Which would you go with and why?

Jared, I always appreciate it when you say "Is there a difference? Yes. Does it matter? No/In most cases, no/Probably not." because when it comes down to so many things, "Can you find a difference," is not equivalent to, "Does this make a difference?" The nits one picks should be the ones that count.

Luv it...the "L Mount Alliance" is back! Btw, Jordan from DP Review uses the "L Mount" for his productions.

I made your “L Mount alliance” a Ringtone! It’s awesome

When Olympus released their $7,500 150-400mm F4.5, I went to their website to read about it. No way I want to buy something so expensive. To capitalize on the interest in that fancy lens, they put their $550 75-300mm II f4.8-6.7 lens on sale for just $399. So I bought that. It was backordered and took 3 months before I got mine. It weighs less than a lb. I had never been interested in such a long lens, but it has proven to be a powerful muse for my wildlife photography. I learned to grab birds on the wing through a lot of practice. I live next to a huge lake. I've also taken it and another body backpacking along with my usual 12-45mm zoom. Maybe not the sharpest lens, but sharper than I thought it would be and it has great contrast. So, that long focal length has opened up a lot of new opportunities for my craft.

Definitely agree that taking one shot instead of using the motor drive is a great idea to learn 'anticipation'. I worked for a newspaper many many years ago and was given two rolls of film (yep, film) per day and expected to deliver 20+ 10x8 b/w glossies at the end of each day. That's 72 shots to grab everything! This stood me in great stead for the rest of my photography career and I would recommend everyone try it. Thanks Jared, love your work.

I actually went with the Tamron 150-500, and I shoot with the A1. I love wildlife photography but it’s not my bread and butter, the compactness of the lens allows me to put it in my bag easily and still fit a 14-24, a couple primes, a 2nd body, and a drone (mavic mini)! I have been loving the Tamron.

As a sports fan, I love seeing the fans in the stands and a slight bokeh which is fine with me. I know bokeh nerds love it, but it seems anytime I look at Sport Illustrated the images include the fans making it interactive.

We're planning on upgrading to the sigma, as a wildlife film company the cheaper costs is worth as it'll go into rigging (we need rail support with our FS7) thanks for the comparison, was helpful to know that we definitely don't need the Sony, looks like the sigma had a few features that are going to be better for filming anyway

I watched this video 2 years ago but no need super-zoom lens that day. I bought the Sigma for my a6700 for bird photography this weekend. Thank you for honest review.

For birding on my a6700, I had both lenses, first the Sigma, which turned out to be clearly more soft in the long end (600mm). Once i tried the Sony, to see the difference, i was all the sudden getting tack sharp, and thus I let go the Sigma (sold it to MPB that same day). My experience confirms like you said - use native glass !

Use to watch so many of your videos, glad to see you’re still here.

The fact that you had one shot and captured the ball in frame is absolutely insane considering those balls are going 90mph very impressive 🙏

I love the 200 to 600! Yes slow at 5.6. But for shooting sports during the day outside it’s incredible. It’s heavy

@7:36 correction: The 1.4 teleconverter added will give a max aperture of f9 and not f11 at 600mm

The zoo is a horrible place to test a wildlife lens; all photos look good at the zoo. Go to your neighborhood park and shoot some birds; if you don't like birds, get one of your neighborhood Fros to take it out for you.

Great comparison Jared, I like how down to earth you are with the conclusion. Some photographers are really elitist in terms of first party lenses and will only ever have something disparaging to say about third party brands, even though they have all been doing really well in recent times - especially Sigma and Tamron. I've not been lucky enough to have a big budget for photography most of my life as it's mainly a hobby. So $500 would make a big difference to me if the results are pretty much the same. That said, I'm sure there are photographers that would consider even my own photo gear budget unattainable and can only afford a $50 second-hand 50mm but an artist would still be able to make that work and get some great pictures. I do appreciate Sigma making some affordable lenses especially when I was starting out with photography, even before the Art/Sport/Contemporary lines they had a number of lenses with great price-to-performance ratio, enabling a budding young photographer to enjoy some brand-new lenses. But of course a professional can easily justify that extra $500 for the peace of mind that the lens will work perfectly with their body - or even if it's a hobbyist, if they comfortably afford it why not if they feel like they are getting a few extra features. One thing I do really want to compliment you on Jared is being so invested in your subjects and knowing everything about them. For your baseball shots, you seem to know all the lingo and the players. I know next to nothing about sports, and even less about baseball being from the UK! I would enjoy shooting sports though, for the challenge of capturing the right moments but that would certainly be a whole lot easier having the knowledge you do about the game and being able to predict what the players are going to do next. Maybe you are just particularly interested in baseball but I get the impression that it's more than that - you seem really professional in your approach to your photography subjects and are genuinely interested about who or what you're shooting. Even the zoo animals weren't just another snapshot but took on a new dimension as you were talking about the flamingos.

