Sigma 60-600mm vs Sigma 150-600mm Sport

[loutaxi]

Has anyone compared the image quality of the Sigma 60-600mm to the image quality of the Sigma 150-600 Sport? I am particularly interested in the comparison at 600mm.

 

[rsmithsd73]

I've been following this thread with great interest as I'm really looking hard at the 60-600. When announced, I did not think that a 10X superzoom could equal their 150-600S in IQ, particularly at wide open apertures in the upper end of the range. But...its looking like they have at least equaled if not bettered the IQ. The most influential discussions thus far have been this comparison video from Kevin Dooley

And this image gallery

https://www.flickr.com/photos/quaintpl/albums/72157696265865340/with/44442583334/

Dustin Abbot has done an intro "build quality" video, and I'm looking forward to his thorough performance evaluation on the lens. After looking at LOADS of 150-600 S images, I cannot say I've seen any images at the long end, wide open on a Canon body, that match those. These really do look close to what I would achieve on my 100-400 L II.

So my major remaining considerations are the following. Will the 60-600 IQ at 600mm and wide open aperture rival what I can get with a 100-400 L II + 1.4 TC? (560mm - f/8), or...do I save up a bit longer and get a 300mm f/2.8 II, achieving 600mm f/5.6 with the 2X. IQ may still be quite good by all accounts with the 300 II + 2X combo, but AF will take a hit on my 5DIV and 7DII body. Also, the money. Sheesh, as I think aloud here reaching financially for the 300 will most definitely prevent travel to any cool places. Plus, if Canon releases the 7DIII, I'm going to want that in the year ahead.

Its looking more and more like the Sigma 60-600 S will enter the arsenal. Impressive stuff Sigma.

 

[Mark K]

So both 150-600 and 60-600 are sharp. The real benefit of having 60-600 is for the 60-150 extra range and weight savings

 

[SushiEater]

So both 150-600 and 60-600 are sharp.

We did not see any review with more than one copy to confirm that. According to Sigma MTF charts 150-600mm should be sharper. Also, no one compared corresponding FLs yet either. 10x zoom should have some kind of the compromise, it has always been the case.

The real benefit of having 60-600 is for the 60-150 extra range and weight savings

 

[Veloster75]

2094653[/ATTACH]
Grabbed a quick shot of the Moon the other night at 600mm with the 60-600



loutaxi, post: 61989885, member: 1911253"]
Has anyone compared the image quality of the Sigma 60-600mm to the image quality of the Sigma 150-600 Sport? I am particularly interested in the comparison at 600mm.

--
A retired law enforcement officer now enjoying his lifelong love of photography full time.

 

[Mark K]

So both 150-600 and 60-600 are sharp.

We did not see any review with more than one copy to confirm that. According to Sigma MTF charts 150-600mm should be sharper. Also, no one compared corresponding FLs yet either. 10x zoom should have some kind of the compromise, it has always been the case.

The real benefit of having 60-600 is for the 60-150 extra range and weight savings

Then we have to wait Roger Cicala Lensrental Blog to do this.

 

[Colin Franks]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

 

[SushiEater]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

Send email to Sigma with this suggestion.

 

[DAVID MANZE]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

Send email to Sigma with this suggestion.

The advantage of a super-zoom telephoto lens is how compact it is when at shortest focal length, a 300-600mm would be way larger and heavier.

It also seems that this Sigma is sharper than the lesser zoom range of the Nikkor and the Sport..........

Lentip's review:

Sigma S 60-600 mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Lens design has come a long way especially with tele-zooms.

 

[briantilley]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

Send email to Sigma with this suggestion.

The advantage of a super-zoom telephoto lens is how compact it is when at shortest focal length, a 300-600mm would be way larger and heavier.

I'm not sure that is inevitable. For example, the 200-500mm Nikkor at 200mm is virtually the same length as the 60-600mm Sigma at 60mm - 267.9mm vs 268.9mm

It also seems that this Sigma is sharper than the lesser zoom range of the Nikkor and the Sport..........

Lentip's review:

https://www.lenstip.com/545.1-Lens_review-Sigma_S_60-600_mm_f_4.5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html

Lens design has come a long way especially with tele-zooms.

 

[Photography Matters]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in. At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

 

[SushiEater]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

Send email to Sigma with this suggestion.

The advantage of a super-zoom telephoto lens is how compact it is when at shortest focal length, a 300-600mm would be way larger and heavier.

I somehow don't think so.

300-600mm zoom will have less elements thus smaller and lighter.

150-600mm has 24 Elements in 16 Groups, 60-600mm has 25 Elements in 19 Groups

The only difference that 60-600mm was redesigned with lighter materials so that is why it is 160g lighter.

