Agreed! I don't have the time or patience to watch and listen to several minutes of discussion of something that I can read in a minute or less. Consequently, I simply skip the video reviews. At a minimum, DPR should add a written summary of the reviews.

Another "Agreed". I never watch any of the video reviews as I'm most interested in the features comparison table.

Agree with Dedus. It makes no sense this limitation for 3rd. party lenses.
Funny to see, that there are only a few persons who are not happy with this but arguing against the canon lens policy🫣🤔

Yes because zero frames per hour limitation is similar to 15 frames per second limitation. Hahaha

@Summerjoy - "Funny to see, that there are only a few persons who are not happy with this but arguing against the canon lens policy"

only an rf-mount owner could think that the worst lens selection is somehow better than a 15fps limitation with the best lens selection in the world.

Maybe you’ve not seen that I also own a Sony camera with GM lenses🤔😂, so that this argument fails.

No Sony camera released in the last 6 years limits at 3FPS.
Also you fail to mention that with mechanical shutter some of those originally $10k EF lenses limit on the R5 and R6 at 6 FPS.

Anyway for years canon people told Sony people “who wants to deal with an adapter?” And now the canon people are telling the Sony people “don’t you know about adapters?”

I recently bought the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 for my A1. It's not a cheap lens and it has very fast dual linear motors. I cannot see a valid reason why it should be limited to 15fps in AF-C. I shoot fast action where every frame matters, and this is plain annoying.

I agree the artificial limit is annoying. However I still maintain 15FPS is very high performing. I rarely go above 15 anyway even for fast action.

Maybe someday Sony will remove the limitation.

@Dedus - "my a1... I shoot fast action where every frame matters, and this is plain annoying."

sony released 24 e-mount lenses with the same 15fps limitation, so it's hardly just a 3rd-party issue.

since you claim to own sony you should have known about this already, and bought a different lens.

@MikeRan
Old lenses with certain designs are limited but most of them are at an optical quality you rather want to put an 24-240 on your camera and get way better image quality. Those lenses are also slower on D-SLRs. Heck there are even very old lenses not offering all af fields on a D-SLR.

Well Adapted on sony worked bad for so long and they still limit it unlike every other manufacturer (big money grab to sell Sony E mount lenses or why still limited?) but I can't recall who wants do deal with an adapter, I rather heard that from sony fans when canon and nikon entered mirrorless. I remember the fps and af limitation as a point for not real lens selection options for sony back then as you got for multiple thousands bucks a 3fps body when using lenses you already own. This was the money waste no go. With Canon and Nikon now adapted works native or close to native (there are very slight drawbacks on Z not playing much of a role) which changed the game considering adapted lenses.

Everyone here are hypocrites. They complain about one inconvenience when it doesn’t apply to their camera and accept the same inconvenience when it does.

I don’t know about the others. I can only claim I never said adapters were a bad thing. Not before. Not now. I still use a canon 200/2.0 adapted to my A1 and/or A9II and I understand the limitations and the inconveniences and I use it to its fullest. It’s a killer combo for dance performance photography especially if you’re setup at the right distance. Initial AF acquisition is a bit slower than native GM glass but EyeAF and tracking work just fine and 10FPS is enough.

No problem here.

I would like to ask you not to generalize here.
I dissociate myself expressly from your statement to be a hypocrite!
If you are happy with 15fps or less, good for you. To conclude that others are hypocrites, or in your opinion nobody needs more, because you don't need more, is extremely short-sighted and out of line.

