Sigma 150-600mm Sport vs. Contemporary: Full comparison and review

I bought both the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sport and the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary version and I've spent over 40 hours reviewing these lenses to provide this full and in-depth review for you guys.

The results of my testing have been extremely surprising.  

When it comes right down to it, I would choose the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary (the one that is nearly half the cost) over the Sport version–even if the price isn't taken into consideration.  

I know that seems a little crazy at first.  

It did to me too, so I repeated some of my tests 3 and 4 and 5 times to be certain that the results were right.  

Let's dive in to the testing and I'll show you how I got to that conclusion.

Contemporary Version

Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Contemporary DG OS HSM Lens for Canon
Sports Version

Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Sports DG OS HSM Lens for Canon


The lenses are so extremely close in terms of sharpness that it's really hard to pick a winner.  

The following shots were all taken with identical camera settings and conditions while the camera was locked on a tripod.  

I repeated the sharpness test at every focal length imaginable.  

I took multiple photos with each lens at each focal length, and here I'm displaying the photo from each side that best represents the average result that I was getting at each focal length.

For my sharpness tests, I usually like to tape a piece of paper and a picture up against the fence and shoot it from a tripod.  

Although I do own a very expensive lens testing software suite that I sometimes use for lens tests, I feel like the old “paper on the wall” test gives me the most “real world” result.  

Sometimes a number and an MTF chart just can't quite communicate what seeing an actual resulting photo can.

Both shots taken at 600mm at f/6.3 while locked on a tripod.

Both shots taken at 600mm at f/6.3 while locked on a tripod.  You're viewing this at 300% to magnify the result.  At 100% and certainly when zoomed out, there is no perceptible difference.  

The Sport version does have better contrast (acutance) which is one element of judging sharpness, but also remember the resolution.  When you zoom in even further in to look at the resolution, the sport MAY have the tiniest edge, but I'd probably put this at “too close to call.”  Any difference at 600mm wide open on these lenses is just splitting hairs.

The results at 600mm are extremely close, but the result at 500mm gives a significant edge to the contemporary version.

At this focal length, the contemporary version is significantly better than the Sport version. This photo is a 300% magnification for easy viewing, but even at 100% the winner is obvious. Zoomed out to have the photo fill the screen, the photos look identical in sharpness.

At this focal length, the contemporary version is significantly better than the Sport version. This photo is a 300% magnification for easy viewing, but even at 100% the winner is obvious.

Zoomed out to have the photo fill the screen, the photos look identical in sharpness.

Now we're headed to 250mm, again with both lenses at f/6.3 and still locked on a tripod.

At 250mm, the Contemporary is still ahead of the Sigma. The contemporary has better contrast for sure, and the resolution is also improved.

This one is a tough call.  The Contemporary has much better contrast at 250mm and f/6.3.  The Sport version MIGHT have just the tiniest little improvement in resolution.  Sharpness is made up of both acutance (edge contrast) and resolution (ability to show fine detail).  

So it's really hard to call a winner on this one as well.  But it'd be tough to argue that the Sport version looks cleaner at 250mm, so I'd have to give the edge to the Contemporary.

Now I shot the lenses at the focal length where you're least likely to shoot them–150mm.  

The results?  It's absolutely identical.  

I started at these photos for quite some time seeing if I could pick a winner, but even zoomed in to absurd magnifications, the results are a dead heat.


All of these tests are shot at f/6.3.  The reason I'm showing the tests at f/6.3 is that it's the most common focal length you'd shoot this lens at.  

But if you stop down to f/7.1 or higher and do the testing, the difference between these lenses is even tighter.

So when it comes right down to it, after hours of testing and reviewing many many many photos, the sharpness is almost identical between the two lenses.  

If I had to pick a winner in the sharpness battle, it'd be the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, which had better contrast at several focal lengths and better resolution at one focal length.  

All the other tests were a tie.

When I bought these lenses for this review, I was certain that the Sport version would be sharper than the Contemporary given the better build quality, additional FLD element in the lens, and the significantly higher price.  

What I learned from this test is that the price of the lens is NOT a good indicator of the performance of the lens–at least in this case.

I was so surprised by my results that even after testing and retesting, I read reviews from a few other reviewers who I respect and it looks like I'm not the only one who has found that these lenses have almost identical sharpness.  

Some of the reviewers I found said they felt the Sport had an very slight edge in sharpness, and others felt, as I did, that the Contemporary was just barely sharper.  

