Sigma sport 150-600 vs Tamron 150-600 G2 vs Canon 100-500 Lens comparison, Canon R 5.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2024
- I compare three popular zoom lenses and try to find out which one is the best!
0:24 Intro
1:57 Lens features
6:45 Controlled indoor testing of lenses Canon vs Sigma
9:26 Controlled indoor testing of lenses Canon vs Tamron
10:20 Controlled indoor testing of lenses Sigma vs Tamron
11:26 Controlled indoor testing of lenses at Slow shutter speeds
13:27 Field test
21:34 Conclusions - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 58 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TgNEbYSTY0Y/mqdefault.jpg)
0:24 Intro
1:57 Lens features
6:45 Controlled indoor testing of lenses Canon vs Sigma
9:26 Controlled indoor testing of lenses Canon vs Tamron
10:20 Controlled indoor testing of lenses Sigma vs Tamron
11:26 Controlled indoor testing of lenses at Slow shutter speeds
13:27 Field test
21:34 Conclusions
Thank you so much for having the test results in the beginning of your video! The only a bit stressful part of this video is the music… :-) thank you for sharing.
Thank you!
I appreciate your comparison of these lenses and your style in presenting your conclusions.
I began working as a professional photographer, over 40 years ago, specializing in wildlife photography and using Canon almost exclusively throughout that time. These days I am retired and shoot for my own pleasure, I also do a lot of comparison testing and have tested the Sigma 150-600c and 60-600s against the Canon RF 100-500 on both the R5 and R6 bodies.
Like you, my experience of evaluating the Sigma sports vs contemporary is that that optical performance is not significantly different, and the C version is not only much cheaper, but much lighter built - which, for many, are great benefits.
In this comparison, there are some issues that I think need to be considered.
1. METHODOLOGY: When shooting comparison shots I recommend getting a target that will be consistent and not move: such as a toy bird, truck etc. That way one can eliminate some significant variables. Also, shooting with units on a tripod and hand-held is a good practice. The former, again, eliminates a variable for resolution, while the latter demonstrates real-world scenarios of handling in the field: where weight and balance then come into play and can have a significant impact on usability and image quality.
2. FOCAL LENGTHS: The Canon is 100mm shorter in focal range and that is quite significant. For example, your comparison of sharpness was taken at two different focal lengths, which is very significant. I would have suggested comparing at the same focal lengths as well as each lens' maximum and minimum. Further, shooting at greatest aperture and than at a common one would have provided some interesting context. Finally, I would love to have seen your comparison at much lower ISO values - I would never approach anywhere near that value of 12,800.
3. The comparison of the Tamron to Canon. The Tamron at 600mm seems to display a shorter image size than the Sigma, which suggests it suffers from focus breathing. I noticed this on the both interior and wildlife shots.
Your result confirm my own conclusion that one is paying a premium for a native optic with better performance, but with a significantly shorter focal length. The other two units are not designed for the RF system, so Canon immediately has the advantage there, and they are really for a different scenario: by that I mean a lower price but longer reach. Sigma have specifically said that they did not design these EF lenses for the MILC systems, and I am sure Tamron would say the same. That said, I think they both perform quite well considering that handicap. Doubtless 3rd party manufacturers will produce new product as soon as they can do so.
As always, one has to question the significance of pixel-peeping in consideration of real-world situations where, frankly, user performance will have a huge impact upon the image quality. That is not a criticism of your methodology, more a comment on the community fixation on technology rather than technique.
All that said, I think your efforts add an interesting contribution for those trying to make a decision and applaud you for doing so.
Thank you very much for your detailed comments and analysis. I really appreciate the constructive feedback. I totally agree with you. At the end of the day, it's the content of the pictures/mood/composition/lighting etc that lead to a great picture than outright sharpness. Once the 3rd party manufacturers make rf lenses, they will likely be much better.
Totalmente de acuerdo con todo su detallado análisis y comentario que considero muy acertado.
Muchas gracias a ambos, a Carmine red por su comparativa y análisis, y a usted por el suyo. Un cordial saludo.
