Sigma 60-600mm for Nikon is it worth it?

[Photof2as]

I had the 150-600 sport for about 14 months and loved it...but the weight became a problem over time. It was super sharp at 600mm and took the Sigma 1.4TC ok for static subjects. My main issue was the weight, after 12 months of lugging it around I finally bit the bullet and bought the 500mm pf. My back instantly thanked me, my wife ... not so much. The problem with the Sigma is it needs to be on a monopod 95% of the time, at 2.9kg it's not a lens you take with you for a walk in the woods. It's more of a destination lens, like some of Nikons big prime lenses. The 500mm PF is a run and gun lens that gives you more opportunities mainly because you will be more likely to be out in the field with it. Having said all of that some of my favourite images where captured with this 150-600 sport lens, so if you can put up with the weight it might be the lens for you.

Thanks for the info. I heard that from several sources. Great lens but HEAVY. I guess it might be part of a weight training program

 

[Ken Miracle]

Thanks for the info. I heard that from several sources. Great lens but HEAVY. I guess it might be part of a weight training program

I hand hold as I am out birding in all types of terrain and habitat. I lift weights 3 days a week for a reason The Sigma 60-600 Sigma Sport ended up being part of my weight training program when I moved to the Nikkor 600 f/4E actually the weight was not that different but the f/4E was bulkier and harder to manage. Now with the Z800pf and Z100-400 w and w/o TC on my Z9 feel like fetherweights ... actually having to re learn how to hold them without as much weight forward

 

[RichF]

In general a 10x zoom has lots of compromises and IQ will suffer along the way. Depends upon what you want, but if you are planning on putting the lens on a 45MP body and expect really large prints, you may be disappointed

 

[Ken Miracle]

In general a 10x zoom has lots of compromises and IQ will suffer along the way. Depends upon what you want, but if you are planning on putting the lens on a 45MP body and expect really large prints, you may be disappointed

"In general" is the operative phrase As you probably remember I owned a 600 f/4E and it was one of the best lenses I ever used. I would say my copy of the Z100-400 with or without the 1.4 TC will hold up to large prints throughout the range on the Z6II or Z9 and I would say it is better all around than the best variable focal length lenses I owned in the past and I was lucky enough to have had some great copies.

However If you know the lens and your camera you can, and I did produce very large prints, with 150-600 and 60-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron on a D850.

Albeit the vast majority of those were produced from the large end of the focal length range. My first large variable focal length lens was a Sigma 50-500 my copy had a sweet spot at 450 mm ... but that was in my D300s and D4s days.

Later on the D500 and D850 my copies of the Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 Sports would produce any size of print you wanted at 600mm ... if the camera and I did our part. The Sigma 60-600 was also great at 60 but it did have some focal lengths in between that it was not as good at.

My first Tamron 150-600 could not hold a candle to the Sigma Sports but my copy of the Tamron 150-600 G2 produced great prints and was every bit as good with IQ as either of the Sigmas but not quite as fast to focus as the 60-600.

My copy of the Nikon 200-500 was bad out of the box and it took Nikon 3 tries to get it fixed and it was still not better than the Sigma 150-600 Sport or the Tamron 150-600 G2 and that is why I sold it and kept the others. I always like to have 2 long lenses in case something happens with 1 but did not need 3 and even though I took some amazing shots with it in Africa the Nikon 200-500 went since it did not have that extra 100mm of the other 2.

The most "shocking" ... as in "it can not be that good throughout the focal length range" is the Tamron 18-400. I sold mine along with all my non Z mount lenses in the last couple of months ... except my nifty 50 and 500pf. My wife still has her 18-400 and it is her primary lens on her Z50. Macro to tight bird shots and some wide end landscapes thrown it can handle them all amazingly well. I get why a number of people have taken two 18-400's, one as a back up in case one got dropped out of a moving safari vehicle, as their only lens to Africa.

 

[RichF]

"In general" is the operative phrase As you probably remember I owned a 600 f/4E and it was one of the best lenses I ever used. I would say my copy of the Z100-400 with or without the 1.4 TC will hold up to large prints throughout the range on the Z6II or Z9 and I would say it is better all around than the best variable focal length lenses I owned in the past and I was lucky enough to have had some great copies.

