Chris

I shoot with Canon and am considering the Sigma 150-600. The only real difference I read is the sport is weather tight similar to the L Canon series. Since I doubt I would be using it in inclement weather, I can't see the need for the extra thousand dollars. I have the Canon 100-400L lens. I had considered the 2x converter but people I've spoken with have not been that happy and it only works with certain lenses
My question is mainly for your thoughts. First do you think there is that much of a difference of the contemporary and the sport. And do you really think the extra 200 mm will give me that much.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I would look into the
Tamron 250-600 G2as a better choice. Check it out. I love mine.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I have had both with the dock. The sport is much sharper and 2lbs heavier than the contempary. Only if you are a pixel peeper and very picky. The sport does out perform the Tamron also according to dox Mark. My wife uses my contemporary now my sport sits and I use my 300-800 f5.6. Yes it's heavy but I love the sharpness and bokeh. If you are a pixel peeper get the sport if you are not any of them including the Tamron G2 will suffice. I do believe the Tamron G2 is sharper than the contempary.

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

I looked at (shot a bunch of images with borrowed lenses) both the Contemporary and the Sport. There was a big difference in sharpness between the two, with the Sport being better on a D800/D810.

Yes, there is a difference between 400mm and 600mm.

Yes, the weather sealing and build quality of the Sport is worth the extra weight and cost.

The Tamron G2 is a good alternative - it is lighter, the one I tried was just as sharp as the Sport, and it is only slightly more that the Contemporary.

I purchased my Sport before the G2 was available; I might have preferred it over the Sport since it is almost 2 lbs lighter, and its tripod foot includes an Arca-Swiss dovetail, but honestly, I can count on one hand the number of outings where I've used it on a tripod since getting it in 2016 - over 40,000 images taken.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Those are my thoughts as well. I wound up with the Tamron 150-600 G2 (not the original) and am most happy with it.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I spoke to Tamron tech support and they said if possible don't go to full 600, but back off to
500-550. Have you ever fine tuned the focus with the dock

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Check this evaluation of the 2 Sigmas and the two versions of the Tamron. I got the Tamron G2 because it scored at the top for both IQ and build. If you don't need or want the build/weather sealing than the Sigma Contemporary or older Tamron 1st generation are it and a lot cheaper.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19903

The Tamron G2 gets marked down for lower IQ at the short end - who buys long zooms for the short end???

Here is a current and slightly different article on long teles"
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/the-best-150-600mm-lenses

And the Canon 1.4x III and 2x III extenders work with the 100-400L mk2 and the older mk1. I use a 1.4x with my mk2 and with a mk1 before I traded for the mk2.
I also have the Tamron 1.4x for the G2, it doesn't AF with any of my bodies (5DIV, 7DII, 80D & 90D) but gets good images when I can MF it properly. If they bring out a 7DIII either dslr or mirrorless that will AF that combo I will be using it a lot for my small birds.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Instead, how about adding the Canon EX 1.4x MKII or MKIII extender yielding 560mm - they can often be had for <$200, and Canon’s own MTBF charts shows there is only about a 5% hit in sharpness. There is the 1 stop hit, but it makes a smaller lighter, certainly less expensive package and likely at least as sharp as the Sigma. I use this combination, and it is very satisfactory.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Since I believe that when using "Live View" that WYSIWYG, I haven't bothered. However, the dock did come with it at the time.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

While I don't use my 150-600 Sigma sport as much as I thought I would I thing it was well worth the extra money and weight, and being weather sealed is a big plus not just for wet weather but dust!

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

I have the Sigma 150-600 contemporary mainly on my Canon 6DII and I love it. The IQ of the lens is fantastic. I borrowed a friends sport version once just to compare and found it to be much too bulky, and not any better in IQ to my lens. I very rarely shoot mine hand held anyway, but normally on a tripod because of its range and to eliminate any movement. Most of the time it is at 600 to capture birds at my feeder close up.

gwilliams6

I owned the Canon EF version of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and it is actually a bit sharper in tests than the Sport version, really. Also in tests the Contemporary version stays at a wider max aperture longer as you zoom, than the sport version.

I am a longtime pro and can afford any gear I need, and I chose the Contemporary version over the Sport and the Contemporary version was plenty weather-sealed enough and plenty tough enough. No need to spend the extra thousand for the heavier and more cumbersome Sport version IMHO, unless you plan an arctic expedition. LOL

AND the biggest advantage of the Contemporary version is that it is light enough to handhold when using. The Sport version is MUCH heavier and must be used on a monopod or tripod, a deal-breaker for me.

Here is Jared Polin using the Contemporary version. Save the thousand dollars and get the contemporary version. I know Jared from my time in Philadelphia as a staff photographer on the Philadelphia inquirer Newspaper. I bought this lens partly on his recommendation and after I used and compared both the Contemporary and Sport versions, and the Contemporary version never disappointed me, ever. One of the greatest cost/performance bargains ever IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tCUFXiDws

And here one shot made with mine in the lowlands of South Carolina of a Great Blue Heron.

Cheers

(Download)

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Did you look at the Tamron G2 150-600?
I love mine

gwilliams6

Also a great lens, but in comparison tests it isn't sharper then the Sigmas. A very similar optical design in fact.
Cheers

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Question #1: For IQ NO, no difference - I have seen the Imatest numbers. IMO, any differences in optical IQ of properly focus calibrateded lenses are due to sample variations. There is a big difference in WEIGHT ! And yes, I have shot the Sport.
Question#2. 200mm does make a difference . The relative difference is more if you are shooting a crop frame.

It will be very hard to beat the Canon lens with Canon 1.4X extender !! If you need more focal length, consider CROPPING and using pixel enlargement software.
I shoot with Canon 80D and Canon 400 5.6 prime with 1.4X II. - have also shot with the 300 2.8 and 2X......
I also shoot Sony A99 FF with Tamron 150-600 G2. For IQ reasons, I only use the Tammy to 500mm and then use Sony CIZ to go beyond 500.

Go here - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-597795-1.html to see Imatest numbers
.