I don’t own it but have friends who have it and also it’s big brother weighing 3kg (this is the Contemporary version at 1.9kg). I own the Sigma 50-500mm which has given me some great shots but my main lens for wildlife is the 500mm f/5.6 PF and it only weighs 1460g.
Nice video Billie. I’m sure you normally shoot with a nice prime lens, but I had a general question on focal length for baseball. I use Sony and they have a 100-400 and 200-600 I have been looking at. When considering the two I am wondering about that 400-600 range. Do you often shoot at those focal lengths for baseball? And if you were shooting youth baseball and you personally had to choose, would you think the 100-400 or 200-600 would make more sense? Side note: I also like shooting wildlife so that goes into my decision but I’ll leave it at the baseball question for you. Thanks for taking the time to answer questions of your viewers!
Good thoughts Brian. Tough call! Honestly I use the 500 lens for baseball maybe 1/4 of the games I shoot, the rest I stick to the 400. So I would say your success rate and amount of good images you'll be able to get would be higher with the 100-400. That extra range of 400-600 is really great for "go big or go home" type of shots, but you're left useless if something happens close to you, say at one of the bases or at home plate. I think if you had to choose one for baseball, I'd go with the 100-400!
This is an amazing lens for the money. I'm semi-pro and have a 400mm f2.8, but have this as well as a back-up or to use as a remote camera. 600mm on a crop sensor will nicely frame the batter from the outfield stands.
Hahaha. Now you see how the sauce is made. It ain't pretty! Thanks for everything down there - we'll be leaning on your stuff to get us through these next few weeks!
I have used this lens in the past and especially in nighttime game under floodlights focusing on say athletics, Football, rugby etc and indoor. The focusing is very slow in comparison to my other lenses. I compared to Nikon 120-300mm f2.8 and Nikon 180-400mm for and Nikon 400mm f2.8 lens. Long throw in the lens plus tight to twist in the model I used. As you explained the drawbacks maybe ok formorning to middle afternoon but here in the British Isles the light is different to be based in florid or similar locations.
Yeah its my go-to for shooting surfing events where I don't want to trash the 400 2.8 with salt spray, but it is definitely a daytime lens. The AF speed also works fine for the lateral movement in surfing, but I could definitely see it struggle a bit with an athlete running straight at you
Better weather sealing and better build quality. I believe there may also be a slight difference in the coating on the elements, but when I tested them I couldn't see any difference in image quality between the two models.
@@freshiephotography1872 Yes exactly. My impression is it's all in the quality of the actual build/casing of the lens, but the autofocus, sharpness, image quality etc. seems to be the same.
Hey Billie, I have a Fujifilm X-t20 and I was wondering if you knew any good lenses that could work for this type of camera, I wasn’t sure if sigma lenses can be used on Fujifilm.
Hey, good question. Unfortunately this won't work for Fuji. The third party lenses for Fuji are tougher to come by sadly. The best bet would be the Fuji 100-400mm, but it is about double the price of the Sigma. If you are interested, Noah at Hunt's can help you look into it!
Thanks Jeff, appreciate that. Well, it depends on your priorities. From an aperture standpoint, that 300 is going to be superior, even with the extender. It'll also perform better in low light situations, so it depends if you do a lot of that or mostly daytime photography. But, if you feel like you're going to be shooting with a need for more reach more often, I would definitely give the Sigma some consideration. That 600 is a whole different level of zoom. A tough choice but great results either way!
Hey guys, i'm new to photography and getting into sports and wildlife photos. I'm also on a budget so the tamron/sigma options look reasonable. Im using an aps-c camera and doubting between a 100-400 or a 150-600. What do you guys think, is the extra weight and size worth the extra 200mm in range? Love to hear your experience
Personally, I think the 100-400 is a higher performance lens, although likely more pricey. The 150-600 is definitely a great, versatile lens for the budget, so I think the deciding factor would be how much you want to spend! You'll get great results with both.
Anyone else used this lens before?!
Yep, my go-to for shooting surfing events. Not too keen on destroying the 400 2.8 with salt spray, so this is a great alternative
@@freshiephotography1872 Nice! Good call haha. Yeah a great little option instead of the big guy!
I don’t own it but have friends who have it and also it’s big brother weighing 3kg (this is the Contemporary version at 1.9kg). I own the Sigma 50-500mm which has given me some great shots but my main lens for wildlife is the 500mm f/5.6 PF and it only weighs 1460g.
Wow Billy you’ve now got the D6. What do you think of it compared to the D5?
@@Gazzab6 I slid that one in there ;) Yes, I LOVE it. A review will be forthcoming.
Thanks very much for checking out this lens, Billie, and enjoy spring training!
Thank YOU guys! Great lens!
I’ve been using this lens for about 8 months and I’m loving it!
Nice! Yeah it's nice - I was impressed with it!