This isn't terribly surprising.  

Each copy of a lens performs differently, so to see some slight variation is normal.

Are these lenses sharp enough for professional photography?

I think the answer to this question is a resounding “yes!”  I have tried many different inexpensive superzooms over the last 5 years that I have been reviewing lenses professionally here on ImprovePhotography.com.  

They have always been underwhelming until Sigma and Tamron came out with their 150-600mm lenses.  

For superzoom lenses, these lenses all perform remarkably well.

3 years ago I went and shot Yellowstone in Winter and used a Nikon 600mm f/4 beast.  

That lens has good optics, but is so heavy that it's impossible to shoot without a tripod and gimbal head.

I missed countless shots that week when I'd pull over and see a fox in the snow that only gave me a few seconds to shoot it before it ran away.  

It took so long to get out my gear and tripod and get set up that I kept getting only photos of footprints where the fox had stood.

This year I went on the same trip with 40 readers of Improve Photography.  

I came back with a dozen or more publishable shots that I could never have got with the big heavy “professional” gear.  

And the image quality?  I wish I had a 600mm f/4 here with me right now to show you the difference.  

It's really not a huge deal.  

These superzooms are performing really well.  

For most wildlife photography, I PREFER these light superzooms to those heavy 600s.  

But if you're shooting sports photography, then the faster aperture of a 600mm f/4 or a 400mm f/2.8 puts those lenses in a completely different class.


Build Quality

In terms of build quality, the Sigma 150-600mm Sport version takes the blue ribbon by a significant margin.  

The lens is just better built, and there's little room to argue with that.

Weather sealing is a question mark.  

Sigma advertises both version of this lens as being “dustproof and splashproof,” but if you read further into the technical specs of these lenses, some questions arise.  

The Sport version is later described as having “dust and splashproof construction” while the Contemporary is only described as having a “dust and splashproof mount.”  

Even more complex is the fact that this page on Sigma's site says the Contemporary has a water and oil resistant coating on the front element only, yet this page on Sigma's site says the coating is only on the rear element.  

Maybe they need to get their specs straight.  

Either way, it would appear from Sigma's marketing materials that there is at least some amount of better weather sealing than the contemporary version.

I shoot in pretty rough environments–especially when I'm shooting wildlife with a long lens like this one.  

I'm often hiking, pushing through snow in Yellowstone, etc.  

So weather sealing is an important factor.  

But Sigma hasn't been super clear on exactly what weather sealing has been done on either of these lenses.  

I'd like to see a couple tear downs to see how well sealed these lenses are, and what the difference is.

But I do have to point out that even without weather sealed lenses, I've only once had issues with a lens getting dirty inside.  

It's very common for a camera to get ruined in rain or weather, but much less common for the lens.  

Also, remember that the Contemporary lens is about half the cost of the Sport, so if something did ever happen…. you could just buy another and not be out any money from what you would have paid for one Sport lens.

One factor to consider, however, is that supertelephoto lenses are the most common type of lens to have issues with dust, humidity, or other elements getting in the lens.  

When these lenses zoom in and out, they suck in a significant amount of air.  

You can hear it.  

That air is tough to keep from cycling through the elements over time.  So weather sealing could be important.

Ease of Use

I don't normally include “Ease of Use” in my lens reviews because generally, all lenses are easy to use.  

But after spending a lot of time with both of these lenses, I found that ease of use was one of my biggest complaints with the Sport version of this lens.  

Because the Sport is so much heavier, it takes a solid twist of the hand to zoom the lens.

The zoom ring is very stiff, and needs to be to prevent the lens creep.

When shooting wildlife and sports photography, which would be the primary uses of this lens, having a very stiff zoom ring can easily cause you to miss shots.  

That was definitely true in my testing.  

I'd say there were 10 or 15 shots over the course of each day that I missed with the Sport because I couldn't zoom the lens quickly enough to capture the animal at the right moment.

The Contemporary version makes zooming much quicker.  

The zoom ring itself is much larger and is in a more normal position on the lens, and the lens is lighter so the zoom ring twists much faster.

I will point out that Sigma advertises the Sport as having “twist and push-pull” functionality for zoom, but the Contemporary is advertised as only “twist.”  

Frankly, that's marketing crap.  Any non-internal-zoom lens can be pushed and pulled.  

All it means is that Sigma put a rubber ring around the end of the Sport version that you could grab and push/pull the lens in or out to zoom.  