I hate the external zooms. Sony definitely did a great job with the 200-600. I just returned my Canon 100-500mm because the throw is way to long for fast action! I would rather have a slightly heavier lens that functions well than a small, compact lens.

I bought the Sigma 150-600 and did a great job on my Nikon Z 7ll . It was on sale at $899.00. Such a deal.Very Very Sharp

I'm presently using the Sigma 150-600C on my Canon R6 as the lighter weight and half the cost made it the more attractive option compared with the Sport. However I must admit if Sigma produce this lens in a Canon RF mount I think I might be looking to swap.

Now we just need this on the RF mount

I bought the 200-600 from Sony, due to the benefit of using tele-converter if I need to.

I had a Sony 200-600mm and never liked the sharpness even after send it under warranty for repair/ tuneup. I may do a comparison with Sigma 100-400 and the 150-600 mm I have on order. I sold my Sony 200-600 to B&H and don’t regret it. I’ll rent another 200-600 and do a comparison but think both Sigmas will out shine it. I already love my Sigma 100-400 and think it is superior to the Sony in terms of sharpness on my Sony a7RIV.

I wouldn't have known, or bothered, about the L-Mount Alliance until i saw your announcement.

I went with the Sony 200-600, it was the only super tele zoom available for Sony when I bought it. But I would also still buy it over the Sigma & the Tamron as the internal zooming and quick throw because of the internal zooming are features I appreciate and are willing to spend the extra money for them. The Sigma and Tamron are still great lenses if your budget can't stretch to 2 grand though. I would like to know though why almost none of the 1st Party lens makers are including Arca Swiss compatible tripod feet or even offering one for their big lenses. Canon, Nikon, Sony what gives :| SIgma and Tamron include them and their lenses cost less.

The difference between 15 fps and 21 fps is significant when shooting baseball. The key is the time between frames. The faster the better which means the higher frames per second the better, not that you want to shoot that many frames. I shoot with the 400mm F2.8 at 1/2500 second (cause that matters too) at 30 fps which allows me to get bat on ball frairly often which is what I want.

The sigma is preordered for two weeks now, time is ticking so slowly. Hopefully the a7iii will be decent. I played ice hockey for 25 years after picking up photography five years ago I’m so ready to test this lens at the rink also.

You certainly take great shots at the Phillies Games! Nice stuff! I have the Sony 200-600 and the A9. I bought the Sigma Sports F4 few years ago and have it also matched to the A9 using a Sigma MC-11. I like the Sigma lens, decent stuff.

I sold my sigma 150-600 sports including the 1.4 converter used on my Nikon D850. The image quality in range 500-600 was poor in chromatic abbreviation. I’m now waiting for a good bargain on a 400 or 500 2.8.

As credos97 stated below, the Sony is capable of 30fps. I have that very combination and checked the speed. To quote Sony "20 fps max. when shooting uncompressed or lossless RAW". You are shooting uncompressed RAW, as can be seen e.g. in the EXIF of your RAW files. Which is why you see the lower speed of 20fps. With that setting you would not get 30fps with any lens whatsoever.

That Moment when all his camera gear is worth more than a house

ISO should be no problem at 1600 for any camera that's currently out.

I put the 600mn F4 on the ZV E10, pretty balanced.

Thanks for the review ! I hope the sigma 150-600 sport will soon have an RF mount …

I've got the Sigma since more than a year and I'm satisfied. I'm not ready to spend 500$ more for the benefits I'd get from a Sony 200-600. It'd be also less versatile in its focal length

What about filmmaking?

I recently borrowed the Sony 200-600 to shoot an airshow and it was very nice. I had the Tamron 150-600 g2 DSLR lens before I switched to mirrorless and I didn’t like the external zooming. I also suspect the AF would be better with the native lens too. I have the Sony 100-400 now and have a hard time justifying a longer telephoto but I would probably pay the extra for the Sony if I did too.

The Fe200-600 is heavily discounted in the UK, and a "shop-soiled" example costs the same as the new Sigma... I'd take the used Sony every time

I was waiting for this, thank you sir. And could you do a comparison between 100-500 canon and 200-600 sony😍

I liked the Sigma pic better on the closeup of the eagle eye

Best line you’ve said in a hot minute! “I got boned the first time….not by a cougar” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Jared, it would have been nice to see the difference in the AFC drive hit rates between these 2 with a runner coming straight at you since the Sony uses a linear drive (as does the Tamron 150 -500) and the Sigma is using a stepping motor. Does it matter, it just might.

