)
Remember, the new Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens will weigh 6.3 lbs. I am sure it will have great quality. I have owned the Sigma 150-500mm, 50-500mm lenses and currently own the Tamron 150-600mm lens. This Tamron lens weighs 4.3 lbs and is on the border line of hand-holding, so I don't think I could hand-hold a 6.3 lb. lens. To each his own.
Sep 17, 2014 12:26:41 #
Regis wrote:
Remember, the new Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens will weigh 6.3 lbs. I am sure it will have great quality. I have owned the Sigma 150-500mm, 50-500mm lenses and currently own the Tamron 150-600mm lens. This Tamron lens weighs 4.3 lbs and is on the border line of hand-holding, so I don't think I could hand-hold a 6.3 lb. lens. To each his own.
Regis, I have not seen "official" weights on the Sigmas yet - can you give a referance for your 6.3 lbs ? Thanks ....
Sep 17, 2014 12:35:02 #
imagemeister wrote:
Regis, I have not seen "official" weights on the Sigmas yet - can you give a referance for your 6.3 lbs ? Thanks ....
Yes, 'B & H' has the specifications of the Sport Sigma 150-600mm lens which shows the 6.3 lb. weight and the price will be $1999.00.
Sep 17, 2014 12:51:02 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
cjc2 wrote:
Just received this new lens and boy what a dream! ... (show quote)
Yes, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports, $2000, is smaller than the 400mm f/2.8, it is essentially the same size as a 300mm f/2.8 lens. I wonder how it would compare with your 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC, which would still be 1.5 stops faster in the 560-600mm range.
You are also having a severe G.A.S. attack. The two questions are not mutually exclusive. :-)
Sep 17, 2014 13:01:07 #
My 300/2.8 is a bit larger. Then there's the other thing that someone did mention, it is a zoom, which might be handy for sports. While you will never catch me using this at a pro game, you will see this on the sidelines of my grandson's games and perhaps a local college game or two. The issue is not will I get one of these, but which one will I get. I was curious what others thought about their existing longer zoom lenses, particularly the Sigmas. Although I have previously avoided Sigma, maybe now would be a good time to consider one. Not to worry, if I'm not happy with it, I'll sell it here! FWIW, I would normally use the 400 with the 1.4 TC. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment.
Sep 17, 2014 13:14:36 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
cjc2 wrote:
My 300/2.8 is a bit larger. Then there's the othe... (show quote)
Is yours an older 300mm f/2.8? I did not think the size varied too much.
I hope the Sigma Contemporary matches the Tamron and the Sigma Sport exceeds both, so that it is a little closer to the quality of the primes.
Sep 17, 2014 14:38:21 #
Back in the day, when I bought my 400, I paid about 8k. I have seen no absolutely compelling reason to get a new one every time Nikon releases a new one. It, like my 300, are the versions just before the VR was released. The current 12k model interests me some, but I can get 2 D4s's for that amount which will help me more! Both my 400 and 300 are tack sharp when used properly. I had a bit of a learning curve on the 400 as it does take a bit of practice to get used to it and get it right. I bought the 400 in the film days and the 300 when the DX was the thing! I got a fantastic deal on the 300, a 1k rebate as I recall. I am waiting for my first D4s to be delivered before the end of the day, hopefully. I will also be upgrading to the N version of the 70-200 based upon discussions here, from my friends, and from my friendly competition! I will move to the D4s as prime, the D3 as backup and my D700 is for sale, as is my 70-200 VR. Interested?
Sep 17, 2014 14:55:07 #
Regis wrote:
Yes, 'B & H' has the specifications of the Sport Sigma 150-600mm lens which shows the 6.3 lb. weight and the price will be $1999.00.
Wow, that is a 2 lb. penalty over the Tammy and the other Sigma ! .....as much as a 300 2.8
Sep 17, 2014 15:04:53 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
imagemeister wrote:
Wow, that is a 2 lb. penalty over the Tammy and the other Sigma ! .....as much as a 300 2.8
I hope the extra weight is for better glass and perhaps a faster AF motor. Some may also be attributed to build materials.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.