Realistically, this would be a horrible user experience to push/pull with this lens.  

The lens zooms out so far that you'd pull a muscle trying to zoom out.  

That's ridiculous.  Both of these are just twist-to-zoom lenses.


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.


The specs of a lens rarely tell the full story, and that's definitely true with these lenses.  

Although both lenses are 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lenses, they are not at all the same.  

The question is, when does the lens switch from f/5 to f/5.6, and f/5.6 to f/6.3?  

You may be surprised to see that these lenses don't at all change at the same focal lengths, meaning that one of the lenses is actually faster than the other.


  • f/6.3 from 600mm to 314mm
  • f/5.6 from 313mm to 185mm
  • f/5 from 184mm to 150mm


  • f/6.3 from 600mm to 390mm
  • f/5.6 from 389mm to 181mm
  • f/5 from 180mm to 150mm

As you can see, the Contemporary is actually faster than the Sport version from 313 to 389mm, which would be a pretty normal focal length to shoot with this lens.  

It may not be a huge deal, but when we're already talking about a slow superzoom lens, having that extra 1/3 stop of light in that range can make a difference, and it's a surprise to see that coming from the less expensive of the two.



I'm always interested when testing lenses to see how the REAL focal length of a lens compares with the advertised focal length.  

Focal length is actually kind of complicated to figure out without some serious scientific measuring, but I do like to compare lenses of the same marketed focal length and see which one has more reach.  

Sometimes the lens manufacturers get very creative with this number.  

An example of this is the Tamron 70-200, which doesn't reach nearly 200mm when compared to the Nikon and Canon version.

Having said that, I don't see any real difference in focal lengths between these lenses.  

I am not set up to test to see if it's true to 600mm, but the focal length on all three lenses seems to have exactly the same reach.


When I looked at the specs for both of these lenses, it immediately made me wonder if the Contemporary would focus faster, since it is lighter weight.  

The motor on the autofocus simply doesn't have to be as strong to push the lens more quickly.  

As long as they have the same focus motor, my guess was that the contemporary would be a bit quicker.  I was right.

At shorter focal lengths, you really can't feel any difference between the autofocus speed of these lenses.  

They both focus very quickly.

At the longer end, or rather when focusing from close to far, you start to see a noticeable lag in the focus speed–especially on the Sport version.  

The difference isn't dramatic, but it's definitely there.  

The Contemporary focuses just a hair faster, which is a big deal considering that this lens's primary purpose is for wildlife and sports photography.

This beautiful, beautiful piece of photography work was done by me, Jim Harmer. I call it "Light post in front of my house."

This beautiful, beautiful piece of photographic genius was done by me, Jim Harmer. I call it “Light post in front of my house.”  Maybe it'll sell for $2 million like the potato photo?


I only did a basic bokeh test of these lenses, because they both have the same 9 blade rounded aperture, but the result was identical.  

The rounded aperture produces a nice looking bokeh.  

It's not like the bokeh you get from an f/2.8 or faster lens, but it's a smooth and creamy blur that doesn't distract from the image.


The price on these lenses seems to be fluctuating a bit now that they have been out for a little while, so it's worth checking.  Check the price of the Sport on Amazon here, and then check the price of the Contemporary on Amazon here.  

Both those links open in separate tabs so you won't lose your place here.  

Generally, the Sport version costs $1,799 and the Contemporary costs $989.

One tip for saving a ton of money on these lenses is to buy used.  

I know there are always concerns about buying a used lens, but I've had really good luck with buying the “like new” listings on Amazon.  

This way you still get Amazon's excellent return policy, and you're likely saving $100 on a lens just because it was bought, someone opened the box, and decided to return it.  

I think it's worth the savings.  If you haven't bought “like new” lenses on Amazon before, click the link above to the listing page, and then look on the right-hand side.  

There's a little box where you'll see the lens available from “Other Sellers on Amazon.”  

I save quite a bit of money by buying “like new.”

Except for the rare sale that could happen with these lenses, you really won't find the price fluctuating much between retailers.  

Sigma uses MAP pricing (minimum advertised price), so it'd be very rare to see the price be any different between retailers.

coyote mousing in yellowstone

I captured this shot of a coyote diving into the snow to catch a mouse in Yellowstone with the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sport


When it comes right down to it, I prefer the Contemporary version of this lens.  