I would go with the D850/D500 and the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 #nikon

Are you going to do a real-world review of the Sony A1? Been waiting patiently :)

i love the 200-600 . well balanced and internal zoom, fast and sharp

I am currently trying to figure out which one to get and I am so happy I found this video. I trust your no bull and understanding of professional and enthusiasts. Leaning towards the sigma for the close range focusing (birds are unpredictable) . Although i do like the internal zoom on the Sony. This is hard as hell my friend !

I just found your channel and my lord I normally hate it when review videos have humor (I think it wastes time) BUT YOU ARE FUNNY DUDE😂 Subbing

One of the 10 L Mount alliance users here. Pairing this with my S1 and S5. I've noticed I have to stop down to around f/7.1 to get sharp focus at the end of the focal range. Loving the lens though. Kind of wish I kept my Sigma 100-400 though as a lighter walk around lens.

You wouldn't have to "keep twisting" with the Sigma if you did the push and pull, thus why it's there.

If i’m not completely wrong there is no Teleconverter Option for the eMount Sigma or the Tamron 150/500. Only the Sony has one (1.4x/2x) or the L Mount one. I ‘ve heard that 3rd Party Manifactures are not allowed to build one for eMount. The only solution ist the ef Mount Sigma 150/600 (c/sport) with mc11 and Sigma ef TC.

Thank you for super review! Have a more video and nice photos!

F6.3 is F9 with 1.4x teleconverter (it's F13 with the 2x TC, which most people don't use). And it should be noted that the α1 + 200-600mm CAN do 30fps in compressed RAW. I'm assuming you were shooting in uncompressed RAW... Yes, we all know you only shoot in uncompressed RAW, but I personally have no issues shooting in compressed RAW, the only time I shoot in uncompressed RAW is when perhaps the subject (like a bird) is backlit by the sun

I know you don't like cropping but would it be a good idea to just use one Sony 135mm 1.8 for all of it on a high MP Sony camera? ISO could be set to 100 because it's F1.8 and if you want a tighter shot you can crop it to the max. If you use the Sony A1 you can crop to 1/4th of your image and still have a 4k photo.

One cannot put teleconverter on this lens for Sony mount for a simple reason that no such teleconverter exists. Sony does not let Sigma develop teleconverters for Sony mount, and Sony's own teleconverter would not be recognized by the camera if attached to this lens. And yes, as many people already noted, teleconverters could be quite beneficial even for f6.3 lens (by the way, with 1.4TC aperture becomes 9, not 11), and TCs are made by Sigma for L mount, but not for Sony mount.

Been waiting for this

Great review as always! I have a choice to make as I have a 5d MK4 and the A73 , I can use the Sigma with both cameras using the adapter , but I haven's seen a adapter for the Sony lens to be used with the Canon . I do prefer the Sony 200-600mm though .

i have the sigma 150-600c its a great lens, with planetary photography the x2 canon teleconverter is perfect esp jupiter and the moon as they have stupid amounts of light to give away

I didn't know this lens was coming out 7 months ago and bought a 400 Sigma lens. Damn. My wife is going to be mad at me. I will now need to sell that one to buy this one. Hope I don't get burned to badly.

Nice review and perfectly fine with your reasoning. The price difference however is in the mean time wider. Here in Europe we pay 1650 Euro for the Sony and about 850 for the Sigma. Got my Sigma for 630 - 100 Sigma mail in rebate = 530 Euro. So the Sony is 2-3 times more expensive.

I can see the use of push/pull especially for me, being smaller (the lens is 5 percent my bodyweight). I would get extra leverage at the end, therefore being able to hold it more steadily.

I'm tempted to get this, but after having used the Sigma 120-300 on my Nikon D500 and now the Sigma 100-400 for Sony I think I'll trade it all in to get the Tamron 150-500. Granted it's f2.0/2.8, I really like how the Tamron 35-150 looks. I've also previously used the Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 G2 and I just really like the way those photos come out; even tho the 70-200 I had didn't necessarily have sharpness near the corners.

I wonder how sharp it would be with the Sony a7iii instead? A1 looks great!

Thanks for all the great info you share!

no, sometimes you need 840mm as i take super close ups of bird heads on 840 at ~3-4m away.

Thanks for your review it helped me out a lot.

Time to enjoy, cheers Fro

I've always loved those baby flamencoes! You are spot on about the single shot vs motor drive too - I shoot mostly single for sports now, partly to work on my anticipation, but also 12fps at 42mp gives me way too many shot to deal with!

This is great, awesome work!

I'm using the "L-MOUNT ALLIANCE" too :)

Thank you Jarred, very useful video for my decision

Sorry man, but to really test AF on such a lens you need to shoot NOT subjects that are moving mainly ACROSS the focal plane like your baseball players right here but rather THROUGH focal planes. That rapidly change distance to the lens, and move erratic. Nothing replaces real field test on birds. Here? We have no idea about these lenses' AF performance.