Totally agree with all your detailed analysis and comment that I consider very accurate. Many thanks to both of you, to Carmine red for his comparison and analysis, and to you for yours. A cordial greeting.
@@mjbacomd Thank you!
The most interesting thing about your test to me was the that the Canon at f7.1 was actually a little brighter than the Sigma and Tamron at f6.3. When Canon first announced this lens I thought, "f7.1, no way would I ever buy a lens that slow". Clearly however, the Canon has a brighter T-stop than the other two. I guess it must have better coatings on the glass to allow that better light transmission. So maximum aperture is no reason to prefer the "faster" Sigma or Tamron. (Well, except you could get slightly shallower depth of field wide open with the Tamron and Sigma).
You are correct. It is an amazing lens except for the price. The depth of field difference would really be unnoticeable.
One other minor downside of the RF 100-500 is that it can only be used with an extender from 300mm out. Not really a deal breaker, but with a 1.4 extender for example, you can only zoom "out" to the 300mm position, which means 420mm is as wide as you can go. Compare that to the Sigma (which I own) where, with the extender I can go as wide as the lens will (150mm) which is equal to 210mm with the extender. Sometimes I need to zoom a bit wider, so I'm not sure I like being constrained to 420mm as the "wide end" with the RF100-500 + 1.4 extender. I know the RF 100-500 is a great lens. There is no denying that, but considering I paid less than $1000 for my Sigma, I must say I'm quite happy with it on my R5.
Agree, that is a downside. However it makes up with its great image quality even when cropped.
Thanks for posting this review, some good insights.
Thank you for your comment!
Thanks so much for not using background music.
🙂
Just bought this lens, great video !
Congratulations and thank you!
Outstanding,thanks for your contribution to the photography community
Thank you for your comment!
Thanks for the video!
I have the Sigma for a few years now.
You should consider that it is sharper on 500mm than 600mm. Also sharper on f7.1 than f6.3.
So it would be rly interesting to see a comparison on 500mm and f7.1.
Good point. Have not tested that specifically. Regardless, I feel the canon is more consistent in sharpness (number of sharp shots) throughout the zoom range likely because it plays well with Canon mirrorless bodies.
Do you think the difference would be noticeable on a lower MP camera like the EOS RP? I am looking to upgrade from the sigma 150-600 + EOS RP, and am wondering if the canon 100-500 would be worth it for me or if I should upgrade the body first.
I have not used the RP, but in general, the RF lenses play much better with the mirrorless R series canon cameras, especially the image stabilization and consistency of in focus shots. The weight and minimum focus distance are also a plus. I have been very happy with mine.
@@carminered3229 thanks for the response. I'll go for the lens first then and hope someday an R version of the 7d will come to accompany it :)
@@haaspaas2 Good luck. You cant go wrong!
Thanks for getting to the point!
😀
However, now tamron g2 ver is available in the market. Hope it's much better in sharpness and focusing functions.
Your comment, please.
I have not used the g2 version, so cannot really comment. In my experience, in general, the native canon RF lenses works much better with the RF bodies. If tamron comes out with an RF lens, it may be a different story.
Great Comparison
Please compare all three lenses on the Canon 90d please
Thank you for watching. Unfortunately the 100 to 500 is an RF lens and compatible with the 90d.
Wish you had compared like for like at 500 rather than 600. I have the tamron g2 and never go longer than 500 because image quality is known to be not so good at 600. I'm upgrading from a canon 80d to r7 so trying to decide whether to keep or sell the tamron
Regardless of sharpness at a certain focal length, I found the tamron to be inconsistent. Some shots were sharp, some were not. The RF lenses integrate much better with the RF bodies and with the Canon lens, all shots are sharp on the 100 to 500. The tamron can still take some great shots, however chance of soft shots are higher. Just my experience. Hope this helps.
@@carminered3229 thanks, my photography probably doesn't justify the cost of the 100 - 500 so my options are:
1. Keep the tamron
2. Buy the RF 100-400
3. Wait for a cheaper compatible RF long zoom.
I wonder how the 100-400 compares to my Tamron. If it was better or similar then I'd probably go for it.
@@stefanmarch Good luck in your decision!