The guys at the camera club may not give you “respect” for wielding a gigantic, overweight chihuahua on the end of your camera.  

The build quality doesn't look as manly and tough, but after spending dozens of hours reviewing these lenses, I see far more benefits to the less expensive Contemporary version than the Sport, which is nearly twice the price.

I found myself missing shots from the slightly slower autofocus on the Sport, the sharpness of the lenses is either equal or gives a slight edge to the Contemporary version in my testing, the Contemporary focuses a little faster, and you'll be saving $900!  

My suggestion?  

Take the money you save to buy a flight to Iceland, then after you come home, go to a good pet store and buy yourself a chihuahua (Seriously.  WHAT is with the Chihuahua obsession in this review?  I gotta get to bed…)

Reasons to Buy the Sigma 150-600mm ContemporaryReasons to buy the Sigma 150-600mm Sport
Faster aperture in part of the zoom rangeBetter build quality overall
Much lighterFully weather sealed
Almost half the costBuilt of metal instead of plastic
Zoom ring easier to adjustIncludes a high quality lens hood
Smaller and shorter
Focuses faster at the longer focal lengths

If you'll be buying either of these lenses, could you help me out by clicking one of the links below to see the Amazon listings for your lens?  

Those are affiliate links that give us a 4% commission on your purchase.  

It doesn't cost you an extra penny, but helps me to recoup the cost of buying both of these lenses and spending dozens of hours testing them for you.  

You can click the links now and buy later and I'll still get the commission.  

Thank you guys!

Sport for Canon

Sigma 150-600mm
Contemporary for Canon (recommended)

Sigma 150-600mm
Sport for Nikon

Sigma 150-600mm
Contemporary for Nikon (Recommended)

Sigma 150-600mm

69 thoughts on “Sigma 150-600mm Sport vs. Contemporary: Full comparison and review”

  1. I have a Nikon D5100. Am I correct in assuming that the Sigma 150 – 600mm Contemporary lens will not fit my camera? Is the Tamron 150 – 600mm, which does fit my camera, a comparable substitute? Thanks for the in-depth review…this information is so helpful!!

    1. @Charlene – It’ll work just fine on your camera. This lens works on both full frame and crop sensor Canon and Nikon cameras.

        1. Yep. Actually ANY lens that is made for Nikon (full frame or crop sensor) will work on your D5100. This sigma has the nikon mount (linked at the end of the article) that is available.

    2. Stewart Livingston

      I’m just about to purchase a Sigma 150-600 lens for my Nikon D500 and this appraisal is by far the best
      Information I’ve found on the net it’s made up my mind for me
      Thanks for a great post Thanks Jim

  2. It’s really disappointing for us Nikon users that none of you guys has spoken much about the Nikon 200-500mm . Hope we’ll get in-depth review of the lens from you in near future.

    1. Shyama – I spent $4,000 to buy these lenses and spent over 40 hours reviewing them for you. What more do you want from me?

  3. Thank you for this clear review. I have held off purchasing one of these
    Lenses but will put on my wish list. Would have loved to be on your Yellowstone ‘meet up”!

  4. What would be your opinion if you weren’t bothered by the weight at all and where mostly shooting sports i.e. rugby, football and motorsports. Would you still go for the Contemporary or the Sports version?

    1. @Jacob – I still would get the contemporary. Slightly faster focus and slightly sharper. Oh, and you save $900!

  5. Hi Jim

    Glad you liked the Sigma 150-600. For two reasons.

    1 – I re-equipped over the past 12 months, and although I’ve always been a Zeiss addict, I really didn’t feel like lashing out on a Zeiss wide angle, standard and tele lens for my D810. Instead, I went for two Sigma ART prime lenses to cover the wide angle and standard lens, and I make my Zeiss Makro-Planar do double duty, as a stand-in tele lens (as well as a macro). I tried Nikon’s105 Macro, but didn’t like it – yes I know the Zeiss is 1:2 and strictly not a macro, but I get great shots with it so I don’t care – the purists can have their opinions, so I can have mine, too.