I hesitate between the Sony mount and the panasonic mount .... I have a sony a7 M3 and a panasonic s1r, which mount you will choose for sports photos at night, but with good lighting ... Thank you

You don't need a teleconverter - at the zoo !!

Nice review Jared. How would this lens hold up against the canon 800mm f11, vs this or the Tamron with a 1.4 telecomverter at f11. Given good light outdoor shooting.

If you're spending $7k on a camera, why not go native, it's only $500 more.

Good video man, appreciate you sharing it and your knowledge but you are definitely LOCO Jared in a good sense.

The Fro has spoken!

Thanks so much! I'm thinking Sigma, and buy another accessory,LOL. Excellent review!

There are more differences - for an example the picture/sec ratio which a sony cam give to 30pics/sec for the sony lense and 15pics/sec for the sigma. Further more, the topic with autofocus is a major criteria!

My dog, who is no longer with me (I still miss her!) weighed five pounds. At first, she was easy to carry around, but after ten minutes, my arms started to hurt. Five pounds doesn't sound like much, but when you're carrying it and moving around, OUCH. I bought a pouch for her and got a monopod for the Sigma (I have the contemporary version). ;) That being said, if I could afford the Sony 200-600mm lens, I'd buy it. Sharper images and features I'd really like to have.

By the way - ordered that Sigma lens as I'm using the L-mount since 5 years. :-)

Hi Jared. Great review like always. I have a question. Do you use any specific color profile / creative style in your sony camera when taking pictures in general? Your colors are amazing and seem to pop nicely. I know you most likely use your presets in post, but straight out of your camera it looks dope as well! I have the sony a7iii and my creative style is set on standard and take a lot of landscape and sports photos and straight out of the camera It doesn't seem as nice as yours. Maybe you have tips?

Thank you for this. Looking to buy one for my LUMIX S5ii in a few weeks time 😊

Wish I had £6500 for a Sony A1 😞🤣🤣 Keep up the good work man 👍

You are a little bit to much for me 😉 (take it easy) BUT still a great review. Thanks! I have L mount cameras and I am leaving Canon now as it is for me just now. (lacking a type Canon tracking and speed) Otherwice I once again would go for the Canon with type sports pictures.

Mannnnn why can't Sigma put this out on the Nikon Z-mount too. Something to fill the gap in the long distance Z-mount options

I love my 200 to 600 I have gotten some amazing shots that people said they had no idea that lens would actually do that. Yes at 5.6 he’s a bit slow for low light. My favorite thing is you saying “L Mount” alliance I have made it a ring tone

Great review. Thank you.

Excellent review

Went with the Sigma, thank you sir.

Pulling for zoom is awesome!

I rented Sony 200-600 for a week, and I tried it for a week, I didn't get a single sharp enough image that I could use, all of them on close up had very little to no details. I used a Tamron 150-600 before and it was pretty sharp and most images was usable. So I hope Sigma is more like Tamron.

Great video! Can you review the new tamron 35-150 when it comes out? I’m getting my first decent lens for e mount and am having a tough time deciding if I should wait for it!!

I’m looking at getting the Sony 200-600 !

Do the fro packs work on Lightroom mobile? Also could you do a video on Lightroom mobile and your opinion on it? A lot of times it’s much more convenient to edit my photos on my iPad rather than lug around my laptop

Used to shoot Minor League ball. Was poor and shooting for a weekly on my on dime. Only needed one image a week. Have tried everything from a 200 F/2 and 300 f/2.8 Nikon AIS glass. THAT was tough! Was about to leave and there was a guy at 2nd base that had been hitting and running all over the local team. Understand the game and anticipate! Said if there is a hit there will be a play at the plate. Sure enough (after pre focusing... lol) he comes around. James McCann was the catcher with ball in glove turning to tag Jacoby Ellsbury shooting thru the net full frame. Hard drive crashed and I eventually lost the image. Just my luck.

If you're wondering why the images are not that super sharp at the baseball field... I guess it has to do with the higher ISO, making the image more grainy and not as sharp. The higher the ISO the blurrier the image.

Could you compare the 3-4 years old SONY RX 10 IV vs this 600 mm lens?

Great review. Thanks

I have the older Sigma 150-600 EF mount and I really like that lens for both still and video. My personal feeling with Sigma lenses (with the exception of the art series) is that they have great sharpness, but the color and contrast is a little weak compared to the Canon glass. I'm sure it's the same when compared to Sony glass. That said, they may have made some advances with coatings, etc. that have improved some of my misgivings.