Sigma. 150-600 5-6.3 contemporary or sport model: Good Morning Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the...

DonOles

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

DonOles wrote:

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

You answered your own question. The C is the better lens for the money. However, if you want greater optical quality, go with the S. The two lenses are not the same internally and are functionally the same if you look only at focal length, aperture, and image stabilization. The S is noticeably heavier. Even still, the C is pretty hefty and I use it on a sturdy tripod as often as I can. Optically, it is very nice.

mrpentaxk5ii

All you need to do is go to B&H Photo or Sigmas Lens website, compare the specs on the two lens and see what is different about the two, then decide if it's worth the extra money.....Jim M

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

mrpentaxk5ii wrote:

All you need to do is go to B&H Photo or Sigmas Lens website, compare the specs on the two lens and see what is different about the two, then decide if it's worth the extra money.....Jim M

Better to read online reviews comparing the two. A few posts have already covered this and the consensus is the same as I stated.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DonOles wrote:

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

So, to put this into another but related context, is it worth getting sharpness out of a lens that approaches that of a $10,500 lens to the point that you cannot tell the difference at F8 whether you used the cheap lens or the expensive one? You bet.

The Contemporary cannot do this. The Sport definitely can. But so can the Tamron G2. Your choice. My Sport has never been on a tripod in the nearly 2 years I've owned it. I have never used my 600mmF4 hand held. A bad shoulder and a 13 lb camera and lens makes that impossible for more than a second or two at a time.

This should answer your question:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

DonOles

Thanks for the reply.Sounds like the S version wins out. I am also purchasing Sigma 120-300 2.8 S any experience using this lens.?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DonOles wrote:

Thanks for the reply.Sounds like the S version wins out. I am also purchasing Sigma 120-300 2.8 S any experience using this lens.?

I've used an older version and was impressed with the image quality. The new Sport is supposed to be even better and it has the added functionality of the dock.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

DonOles wrote:

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

From what I have seen I would say yes, it is worth the extra for the sport model. But the sport model weighs consideably more than the contemporary model. I did consider buying a 150 - 600mm sport, but as I walk up to 7 hours a day with two camera bodies and a couple of lenses etc., I decided on the Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 instead. Have you checked UHH/YouTube for comparisons between the Tamron 150 - 600mm G2 and the Sigma 150 - 600mm sport?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

DonOles wrote:

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

That depends on you and in which way you want to use the lens, if you're rough and tuff on equipment/ use it in harsh environments a lot, than the sports model will likely serve you better, optically there's not much differenence, but the edge goes to the contemporary!

DonOles

Thanks
Not rough OCD careful for certain. I going to purchase the Sigma 120- 300 2.8 s for indoor college hockey. The 150-600 c will be primarily outdoor baseball. Can i get away with the C?

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Depending on what you read, the S is either superior, or the same as the C, optically speaking. Look up their optical formulas, see if they're different or not.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

DonOles wrote:

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

The difference is not just $800 ! There is also size and weight. - can you manage it ?? The Sigma 120-300 2.8 weighs even slightly more the the S version I believe - they are close ! Looking at the Imatest resolution numbers, the difference between the C and S are very SMALL ! If you are doing fast action, I would be more concerned with AF speed and accuracy !

What camera system/body are you using ?? - why not get a 2X to go with the 120-300 to use in good light for the baseball ?? Since all this has to do with action, personally, I would be using CANON bodies AND lenses.

..

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

DonOles wrote:

Good Morning
Is the Sigma sport really worth the extra 800.00. Internally are the the same lens. Functionality the same? Is the contemporary image quality the same. Just trying to get the best lens for the price.

The Sport model is optically a completely different machine, more sturdily built, and water and dust resistant. It is better than the Contemporary model, and every bit the equal of OEM equipment. It is heavy though.

DonOles

Thanks for replying
I currently have a Canon 7d mkii c sensor purchasing a 5dmkii. I shoot college and professional hockey indoors so i need a faster lens (sigma 120-300 2.8 s) And baseball in the summer. (Sigma 150-600 s)

Option #2
Sigma 120-300 2.8 with 1.4 tc for baseball.

Option #3
Canon 100-400mm is usm ii. But this lens is considerably slower.

Also to complicate things I am wheelchair confined so since I'm limited in accessibility focal length is critical.
Any feedback is truly appreciated.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

DonOles wrote:

Thanks for replying br I currently have a Canon 7d... (show quote)

Thanks, - I see your predicament . Happy to see you are on Canon crop frame. I like the idea of the 120-300 2.8 with TC since Canon has nothing at that speed and range

- but I would not totally discount using the 100-400 - a tuff call !

You could save a lot of money and weight by using the older Sigma 100-300 f4 but not sure if the AF would be fast enough for you with the hockey. I have and use the Sigma 100-300 - it is a great lens if it is in focus !

..