    2 – While I was “shopping”, I found myself in one of my camera stores, standing next to someone who looked even older than me (I’m 73) and who had a severe attack of GAS. (“Gear acquisition syndrome” – but why am I telling you that?) He’d heard that Nikon had just released a new tele zoom lens and he wasn’t sure if it went to 400 or 500, but insisted on knowing “how much”. The salesman struggled to inject a bit of common sense into the conversation, but the old guy was determined. Eventually he caved in and gave the guy the prices on both zooms. The old guy had let it slip, in the meantime, that he was an old age pensioner. Now seriously – what could someone that old possibly need the world’s best, most powerful * most expensive Nikon zoom for? If the 400 was cheaper, it’s perfectly reasonable for the odd few shots where you need that much grunt from a lens, to take the shot with a 400 and crop it slightly. And anyone as old as this guy was ain’t climbing mountains in the Andes to photograph condors in flight, anyway!

    So I’ve passed on the details of your review to the shop, in case he comes back again.

    And thanks for your honesty on creating the photo of the coyote. Yes like I’m told to, I strive for photos that need no retouching or post processing. I have certainly SAVAGELY reduced the amount of post processing I need to do. But I cannot agree with people who dogmatically assert that we must never crop, never post process, never do this, never do that. I think we are still entitled to free choice in these things – aren’t we?

    Warm regards

  6. Hey Jim, Just curious… if you were buying a landscape/wildlife lens to take on an Alaskan Cruise, would you go with the Sigma 150-600, or the Canon 100-400 F4.5 – 5.6 II. I realize that the lenses are over a 1,000 dollars difference, but I want the best glass and most usable focal lengths. I will be using the Canon 7d mkII as the body, so the 1.6 crop would give me 160 to 640 on the Canon and a whopping 240 to 960 on the Sigma.. Is that approaching too long? Would the incremental stops of light be worth the difference?

    Have you had your hands on then Canon 100-400 II? I would be interested in your take on whether you feel it is worth it to spend the extra cash on the Canon L glass, and how the shorter focal lengths may affect my photography goals… figure I’ll get looks at whales, and other Alaskan wildlife during the trip. I also have a Canon 70 – 200 F2.8, Canon 24 – 105 F4, and a Canon 24 – 70 F2.8. What would you recommend as a good wide landscape lens… I’d love to to have the Canon 24 aspherical, but that’s another 2 grand! I should also mention that I have a trip to the Bavarian section of Germany next summer…. I be interested in your lens choices (ones to carry) for each of these trips!

    Thanks for any comments you may have…. I really enjoy all the podcasts and I am planning an “Improve” trip as soon as I can swing it…

    1. Hey Chris, I’m originally from Southeast Alaska, and while I haven’t tried either of these two lenses, I can tell you that for many instances, 400mm will be enough reach, but the 600mm would be handy. You can get in pretty close to humpbacks up there… they are everywhere. The eagles get close too. I have prints that I sell of eagles and humpbacks that I got with my Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens, along with a 2X extender for some shots. For whales and eagles, aperture won’t be an issue, provided the weather is decent. However, if you are bear watching, often-times the best viewing times are right about the time the light starts to fade. You’ll likely be on board the ship at that hour anyway, though. I think the extra reach of the sigma would be great and the aperture wouldn’t be a problem. I would wonder about one concern, though. If you don’t get the sports version, I’d wonder how the lens would handle the eagles’ bright white heads. If I use the canon extender in bright daylight, I get some white “glow” around the bright areas and chromatic aberration. I wonder if the contemporary lens would do that as well due to the missing element offered in the sports version? Still, saving the $$ might be worth it. I don’t know if I’ve helped much, but hopefully this is worthwhile. See my web site below for shots of wildlife using the 70-200 f2.8 and extender.

  7. Thanks Jim for the in depth review. I actually had already purchased the Contemporary lens & used it only once to shoot the recent Eclipse. I purchased it with not knowing much about it other than the Superzoom it would provide. I loved the pictures it gave me. Reading your reviews only solidifies that I made the right choice!! Thanks…

  8. Wow! This is a thorough, entertaining review (the first of yours I’ve read). Thanks for using real world testing of performance, build, and handling. This review is timely for those of us who use Sigma lenses and are trying to sort through he differences between the Sport and Contemporary lines–and the 100-600mm is of special interest to a lot of us right now.
    Keep up the good work.
    I am going to finish this comment at the end of this sentence rather than writing two more paragraphs asking questions about lenses that you did NOT review in this article or trying to impress you with what a great (and opinionated) photographer I am.