The Sony 100-400 is a great allrounder. But of course it will never be used at 600mm ;-)

Other than the fact that it has 2 more elements? 🤔

Be careful when comparing charts. For the Tamron you only have the chart without diffraction. It is better than the geometric chart of the sigma

But only the sigma offers the chart with diffraction and as you can see diffraction is by far the dominating aberration. The chart loss of the Tamorn with diffraction will be ven higher F6.7 vs F6.3 especially once cropped to 600mm, where it is essentially F8 vs F6.3

panther fan: And vs the Sony... Well, to my eye, the Sony might have higher microcontrast, but the resolution on the Sony looks lower, especially off axis with worse CA. That said, we are talking about two very good long telephoto zooms here. One of which happens to be 2/3 the size and price of the other, and correspondingly easier to hand hold. ;-)

Few things to clarify:
• The Olympus is 75% of the cost of the Sigma not 50%
• The Olympus is 42% of the weight of the Sigma (that a big savings)
• The FoV of the Olympus start at 200mm (equiv) vs 60mm (Sigma)
• While the sunny 16 rule applies to each camera equally with respect to the exposure triangle, noise and DoF don’t. Some care about this, some don’t. I’ve seen plenty of nice shots with the 100-400 that I don’t care - I could so easily make it work on my EM1.2. YMMV. But 60-600 is not 200-800. Both lenses could serve their respective audience well. Chris pointed out some nice positives about this lens. Flexibility being one of them.

You lost me at "similar IQ"
LOL

@NowHearThis: "But 60-600 is not 200-800."

To clarify even more: If you use an APS-C body, the Sigma becomes a 90-900mm.

If you use a 60MP full frame camera and crop to 20MP (like your OM1 II), you get even more reach. It's all realtive.

Always hard to dismiss m43 for wildlife ,for the most part it is hard to tell the difference between m43 and ff ,only big exotics make the iq stand out different ,but those are not going to make you a instant award winning photographer ,look at the bpoty ,and the winning images are more concerened with enviroment ,behaviour aspects , creativity ,and composition ,the olympus 150-400mm is one of the most highly regarded lenses for wildlife so versitile and reasonable weight with extreme reach and comparable light gathering to big zooms on fullframe .Seems that zooms are prefered a lot more now for wildlife than many primes for the versitility ,but then i guess it is trends perhaps blown out back grounds with shallow dof will become vogue again.

Sure, but the Olympus lens you are mentioning is roughly 4x the price of this Sigma....

The bodies the Oly lens would be used on aren't necessarily $4K cheaper tho... I guess if you figure the comparison has to be A1 vs OM-1 (TotL vs TotL w/stacked sensors on both) then maybe, but if it's say OM-1 or OM-5 vs A9 II (similar res, stacked sensors) then you're only saving $2.3-3.3K on the body vs the extra $5.5K in the lens.

Even in the A1 comparison you're still looking at $8.5K USD for it plus the Sigma zoom vs $9.7K for the OM-1 + prime combo, price really doesn't favor M4/3 much here considering a 1.33x crop of the 50MP body still leaves it at 28MP.

It's somewhat of an unfair comparison really because Sigma is a 3rd party, putting aside the whole zoom vs prime argument since that's what gets the two options close in light gathering after cropping etc. That's part of the reality & advantage for both systems tho, and even L mount.

The built in TC and other aspects of the prime should be the noteworthy aspect of the Oly combo, along with things like Pro Cap, but it's also worth pointing out the similarly priced 1st party 200-600 G option for Sony.

I'm not sure why you're making it out to be about DoF at all when a crop from 600mm to 800mm will result in a petty similar equivalent aperture across both formats & combos in question (f8.4 vs f9). The Oly prime is also lighter.

I mean he has a major point. The 200-600 is definitely going to be inferior to the 100-400, so it’s really only going to be for folks on a budget. For everyone else they could have already picked up the 100-400 and 1.4x combo.

that nikon 100-400 is a low-tech stepper motor lens, it doesn't have comparable performance to, say, the fe100-400, which has both a linear voice coil af motor and an ultrasonic linear af motor(aka canon nano-usm).

years ago canon made a video illustrating the af speed difference between a stepper motor and nano-usm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17726&Title=Thinking-Out-Loud-The-Significance-of-NANO-USM-Technology

so will the z100-400 be better than a z200-600? possibly, because nikon will put a stepper motor in their 600mm zoom, if they ever actually release it :-0 but this sigma lens does not use stepper motors.

beyond that, a 400mm zoom is certainly not comparable to a 600mm zoom, because it's an entirely different focal length.

canon nano-usm = sony ddssm

it's a linear ultrasonic motor technology that nikon apparently never developed.

optically speaking, the fe100-400 is possibly sharper at 400mm than the fe200-600, but put a 1.4x on it and the fe200-600 is a bit sharper at 560mm, plus it goes to 600mm, so there are very few people who want an fe100-400 over an fe200-600, to shoot at 600mm.

that's why thom hogan is wrong... the fe200-600 is also $500 cheaper than the fe100-400, which costs more because it's supposed to be better optically and with better focus motors, but people want those lenses for their native focal lengths; one does not substitute for the other.

