kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I shoot with the Sigma 150-500. Though not a pro lens, I find it capable up to 400mm or so. You can check out my posts on this sight to see how it works for me.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

The Sigma Sport is a whole different ball game from the Sigma Contemporary and the Tamron. It is optically different and much superior, well sealed and robust in construction. It is a professional lens in every respect - the others are not. You will get what you pay for.
Canon and Nikon make pro quality lenses, in the same price range as the Sigma Sport. They both also make lower quality lenses, and cheaper.

Warbird Loc: Sweden

That is not true!
I have owned a Nikkor 300/2.8 VR II (newest model) and for a month or so I tried the Sigma 150-600 Sport and compared them side by side.

In all but exactly 300mm Sigma is the winner!!!
I had a 1.7 TC mounted most of the time, but sharpness is NOT up to what (my) Sigma gives me.

It was a very, very tough decision to make, but I sold the Nikkor as my Sigma is better (again, in all but 300mm)

PS Sigma 150-500 and 50-500 are not very good lenses and compared to those a prime with extender is probably better.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have been using the Nikon 200-500 for more than a year on an every day basis here in Florida. It compares very well to my 200-400 f4 which costs thousands more, same color, same SHARPNESS. I use a different focusing system on my Nikon than the D3300 so I am not sure your photo's will compare to mine but, if you ever upgrade your camera body, your Nikon lens will transfer as well, that said, the Nikon is still a better value than anything else you can buy. Yes, the warranty is 5 years and the Sigma warranty may be longer but in my experience if it doesn't go bad in the first month it usually is not going to go bad. I personally have not shot the new Sigma, but many of my fellow shooters have, and those that bought the new Nikon have since sold their Sigmas. Please do yourself a favor and buy the Nikon, you will be happy for the rest of your life.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The Nikon has been at 1399 since it came out, I should know, I bought one of the first one's from B&H.

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

Spent part of last summer testing the Tamron (not the G2), Sigma Contemporary, Nikon 200-500, and the Sigma Sport. I normally shoot with a 600F4 and was looking to get something I could hand hold without giving away too much image quality. The older Tamron and the Contemporary did not make the cut. It was between the Nikon and the Sport. After looking at my results from all three lenses used at F8 - there was no question that the Sport had the edge, though the Nikon was very good. I found a clean used one for $1250 and I have been very happy with it. A side benefit, you have a dock to fine tune the lens' focus at 4 distances for 4 different focal lengths, you can fine tune AF action, and fine tune optical stabilization. AF and OS tuning made this lens really work better, for me, anyway. Build quality is better than the Nikon, and it has really tight dust and moisture sealing, and the front and rear elements have a waterproof, smudge-proof coating. Only drawback, for some, is that it weighs about 2lbs more than the others. I've carried the lens on a sling strap for 4-5 hours at a time and it's been fine.

My150-500 - which I sold for $400 a couple of years ago, wasn't even close. It is a lot worse. if you can justify the cost of a Sport, Nikon or the Tamron G2 (which I have tried briefly and found it to be optically as good as the Sport), you have three very good lenses to pick from. I don't mind third party, so I have no problem with Sigma or Tamron.

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

Being a Nikon shooter, I have to disagree. First, there is no 400 F4 prime, but there is a 200-400 F4. Back in the film days, Nikon also made some pretty good 400 F3.5 and 400 F5.6 lenses, though. I liked the 5.6 because it was tiny, and still very sharp.

The Sigma Sport is pretty crisp, and it compares with my Nikkor 600 F4, and is sharper at 500mm than a 300 F2.8 with a 1.7, and just about as sharp at 450 as the 300 F2.8 is with a 1.4. I can't trust your assurances, since it seems you don't have much direct experience with either the Sigmas or the Tamrons. The Sport is not as sharp as the 400 F2.8, but very few lenses are. It also doesn't cost $12,000 nor weigh 8.5 lbs. Canon has lenses comparable in focal length to the Nikon offerings, and are easily as good if not better. Their 200-400 is stunning! Even with the dedicated 1.4 TC.

I suggest you take the Tamron G2 and the Sigma Sport out for a spin - it will be an eye opener.

These are examples taken with the Sport, all hand held, relying on optical stabilization, and before fine tuning focus, and AF and OS behavior.

hand held at 1/25, F8, ISO 400, D800

(Download)

detail crop

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

easy8

Have the sigma 150 600 cont and it works very well can get a used one on eBay for 700 us

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If indeed you are in need of a lens with such a zoom span my first choice if I were you would be the excellent Nikon 200-500 f5.6 VR. If money is a problem then the Sigma.
Regardless of the lens you buy if you do your part the lens will do its part.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

Hello. I use a sigma 150-600 C on my d7200.I absolutely love it. $ 989 from amazon by focus camera. It came it a bundle with some other goodies. I'd try to get the latest release. Good luck.

Shakes69 Loc: Pretoria, South Africa

Thank you for the excellent feed back!!

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

I do not know anything about the Sigma 150-600, but I do have the 150-500. I consider it to be a very good lens. I had a chance to test it against the Nikon version and could see no difference in my photo tests.

NikonCharlie Loc: Kansas USA

I enjoy my 200-500, I'd recommend the Nikon over the older Siggy. Sigma Sport is usually fantastic, but is the costliest of the lot.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

One item not discussed here is the ability to auto focus fine tune at all focal lengths which you can do with the Sigma and Tamron (G2) using their Hub, which you can not do with the Nikon. The Nikon got some bad reviews as far as quality from lens to lens, Steve Perry had to get his third copy before it worked for him and I saw others who said the same thing (Nikon may have fixed consistency by now).

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

I mentioned it - the dock is great for the Sigma. And I haven't even fined tuned the focus accuracy yet. But it doesn't tune all focal lengths. You get to choose 4, and you can fine tune 4 distances at each focal length - for a total of 16. I have no experience with the G2. The 2 Nikkor 200-500's that I tested were both pretty sharp, and one was slightly better than the other, especially at the middle focal lengths - 300, 400mm. I wouldn't buy the Nikon without checking out the Sport or the G2 first.