  9. So proud to no that I could get this len 150-600mm contemporary and save money thanks Jim

  10. Thanks Jim for letting me borrow the contemporary lens and your 70D while I was in town and didn’t have my old , trusty (and slow to focus) Nikon 300mm f4. I shot two high school baseball games with it, a 1:00 pm game and a 6:00 pm game. Fantastic lens. Love the sharpness and the reach , especially with the crop sensor on the 70D. At 600mm I could only get the pitcher (on the mound) from the waist up. At 500mm, it was from knee to head. Talk about the ability to fill the frame from the sidelines! Made shooting the outfielders MUCH easier. (A lot less cropping in post.) I’m looking forward to your review of the Tamron 150-600 and (hopefully) the Nikon 200-500mm, as all 3 lenses are competing for my attention. The focus was fast, and accurate. The only negative, and this was totally expected, is the low light performance. At f5.6 and f6.3, on a high school (aka ‘poorly lit’) field, I couldn’t freeze the action without completely blowing up the ISO. That said, I’d still recommend the lens for outdoor, daytime shoots. Thanks again!

  11. Hi Jim,
    very nice and thorough review ! #thumbsup
    Last week I borrowed my uncle’s 150-600 C and was a bit surprised by the poor / not noticeable Optical Stabilizer. When not semi pressing the shutter button, the view in the viewfinder shakes, which is normal. But when half pressing the shutter button and activating AF, I don’t see any visual change, the view is still shaking. There is no stabilized view. (I tried this in both mode 1 and 2 of OS)

    I compared the ‘stabilised’ 150-600 C @ 300mm to my own Canon 28-300 @ 300mm and the difference is enormous (like not stabilized versus stabilized) ! Is this normal ? Does the 150-600C have a much lesser stabilization system ? Or might there actually be something wrong with this particular lens ? Thanks in advance !

    1. I send this email to SIGMA:

      Dear sirs:
      I acquired your Sigma 150-600 C NIKON lens on February 11, 2017 as you can see in the invoice attached to this email. I am quite satisfied with the quality of construction and optics but very disappointed with the optical stabilizer. Before buying it i read on some websites and blobs that there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the optical stabilizer and priciously with the uselessness of the position OS 2 of the OS button. However as I also read about the possibility of configuring the OS and the buttons C1 and C2 through USB DOCK I ended up acquiring this lens in conjunction with the DOCK to later configure the OS to my liking.
      As I use this lens essentially for video (LiveView) I have a lot of need to use the OS in OS2 mode, but I ended up finding out that this button does not fulfill the functions for which it exists ie smooth on PAN horizontal scrolling and efficient optical stabilization In vertical movements! In fact the optical stabilization works the opposite or it is only there visible horizontal OS!
      I did a lot of testing, I even filmed in portrait mode and then I rode the image and verified that it was doing better than evidenced by the vertical OS DOESN´T WORK!
      Therefore, it would suggested the following:
      1- A closer look on your part for this disagreeable situation and update of the firmware in order to improve the performance of the OS in position OS2.
      2- An “Sigma Otimization Pro” software update to allow a custom OS configuration. I suggested that instead of 3 options, Dinamic, Standard and Moderate, there was a fourth option fully customized by the user that could choose the percentage of OS in each of the axes (X,Y)!
      On the other hand I do not see the necessity of the standard option since in the position C OFF and OS in position OS1 we have the OS in Standard mode!

      I am waiting for your response to this problem which leaves me partly unsatisfied with this excellent lens.

      João Xavier

  12. J. Harry Canfield

    I am looking at the 150 -600 Sigma Contemporary. I really liked your review and answered a lot of questions.
    I am looking at a company on line called HancX.com 6017 N Forest Glen Chicago 60646. Phone 844 219-2966 Never heard of them before. They are offering the contemporary for $593.40 new in the box. This sounds to good to be true. What do you think about them.

    1. J. HarryCanfield,
      It sounds as if the company is offering the “International version” which does not have a warranty. Only the “US” version has a warranty for US residents.

  13. Thanks for the very nice review, Jim.
    I have a Canon 5D Mark III. Is the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary compatible with the Canon 1.4X and/or 2X extenders?

  14. Dear Jim,

    Thank you for an excellent review and for saving me $900 as was about to commit to the sports!
    I am from the UK and do a lot of wild life photography.

    I use Sigma lenses on my micro four thirds Olympus cameras – canon mounts with an adaptor.

    How do you feel these 150-600mm lenses would function with the adaptor on my MFT cameras?

    Thank you again for your hard work on our behalf- please don’t think it’s not appreciated – it most certainly is

    Warm regards


Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top