It also seems that this Sigma is sharper than the lesser zoom range of the Nikkor and the Sport..........

Lentip's review:

https://www.lenstip.com/545.1-Lens_review-Sigma_S_60-600_mm_f_4.5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html

Lens design has come a long way especially with tele-zooms.

This one review means absolutely nothing. According to Sigma own MTF charts 150-600mm is sharper.

My own copy of 150-600mm was not good until I sent it to Sigma and they replaced the guts of it.

 

[SushiEater]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens. Or another camera with the wider lens. Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

Yes, it is very appealing until it gets darker and if you have only one lens you will get even more embarrassed.

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

 

[Veloster75]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens. Or another camera with the wider lens. Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

If there is one thing I know, some people are just very confrontational and abrasive.

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

Yes, it is very appealing until it gets darker and if you have only one lens you will get even more embarrassed.

 

[Photography Matters]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens.

Valid point. We should all be boy scouts and come prepared.

Or another camera with the wider lens.

Many hobbyist do not have the luxury of a second body.

Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

True

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

I like it that you don't mind exhibiting your ignorance. Cross country is an event where runners can be seen 400-800m or further away. It's been decades since I've run the Van Cortlandt park XC course. However, as I recall, coming out of the woods onto the final straightaway is well over 400m to the finish, perhaps, 800m or more. Other courses and road races often have long stretches with good views of the course. If I'm positioned near the finish line at VCP and other courses, it's great to be able to track the runners all the way to the shoot. You might enjoy getting head shots with your 150mm shot as runners fight for position going into the shoot, but I prefer to get full body shots of two or more runners fighting for finishing position (funny who opine that 60mm is too short for a group portrait but you think 150mm is plenty wide enough when multiple runners are less than 10m away. Consistent, you are not!).


Urban road races are similar. If you're in the crowd watching the NYC Marathon, you might see runners come around a bend 400-800m away, and you're not able to move to frame your shot better as they pass you.

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

Yes, it is very appealing until it gets darker and if you have only one lens you will get even more embarrassed.

Almost all XC and road races are run before noon, so I've never been embarrassed by darkness.

Again, ignorance and self-righteousness is bliss when you don't care what others think.

Bless your heart!

 

[SushiEater]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens. Or another camera with the wider lens. Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

If there is one thing I know, some people are just very confrontational and abrasive.

And some people post speculative BS.

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

Yes, it is very appealing until it gets darker and if you have only one lens you will get even more embarrassed.

 

[SushiEater]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens.

Valid point. We should all be boy scouts and come prepared.

Or another camera with the wider lens.

Many hobbyist do not have the luxury of a second body.

Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

True

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

I like it that you don't mind exhibiting your ignorance. Cross country is an event where runners can be seen 400-800m or further away. It's been decades since I've run the Van Cortlandt park XC course. However, as I recall, coming out of the woods onto the final straightaway is well over 400m to the finish, perhaps, 800m or more. Other courses and road races often have long stretches with good views of the course.

Are you saying you can't get closer?

If I'm positioned near the finish line at VCP and other courses, it's great to be able to track the runners all the way to the shoot. You might enjoy getting head shots with your 150mm shot as runners fight for position going into the shoot, but I prefer to get full body shots of two or more runners fighting for finishing position (funny who opine that 60mm is too short for a group portrait but you think 150mm is plenty wide

I did not say it was plenty wide but you can still frame your runners a little farther away.

enough when multiple runners are less than 10m away. Consistent, you are not!).

Urban road races are similar. If you're in the crowd watching the NYC Marathon, you might see runners come around a bend 400-800m away, and you're not able to move to frame your shot better as they pass you.

A shot 800m away will not be a very good shot. You are shooting through an atmospheric distortion. I have shot across standard track field that is about 100m away, summer time, and shots came out blurry because of it.

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

Yes, it is very appealing until it gets darker and if you have only one lens you will get even more embarrassed.

Almost all XC and road races are run before noon, so I've never been embarrassed by darkness.

Again, ignorance and self-righteousness is bliss when you don't care what others think.

Bless your heart!

I am just wondering what did you do before 60-600mm? Did you suffer without it?

And what other photogs do?

Even if you are an amateur you can still buy another body on the used market. After all you are going to spend $2000 on this lens especially considering that this is a limited use lens.

 

[Photography Matters]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens.

Valid point. We should all be boy scouts and come prepared.

Or another camera with the wider lens.

Many hobbyist do not have the luxury of a second body.

Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

True

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

I like it that you don't mind exhibiting your ignorance. Cross country is an event where runners can be seen 400-800m or further away. It's been decades since I've run the Van Cortlandt park XC course. However, as I recall, coming out of the woods onto the final straightaway is well over 400m to the finish, perhaps, 800m or more. Other courses and road races often have long stretches with good views of the course.