"100-400 is a low-tech stepper motor lens" this doesn't matter. According to Thom's review of this lens, the AF speed is "Surprisingly fast. The dual motor method seems to work quite well." https://sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-100-400mm-f45-56.html

Fast AF is a long-solved issue imo, since the 1990s for sure with the N90s and maybe even in the 1980s with certain lens/body combos.

The 100-400 is a $2700 lens ... Nikon isn't gonna put slow AF in it.

i think that nikon knows more about this than thom hogan does, and nikon says that linear voice coil motors are the best:

"Silky Swift VCM
The Silky Swift VCM is utilized for NIKKOR Z lenses as an AF drive motor. This system simultaneously achieves higher speed, higher accuracy and quieter operation. Each of these factors far surpasses conventional systems, and as for the “quietness” specifically, drive sound is intensively suppressed to an almost-silent level. Even heavy lenses can be controlled accurately at high speed, with minimal noise or vibration, enabling users to reliably capture sharply focused images. Extremely quiet AF operation is specifically advantageous for shooting in places where silence is required and for video recording."

nothing in '90's is comparable to what we have now, it's not even close.

"nothing in '90's is comparable to what we have now, it's not even close."

Once you hit N90s AF speed, further increases in AF speed are meaningless.

Fast AF wasn't invented yesterday. Fast AF has not been a challenge for decades now. it's a solved problem. If a certain camera or lens lacks AF speed, that was a marketing positioning decision, or choice made to reduce costs, not a technological hurdle.

@capanikon
LOL. You must only photograph buildings.

no open z = no nikon

it has nothing to do with sigma.

Don't buy into a closed lens system if you want choice.

Unfortunately, none of you got it: if Sigma doesn't offer Z lenses, I can't buy one for my Nikon Z. Got it now?
And, thecylon et al.: there are third-party lenses for the Nikon Z. The Z-system is - unlike your eyes - not closed.

Manual lenses don't count. The fact that Nikon released the tamron lens proves that it is closed.

The OP is probably fine with that. 420g; low cost; 600mm, F6.3 for exposure… Tradeoff is F13 for DoF. There could be worse tradeoffs.

F13 for DoF and total light gathered, they're playing in different performance and IQ envelopes, and that's okay. You can also put this FF lens in front of 40-61MP bodies... I own/like the Pana 100-300 II btw, and a FF 50-400, apples and oranges imo.

There is not equivalence in f-stops other than DoF. The exposure triangle is not affected by sensor sizes. Have you ever used an expose meter?

@panther - I am not sure DPReview gets any money from Sigma. Their owner do, but I am not sure how much that affects DPReview.

I am more weary about DPReview having short sneak peeks at diverse exotic things, often film based, but also some photo software. Sometimes I see no reason at all for the news blurb. How about yet another Artisan lens? But I guess this is really down to the personal interests of the DPReview crew.

@Roland Karlsson
Besides ambassadors, nobody is financed directly by manufacturers.

I was talking about amazon referrals

I am not 100% sure what you mean by Amazon referrals. Maybe because my native language is not English. Tried to look it up, but did not get all that much wiser.

Do you mean that you think Amazon is somehow forcing DPreview to make good reviews for products Amazon sells? DPReview have always denied that. And I think I believe them. Amazon is selling almost everything.

Or what do you mean?

@ panther fan
" So the reviewer gets a kickback every time someone uses the link to buy gear (or anything from amazon, for that matter)."
You are referring specifically to Niccolls here? And you have proof of this?