Nice video Billie. I’m sure you normally shoot with a nice prime lens, but I had a general question on focal length for baseball. I use Sony and they have a 100-400 and 200-600 I have been looking at. When considering the two I am wondering about that 400-600 range. Do you often shoot at those focal lengths for baseball? And if you were shooting youth baseball and you personally had to choose, would you think the 100-400 or 200-600 would make more sense? Side note: I also like shooting wildlife so that goes into my decision but I’ll leave it at the baseball question for you. Thanks for taking the time to answer questions of your viewers!
Good thoughts Brian. Tough call! Honestly I use the 500 lens for baseball maybe 1/4 of the games I shoot, the rest I stick to the 400. So I would say your success rate and amount of good images you'll be able to get would be higher with the 100-400. That extra range of 400-600 is really great for "go big or go home" type of shots, but you're left useless if something happens close to you, say at one of the bases or at home plate. I think if you had to choose one for baseball, I'd go with the 100-400!
This is an amazing lens for the money. I'm semi-pro and have a 400mm f2.8, but have this as well as a back-up or to use as a remote camera. 600mm on a crop sensor will nicely frame the batter from the outfield stands.
Great call! Would work great as a remote lens or as a backup for your workhorse 400 2.8. Thank you!
Billie was this the Sigma sport or contemporary? I'm between the Nikon 200-500 and Sigma 150-600 sport for my z6ii and D810 ? thanks
Yes. I purchased the contemporary version of this lens. I take it you was reviewing the sports model 🤔
Yes, that's correct!
Cool to have the back of my head make a cameo in one of your videos haha! Great video as always.
Hahaha. Now you see how the sauce is made. It ain't pretty! Thanks for everything down there - we'll be leaning on your stuff to get us through these next few weeks!
I have used this lens in the past and especially in nighttime game under floodlights focusing on say athletics, Football, rugby etc and indoor. The focusing is very slow in comparison to my other lenses. I compared to Nikon 120-300mm f2.8 and Nikon 180-400mm for and Nikon 400mm f2.8 lens. Long throw in the lens plus tight to twist in the model I used. As you explained the drawbacks maybe ok formorning to middle afternoon but here in the British Isles the light is different to be based in florid or similar locations.
Indeed! Seemed fine and fast during the day but I would imagine it'd be tricky at night or in low light.
@@billieweiss7681 shows why the 400mm f2.8 lens is used both in day and night
Yeah its my go-to for shooting surfing events where I don't want to trash the 400 2.8 with salt spray, but it is definitely a daytime lens. The AF speed also works fine for the lateral movement in surfing, but I could definitely see it struggle a bit with an athlete running straight at you
Great video man! Love these videos, all the info you need and no BS!!
Thanks Rich! Appreciate the feedback. Yep, I try to keep it to the point - a lotta wasted time on this platform!
Great video as always! Do you know what the difference between the base model and the sport model is? Besides being 1000 more.
Better weather sealing and better build quality. I believe there may also be a slight difference in the coating on the elements, but when I tested them I couldn't see any difference in image quality between the two models.
@@freshiephotography1872 Yes exactly. My impression is it's all in the quality of the actual build/casing of the lens, but the autofocus, sharpness, image quality etc. seems to be the same.
How does it compare to there 120-300mm f/2.8 sport?
Hey Billie, I have a Fujifilm X-t20 and I was wondering if you knew any good lenses that could work for this type of camera, I wasn’t sure if sigma lenses can be used on Fujifilm.
Hey, good question. Unfortunately this won't work for Fuji. The third party lenses for Fuji are tougher to come by sadly. The best bet would be the Fuji 100-400mm, but it is about double the price of the Sigma. If you are interested, Noah at Hunt's can help you look into it!
Good video Billie I enjoyed watching it.
I have a Canon 300mm 2.8 is lens do you think I should get a 1x4 extender or invest in the Sigma lens ?
Thanks Jeff, appreciate that. Well, it depends on your priorities. From an aperture standpoint, that 300 is going to be superior, even with the extender. It'll also perform better in low light situations, so it depends if you do a lot of that or mostly daytime photography. But, if you feel like you're going to be shooting with a need for more reach more often, I would definitely give the Sigma some consideration. That 600 is a whole different level of zoom. A tough choice but great results either way!
Nice review....love your videos
Thanks so much, Paul! Appreciate it.
Hey guys, i'm new to photography and getting into sports and wildlife photos. I'm also on a budget so the tamron/sigma options look reasonable. Im using an aps-c camera and doubting between a 100-400 or a 150-600. What do you guys think, is the extra weight and size worth the extra 200mm in range? Love to hear your experience
Personally, I think the 100-400 is a higher performance lens, although likely more pricey. The 150-600 is definitely a great, versatile lens for the budget, so I think the deciding factor would be how much you want to spend! You'll get great results with both.
I have been using the
Using the what?! :)
Is there a mid level better than this but not 5,000?
Not to my knowledge. You kind of hover in this price range until you jump up to the 6-7K range for the higher end lenses.
@@billieweiss7681 thanks for replying!
So did the other guys in the pit give you grief for sporting that?
Hahaha, no grief given!