Are you saying you can't get closer?

Yes.

Parts of the NYC Marathon are literally packed on the sidelines. In addition, I like to get shots of the runners some distance out and as they approach me or the finish line. Since they're running faster than I am, there is no time to get a shot at one distance, and move to a different location for a subsequent shot. Having a nice tool like zoom lens is helpful.

If I'm positioned near the finish line at VCP and other courses, it's great to be able to track the runners all the way to the shoot. You might enjoy getting head shots with your 150mm shot as runners fight for position going into the shoot, but I prefer to get full body shots of two or more runners fighting for finishing position (funny who opine that 60mm is too short for a group portrait but you think 150mm is plenty wide

I did not say it was plenty wide but you can still frame your runners a little farther away.

And the wider the angle, you have the ability to frame shots when they are closer to you. You're standing near the finish line and the race is decided by a lean, it's nice to have the flexibility.

enough when multiple runners are less than 10m away. Consistent, you are not!).

Urban road races are similar. If you're in the crowd watching the NYC Marathon, you might see runners come around a bend 400-800m away, and you're not able to move to frame your shot better as they pass you.

A shot 800m away will not be a very good shot. You are shooting through an atmospheric distortion. I have shot across standard track field that is about 100m away, summer time, and shots came out blurry because of it.

800m might be a problem, but shooting across a track? Man, I feel sorry for those runners, because you must have been dealing with serious pollution.

Below are a couple of shots--cropped and uncropped, I took at the Penn Relays a few years back. I was sitting well up in the stands, so easily 100m or more away.

No blur. The limiting factor was the camera (20MP Canon), and lens--(70-300mm). The shots were not limited by the atmosphere, but rather by the equipment. No doubt the images would have more detail with a modern 40+MP body and zoom that goes to 500 or 600mm.

I can go on and on about being limited shooting nature by not just the long end but the short end as well.

If you've never been in these situations--or you carry two camera bodies (because you can't switch lenses fast enough)--.then get a prime. Otherwise, the appeal of the 60-600mm is apparent.

Yes, it is very appealing until it gets darker and if you have only one lens you will get even more embarrassed.

Almost all XC and road races are run before noon, so I've never been embarrassed by darkness.

Again, ignorance and self-righteousness is bliss when you don't care what others think.

Bless your heart!

I am just wondering what did you do before 60-600mm? Did you suffer without it?

And what other photogs do?

This is a straw man argument. It's akin to asking, "what did you do before there was AF?" Good photographers still got great shots. However, it gets a whole lot easier to get good shots with better equipment. If new technology can help me, then why not embrace it?

By the way, I haven't decided on purchasing the 60-600mm yet. I don't shoot running events often. However, if I did, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase the 60-600mm.

Even if you are an amateur you can still buy another body on the used market. After all you are going to spend $2000 on this lens especially considering that this is a limited use lens.

 

[SushiEater]

Unless Sigma was attempting to offer a lens with even more versatility than their two existing 150-600 lenses, I find this 60-600 a bit of a head-scratcher. When an even greater focal range is accommodated in a lens design, image quality is going to take a hit, so given that the vast majority of people who buy these sorts of lenses are mostly using them at the longer end, why not decrease the focal range to something like 200-600 like Nikon did with their 200-500? Heck, even a 300-600 might be a better idea, as well all want as much sharpness as possible.

Shrug.

If the long end is all that matters, then why stop at 300-600? Why not 400-600 or 500-600 or...just 600? It follows from your argument that you want a good inexpensive prime, say 5.6 or even 6.3.

When I use my 200-500 in the field, I'm happy with the performance at 500mm. However, I've been frustrated and limited by the 200mm short end. If I'm at an event, it frequently ends up with a group photo at the end. It's embarrassing to have to back up 50 meters to get everyone in.

And you should be embarrassed for not switching to the wider lens.

Valid point. We should all be boy scouts and come prepared.

Or another camera with the wider lens.

Many hobbyist do not have the luxury of a second body.

Even at 60mm you will be standing quite far away too for a group shot.

True

At a running event the 60-600 allows you to get a decent shot of the leaders turning the corner 400m away but still have them in the frame when they run pass you.

It is just the matter of perspective. I bet I can frame at 150mm just as good as you at 60mm. Oh, and where exactly is the place where runners are at 400m away?

I like it that you don't mind exhibiting your ignorance. Cross country is an event where runners can be seen 400-800m or further away. It's been decades since I've run the Van Cortlandt park XC course. However, as I recall, coming out of the woods onto the final straightaway is well over 400m to the finish, perhaps, 800m or more. Other courses and road races often have long stretches with good views of the course.

