tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

A brand new one would cost you $899.00 USD right now.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

Yes, I looked there and at mpb.com for roughly the same price. But that still begs the question is it worth fixing the one I have of ditching it and buying a used one for the price being asked. I am inclined on having mine repaired if the price to repair it doesn't cost more then 60% of what buying a used one would cost.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

thanks for the comment

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

I have reached out to a few companies for a ballpark estimate, but being the Holidays it will take a while to hear back. A lot of the place want you to fill out some paperwork with a description of the problem and send it to them before they will even think about giving an estimate.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

I have already submitted an estimate. Beats the hell out of driving 100+ miles to get there.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

There is always something to be said about a lens having a manually/automatically controlled aperture and focus.
Unfortunately the Sigma 150-600 "C" is all electronically controlled. With the error you can't even the camera refuses to do any thing, making the lens worthless at the moment. You can block the electrical signal from the lens to the body and then the camera functions, but you still have no aperture, and no focus control and if you happen to press the shutter button then the camera displays error 01 again.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

Funny how the used lens are almost the same price as a new one. I would much rather fix what I have, if the cost to do so is reasonable.

btbg

Since you are located in the Willamette Valley I figured you were closer than that. Its 145 miles for me but thats where I go to get my sensors cleaned.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

You might google and see if that is a common problem such as as one of those flat circuit things that has replaced wires. If it’s a common failure, you wouldn’t want to buy a used one that will do the same thing. If it’s not common, then it’s probably just a rare fluke.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

In my searches, I have not found anything close to suggesting this has been an issue with the lens.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

gwilliams6

I owned this same lens in Canon EF-mount and when i moved from Canon to Sony I still used it with the MC-11 lens adapter.

It is a very good lens, but does not have the build of the Sport version that costs twice as much. IMHO the Sport version is way too heavy to handhold, and not any sharper, all testing showed that. The Contemporary Version is much lighter and easily handholdable, and I loved that.

When you get your estimates, IMHO if the estimates to fix it are within $100-200 of the current $899 new price, get the new one. Don't get sentimentally attached to a used lens that has been repaired if the cost is close. A new one gives you a new 4-year USA Sigma warranty, and that in the long run is worth any close difference in cost.
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/support/services#:~:text=Service%20Policies-,Product%20Warrant

If it is just a couple hundred to fix it, then by all means do so. But my guess is it will be more, as labor costs alone can add up, beyond any parts needed.

Cheers and best to you.

btbg

The sport version of the 150-600 is absolutely hand holdable. It only weighs 6.1 poinds. I hand hold it all the time.

I hand hold it all the time.

Your advice about not fixing it if it is close to the price of a new lens is good though.

gwilliams6

Good for you and your muscles. I extensively tried them both and I hated handholding the Sport version as did most testers, just a fact that you can check in the many review videos. Also hated lugging that Sport version around in the field.

I could easily have afforded the Sport version, but did my real-world research and chose the Contemporary version which actually tested a bit sharper, and held its wider aperture longer as you zoomed over the Sport version, and is lighter, at 4.3 pounds., just a fact. The 6.3 pounds of the Sport version is ridiculous IMHO, sorry, especially when trying to follow BIF, other fast wildlife, and fast sports action. It weighs about as much as the Sony 600mm f4 GM prime lens, crazy.

From ImprovePhotography:

" Weight & Size
The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3mm Sport lens weighs significantly more than the Contemporary version.

The Contemporary weighs 4.3 pounds (1.95 kilos) and the Sport weighs 6.3 pounds (2.86 kilos).

Just because I'm hungry right now, I'll put that in terms I can better relate to.

The Contemporary lens weighs the same as 8 Krispy Kreme Donuts, and the Sport weighs as much as a Chihuahua with 3 bananas on its back.

I don't eat dogs.

In a practical shooting situation, I have to say that the difference in weight is dramatic.

In wildlife photography situations where I was mostly driving around and pulling over for a quick shot of animals as I saw them, the weight of the Sport didn't bother me much.

However, when I had to walk any distance while carrying the lenses, the extra weight of the Chihuahua on my lens made it unbearable to carry around.

Worse, there were times when shooting birds in Florida that I didn't bring the heavier lens with me because it was too much of a nuisance.

Unless you're only shooting on a tripod and traveling with the lens in a car (not toting it around in a camera backpack), I highly recommend the Sigma Contemporary lens.

It's so lightweight that it makes wildlife photography a lot more fun. #DitchTheChihuahua

The physical size of the Sport is longer than the Contemporary by 1.2 inches (3.5 cm).

It's always nice to have shorter lenses since they are more convenient as long as the focal length is the same.

But I can't imagine 1.2 inches making much of a difference one way or the other.

However, this difference in the physical length also affects the way the lenses are engineered, and means that the Sport version has a larger front element which requires 105mm filters, while the Contemporary takes 95mm filters.

This, too, is rather inconsequential because it's unlikely that wildlife and sports photographers would use filters very frequently.

Sports photographers would probably never use them, but sometimes wildlife photographers use a polarizer to cut the reflections and glare off leaves. " (end quote)

Not an issue for me now, as I moved to Sony and can handhold the Sony 200-600mm lens all day long at 4.6 pounds.

Cheers and best to you.

btbg

I agree that carrying the sport lens all day can be a nuisance but I like the sturdier build and the weather sealing.

Wont be using it much anymore as I finally got the Nikon Z400f2.8 lens. Its a little bit heavier but not much and is way faster focusing.

Will probably only use the Sigma sport now whe. I want two cameras with big lenses like maybe when shooting baseball.

Glad Sony works for you. I like the bigger body the Z9 gives you but thats just my opinion and not necessarily worth much.