@@carminered3229 One thing is absolutely certain: The worst lens in the bunch at 600mm f6.3 is the Canon.
Why did tou take the Sigma Sports and not the Contemporary model?
It was not available at that time.
To me it seems like the Sigma sport could be a compelling initial super telephoto lens, especially if you get one that is used. That way, you can have a zoom lens that is decent, while saving up for a 100-500 RF lens. At least for me, I only have old APS-C lenses for my RP. I am really considering getting an RF 35 prime lens and then a used sigma 150-600 sport. Then work on getting good lenses at ~24-100 range, before ever considering going for the 100-500 RF.
The reason I'd want to get a used sigma is simply that I would be able to resell it at a reduced loss, when/if I want to get rid of it. (It is better to have glass to use than not having any)
That's a good point! 🙂
@@carminered3229 I mean, maybe my logic is flawed and I would be better served with another lens. It just seems to be like a decent starting point, as I don't have any full frame glass yet. :)
@@Salaaran Can't go wrong either way. I really love my 100 to 500!
@@carminered3229 I bet I would love having that glass too! But as a total noob, I think going with a less ambitious lens (but still nice) would be the way to go. I would also feel odd putting on a 3k lens on my dingy RP house haha!
Thank you a bunch for the input though. It's always nice getting feedback when you are new and have a limited network who will let you try out their lenses :)
@@Salaaran You are welcome!
Thanks.
Sigma Contemporary should not be used in the rain. Sport is fine. The new Sigma Sport is much lighter. I love it.
Thank you for your comment.
Thanks Man.
I requested this video earlier.
N u delivered.
Thanks again.
Now I have no doubt.
N will go for Canon Rf 100 500
Glad it helped! 🙂
Hi. Thanks for this.
Just to say, as I have a sigma sports, that you can lock it in between the ends (150-600) and that you actually do not have to worry about it sliding IF you place that switch in the middle.. you have 3 positions: the first makes the zoom very light and here it will slide with its weight, the middle one is way stiffer and it will not let the lens slide easily and the third just locks the zoom in place.
Cheers. Gonna watch the rest. Stopped at 5:45 to say this.
Why do you compare a 500mm image with a 600mm? Shouldn't do that as the 600 zoom will always be worst.. un less you do it with a 14000 eur lens...
Compare both at the same zoom level....
Thank you for letting me know about the zoom lock!
Practically, you would always use the maximum zoom of your lens especially when shooting birds...so wanted to test the max zoom of both. Regardless, I felt that the 100 to 500 canon is better at all zoom ranges, mostly because it is made to work better with the RF bodies.
@@carminered3229 yes, there is no match for a Canon Lens used with a Canon Body, if we are talking high quality glass...
Like Nikon lenses on Nikon Cameras or even better, Sony lenses on Sony cameras. :)
The thing is, at 500mm, both Tamron and Sigma perform better than they do at 600mm. Not quite as teh Canon, of course, but better than at 600mm.
;)
the fact canon crippled the rf100-500 a 7.1 is ridiculous for the 3k dollar price tag. should be at least a 5.6 or 6.3 and you can only use an extender from 300mm-500 its defiantly overpriced for a lens that should have better characteristics. Still an overall great lens though. I own the sigma sport and it may not be as sharp as the canon, but it has better reach and better in low light than the canon and can use the extender 150 all to 600
It definitely is more expensive than it needed to be especially considering that the sony 200 to 600 is cheaper. However, despite its limitations, it is a superb lens. At 7.1, my camera chooses similar or lower iso compared to 6.3 on a tamron or sigma and the images appear cleaner, at least on the R5. I also find consistently more shots in focus with the canon. It is also very light and compact. The sigma however is a great option, considering the price. Regardless, the enjoyment comes with spending time in nature!
I think it's a 6.3 up to 472mm if that makes any difference
Sigma weight is wrong, it's 2100g, not 2800g. And comparing sharpness at ISO 12800, oh my, this is ridiculous.
Sigma sport for canon mount- weight according to sigmas website is 2860g. .www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/150-600mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-s. So I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from. Also since all lenses were compared at the same ISO, I think it's fair. There are many more comparisons in the video at other ISOs. Cheers!