However If you know the lens and your camera you can, and I did produce very large prints, with 150-600 and 60-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron on a D850.

Albeit the vast majority of those were produced from the large end of the focal length range. My first large variable focal length lens was a Sigma 50-500 my copy had a sweet spot at 450 mm ... but that was in my D300s and D4s days.

Later on the D500 and D850 my copies of the Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 Sports would produce any size of print you wanted at 600mm ... if the camera and I did our part. The Sigma 60-600 was also great at 60 but it did have some focal lengths in between that it was not as good at.

My first Tamron 150-600 could not hold a candle to the Sigma Sports but my copy of the Tamron 150-600 G2 produced great prints and was every bit as good with IQ as either of the Sigmas but not quite as fast to focus as the 60-600.

My copy of the Nikon 200-500 was bad out of the box and it took Nikon 3 tries to get it fixed and it was still not better than the Sigma 150-600 Sport or the Tamron 150-600 G2 and that is why I sold it and kept the others. I always like to have 2 long lenses in case something happens with 1 but did not need 3 and even though I took some amazing shots with it in Africa the Nikon 200-500 went since it did not have that extra 100mm of the other 2.

The most "shocking" ... as in "it can not be that good throughout the focal length range" is the Tamron 18-400. I sold mine along with all my non Z mount lenses in the last couple of months ... except my nifty 50 and 500pf. My wife still has her 18-400 and it is her primary lens on her Z50. Macro to tight bird shots and some wide end landscapes thrown it can handle them all amazingly well. I get why a number of people have taken two 18-400's, one as a back up in case one got dropped out of a moving safari vehicle, as their only lens to Africa.

I had a canon 30-300 and it was okay over most the range. Never great. I am sure that there are exception, my original canon 100-400 push/pull lens was great. Subsequent copies, including v2, was not as good -though the consensus what that the V2 was a better lens. As usual, YMMV

 

[Ken Miracle]

I had a canon 30-300 and it was okay over most the range. Never great. I am sure that there are exception, my original canon 100-400 push/pull lens was great. Subsequent copies, including v2, was not as good -though the consensus what that the V2 was a better lens. As usual, YMMV

I think there are more copy variables than the majority may think ... I have had friends whose Nikon 200-500 copies were amazing ... and one in particular whose Tamron 150-600 G2 was very marginal and Tamron replaced it and that copy was still not quite as good as my copy ... so that person gave her Tamron to her son and stayed with the Nikon 200-500.

 

[RichF]

I think there are more copy variables than the majority may think ... I have had friends whose Nikon 200-500 copies were amazing ... and one in particular whose Tamron 150-600 G2 was very marginal and Tamron replaced it and that copy was still not quite as good as my copy ... so that person gave her Tamron to her son and stayed with the Nikon 200-500.

Not surprised. Mfr tolerance, especially for consumer grade lens can be somewhat soft

 

[Calson]

The Canon 50-1000 is one of the most widely used lens for pro video and it has a 20:1 zoom range. Generalizations are generally wrong.

 

[kingcat]

I have both the Nikon D850 and the Sigma 60-600 mm. They work great together and the pair are my go to lens for wildlife. They are heavy but just rest on something and you’ll be fine. The versatility is what is great. The photos are sharp. Just wish the Fstops went lower on the 600 mm.

 

[Calson]

I would go by the reviews by users of this lens with Sony mirrorless cameras with internal optical stabilization. Not relevant to compare to the f-mount version on a D850 or other DSLR camera that lacks in-camera optical stabilization.

I thought the Nikon 200-500mm an excellent lens for the price and better than the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses available at that point in time. I bought the Tamron and both Sigma 150-600mm and used them with a Nikon DSLR along with the 200-500mm lens. I compared overall VR and focusing performance of the 4 lenses and decided that the Nikon 200-500mm was the best of the four - at that time (2016).

A 60-600mm zoom would provide the benefits I now have with a 100-400mm and a 180-600mm lens which have a combined weight of 7.5 lbs or a full 2 lbs more than the 60-600mm lens. People are using this lens with the Sony mirrorless camera to shoot video hand held and that is a real game changer.