Are you saying you can't get closer?

Yes.

Parts of the NYC Marathon are literally packed on the sidelines. In addition, I like to get shots of the runners some distance out and as they approach me or the finish line. Since they're running faster than I am, there is no time to get a shot at one distance, and move to a different location for a subsequent shot. Having a nice tool like zoom lens is helpful.

If I'm positioned near the finish line at VCP and other courses, it's great to be able to track the runners all the way to the shoot. You might enjoy getting head shots with your 150mm shot as runners fight for position going into the shoot, but I prefer to get full body shots of two or more runners fighting for finishing position (funny who opine that 60mm is too short for a group portrait but you think 150mm is plenty wide

I did not say it was plenty wide but you can still frame your runners a little farther away.

And the wider the angle, you have the ability to frame shots when they are closer to you. You're standing near the finish line and the race is decided by a lean, it's nice to have the flexibility.

enough when multiple runners are less than 10m away. Consistent, you are not!).

Urban road races are similar. If you're in the crowd watching the NYC Marathon, you might see runners come around a bend 400-800m away, and you're not able to move to frame your shot better as they pass you.

A shot 800m away will not be a very good shot. You are shooting through an atmospheric distortion. I have shot across standard track field that is about 100m away, summer time, and shots came out blurry because of it.

800m might be a problem, but shooting across a track? Man, I feel sorry for those runners, because you must have been dealing with serious pollution.

Below are a couple of shots--cropped and uncropped, I took at the Penn Relays a few years back. I was sitting well up in the stands, so easily 100m or more away.

No blur. The limiting factor was the camera (20MP Canon), and lens--(70-300mm). The shots were not limited by the atmosphere, but rather by the equipment. No doubt the images would have more detail with a modern 40+MP body and zoom that goes to 500 or 600mm.

Actually these are blurry. A lot of motion blur. But judging how the people in the stands are dressed it was not a summer time. Summer time where I am, it gets up to 120 degrees in the shade. No it was not 120 but it was about 85-90 but on the open field in the sun it was much higher. Wet grass produced vapors. I was using Sigma 120-300mm so also at 300mm.

In the pictures you have posted you were maybe 100m away but it looks like a lot closer. It also looks like if you had 600mm it would look better framed and you would not need to crop. So, now imagine 400m. It is 4 times longer (assuming you were 100m) distance. 40mp would only gets you 42% more distance but you need 400%!!!! My calculation is of course based on your 5D2.

So, here is your dilemma. Do want the reach or do you want the wide angle. If you want the reach then 600mm is not long enough for you. You will also want to supplement it with the crop factor high resolution camera. And if you want the best of the both then you need the second camera with a wide angle lens for the group shots.

Or you can email Sigma and ask for 24-600mm lens. :-D

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com

 

[Dbltfarmer]

I have been shooting with the Sigma 150-600 sport almost as long as the lens has been for sale. It has gotten me a lot of shots in wildlife and sports that I probably would not have gotten had I not had this lens. I don't think any other lenses could have gotten me some of these images on both the long end and the short end.

I have one series on the football field where a player catches a pass at about the 25 yard line at the long end of the zoom range. The receiver is running straight towards me and I follow him all the way while at the same time shortening the focal length until the final shot is the receiver diving across the end zone. I was at 150 at that point. I also have a series with a Coyote moving towards me and I was able to follow him while decreasing the zoom length.

I can see where the 60-600 would offer even more versatility. But my interests and style have evolved and now I want things that are more flexible and mobile for both sports and wildlife. I still use the Sigma Sport a lot but now I have added the 300 pf and now I can carry the two bodies with the pf and a 70-200 or other lens just as easy or even easier than the 150-600. While I don't quite have the range(with the Sport) I do have a good deal with the 300pf and 1.4 tele on a D500 and better IQ. I hope to get the 500pf eventually.

My point is that we all have the direction and motive for how and why we get the images we do. Some may be totally opposite and totally unworkable in our own opinions. Personally, I can't see using a 60-600 as and everyday carry all lens but someone else may.

 

[Brev00]

Dustin just posted his image quality review on YouTube. He no longer has the Sigma 150-600 Sport but he did review it and, looking back at it, believes the 150-600 is sharper at 600mm. His basic take away is that Sigma did have to make certain compromises to extend the range. This does seem like a logical conclusion although other reviewers have found that the opposite is the case, that the 60-600 is actually sharper at the long end. I guess we will never know . . . unless we buy both and compare. Dustin does think the Bigma 2.0 balances better than the 150-600 being less front heavy and would be more useful if one is hand holding for a good amount of time.