@@carminered3229 Ah ok. I looked at the mirrorless version, my fault. Regarding the comparison, I jumped at the chapter mark for Sigma vs Tamron after the intro.
Sorry, the field-test-sharpness-comparison is misleading. In my opinion the blur comes from poor focus or camera/object movement and not the lenses.
Thank you for your comment. It carries over with stationary objects as well. The RF canon lens is just more consistent!
Sorry, but this makes no sense because you're comparing lenses at different focal lengths AND f-stops. By far the most important comparison right out of the gate would be all three lenses at 500mm f7.1. I quit watching at 7:00. My apologies if you did the proper comparison later in the video.
Agree, but that defeats the purpose of a 600 mm lens. Regardless of focal length, the Canon is more consistent in sharpness (more shots in focus and sharp).
@@carminered3229 I get what you're saying. I do appreciate your test, and it has been useful. I'll be getting my RF lens tomorrow in large part due to watching this video.
@@idahofallsmagazine3691 Thank you. Congratulations. You will love the lens.
I think it does makes sense. Canon at 500mm is not the same as Sigma as 600mm.. Sigma is more like 570mm when comparing to the Canon. Not so big of a difference.. and if Canon gets lower ISO most of the cases then there has to be something different in F-stops as well..
I do own the Sigma.
On the major zoom range indicators there is a dot. You can lock it at any major value. Not in between. So you can lock it at 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 and 600 mm and some more. Giving you a kind of prime fixed lens.
When comparing pictures the picture print on the Canon is simply way BIGGER on the print. You can see it at 7:30 when the font size of the CANON lettets is way smaller in relation to the SIGMA name print. And the sharpness differences can EASILY be explained by the diff in picture print size. And WHAT do you do withe the white balance or yellowish filtering??? That s hurting pic quality as well.
How you think to compare using very different pictures and prints?
The Sigma has the push/pull zoom option you re forgetting to mention, major advantage having to speed zoom when wildlife suddenly moves. Forgetting about that?
What are you comparing man ? !
If you do reviews pls get your facts straight.
And create a fair level playing field!!
Because when your facts are off, your conclusion isn t worth that much and you re hurting a magnificient piece of kit and you are needless rushing people to spend top dollar they could have saved.
No I do not own Sigma shares and I do shoot and own Tamron and Canon lenses.
The Sigma is THE absolute winner once you ve learned to shoot it sharp with all lenses, needing a seperate technique all of them.
The print sizes are exactly the same. The reason the sigma appears bigger is because it is at 600 mm and canon is at 500 mm. So please don't jump to conclusions. The lens coatings on the lenses are different and thus the sigma exposes a little differently/darker. The white balance is set to auto for both.These are just my observations my friend. Please feel to test them side by side yourself and reach your own conclusions. You can make good pictures with almost any lens if you are a good photogeapher. By the way I do this purely for fun in my spare time, of which i have very little, in the hopes that it may be helpful for others and do not make a penny doing this.
you have to compare what is comparable, a lens at 3100 euros while the other two are less than half the price, then canon is not great in terms of adjustment rings. the zoom placed at the front, the function ring is very badly placed, very close to the case, the focusing ring is not practical because placed just at the level of the collar, all these rings are placed in an unusual way at my opinion and for twice the price they could have done better at canon !
lL faut comparer ce qui est comparable, un objectif à 3100 euros alors que les deux autres font moins de la moitié du prix, ensuite canon n'est pas top au niveau des bagues de réglages . le zoom placé à l'avant, la bague de fonction est très mal placée, très près du boitier , la bague de mise au point n'est pas pratique car placée juste au niveau du collier, toutes ces bagues sont placées de manière inhabituelle à mon avis et pour le double de prix ils auraient pu faire mieux chez canon !
Thank you for your comment. Sure canon could have done better and also lowered the price. However, in my experience the image quality out of the Canon lens beats the other two. If canon ever let's third party manufacturers make RF lenses, it may close the gap.
@@carminered3229 C'est vrai que les objectifs canon EF et RF ne sont pas à la portée de tous ils restent très chers !