@Eric Hensel
Obviously, DPreview (Nichols is an employe of DPreview)

Just copy the amazon link text without clicking on it, and you will see a tag ID in the URL. That means the amazon links on this site are affiliate links.

Also, where have you been on the internet these past years? Amazon affiliate is giant, and one of the main income streams of almost all YouTubers and websites. They have 1 million partners (sites, reviewers, etc...) and is a 12 billion dollar industry

The best thing once you click on the link the affiliate partner (here DPreview or Youtuber XyZ) can see anything you buy on amazon in the next session, regardless of what. Anonymized obviously and aggregated for all website users. Some channels like LTT even make regular videos (viewers' choice) series analyzing what people bought on amazon through their affiliate program.

We appreciate the concerns around trust - it's one of the things we think about all the time. Are there sites or channels that receive free products in exchange for reviews? Yes, but we're not one of them. If a company loans us a product for review, we return it at the end of the loan.

It's true that we derive a portion of our revenue through affiliate links. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to do that, but it costs money to run a business and we provide our content free of charge. Affiliate links are one way we cover those costs.

DPReview is editorially independent from our parent company, Amazon. In all the years I've been at DPReview, nobody from Amazon has ever tried to influence what products we cover or what we say about them. That's my personal experience. I hope we can earn your trust, but appreciate the need for healthy skepticism.

@Dale Baskin
Since 100% of reviewers use affiliate links, there is no way around that anyway. And personally, I trust DPreview very much.

You just have to be realistic about the fact that you are in the business of selling cameras. And a main focus of content on this site will never be "Your gear is good enough", "Don't upgrade", "see what we can do with this old camera", "you don't need this feature" ....

Also, be aware of what you are reading. "initial reviews" are now almost 3-4x more often then real reviews and almost contain no criticism of the product at all. And the main reviews are written with a "general positive attitude". Just carefully listen to the small complaints and nitpicks listed and amplify them in your head 4x while reading. This way, you can get a neutral overview that doesn't give instant GAS and have a better balance of the downsides

I appreciate the feedback, panther fan. Our goal when writing a review is to give people accurate information about products so that they can make better informed purchasing decisions. If we don't think a product is good, we'll say so. We're at a point in time when cameras and lenses from major manufacturers are pretty capable, but we do our best to explain what's been improved or upgraded over previous generations and where they still fall short.

Fair point on the initial reviews. We went through some staffing changes last year that impacted our ability to complete reviews as quickly as we have historically. We've been busy hiring some talented reviewers to remedy that, and are looking forward to being able to convert those initial reviews into final reviews more quickly and more frequently.

Roland, thanks for your comments. I've always enjoyed reading your contributions to the site.

Choosing what we cover is a balancing act. We have a lot of newer readers who are interested in DIY projects, experimentation with older technologies like film (even if it has built-in light leaks), and new categories of imaging products like drones. But it's also true that we sometimes do things just for entertainment value, like Chris and Jordan puppets.

The f-mount exists for quite a while.

This is not the same lens with a new sticker on it. This is a redesigned lens. So no, you did not "have this".

Did you bother reading any of the documentation before posting? The optics are redesigned, so is the OS system and a brand new focus engine was developed and deployed here. This is a brand new lens. The only thing it shares with the old model is the focal length.

@ Michiel953: Do the price difference tell you something?

That said, there affordable long telezoom lenses are surprisingly sharp with good contrast. You get a lot for the money.

If Nikon actually made a X10 telephoto I doubt there would be much difference other then price.

@Jeff -- thanks, the Sony at 600 definitely looks a little better there.

Just to be able to claim they produced “the world's first”, even if the IQ at 600mm is too soft.

While DPRTV found it soft, other medias are showing quite sharp results, mostly in the center, which is where it should be. Seems like a bit of a divided topic among those who have reviewed it

@Foskito

This is their 2nd.

@Alam12
I know, that is why the tameon is off my list for wildlife lens for my 7dii, because i researched and it apparently is not that sharp and has horrible color fringing in backlit situations!

Yes, in this day and age!

I would not trust a word that comes out of Northrups mouth