I’ve made up my mind, I’ll go for the Sony! No, the Sigma, the Sigma. Or maybe the Tamron?

Chris's reviews are really the best for lenses, he developed an amazing standarized testing that he keeps constant, so you can use it to compare different lenses, and when he does an explicit comparison like this it's really better.

Super comparison! You’re especially killing it lately. Great work, Chris!

One thing I've really grown to love about the Sony lens is how easy it is to adjust the zoom. Being internal means you have less mass to move and there are no added barrel seals needed so it's pretty easy to adjust with just my fingertips.

Thanks for the excellent review that helped me to decide to get the Sony 200-600 + 1.4x TC many months ago. It really is a spectacular lens, thanks for all your hard work. Your reviews are the first ones I go to before any other reviews. I hope you don't get bored of doing them. LOL

Oh THANK YOU! I've been desperately trying to find a comparison of these before I buy one soon. Thank you!

Superb comparison! Great work Chris (as usual)!

I like how you compare these super Telephoto lenses. Your review is very informative and decisive facts you laid out. I am very appreciate your information. Look forward to your next review

This isn’t the video we asked for, but instead the video we needed 🙏🏽 Thank you Chris

Wow, what a superb comparison! Thanks.

Great review. I have the 200-600mm and man that Sigma is impressive at that cost!

Really good work here Chris - thanks

yeeees...been waiting for this!

Having owned the Sony for some while now I'm happy to see the comparisons here and your opinion that the Sony is your preferred option Christopher especially as I would guess that the vast majority of owners would use the long end of the focal length most of the time however the Tamron and Sigma are both serious contenders in view of their cost and performance. Thanks for taking the time and effort involved in making this very informative comparison.

Awesome, thank you for this honest comparison!

Great video Chris. Yeah, the tripod collar on my Sony is wobbly too. Love the lens, though.

Great comparison - thank you !

I have the Sony 200-600mm for both my A7iii and A7Rii, it's a beast. I love the image quality. As an older chap, I must say it's no lightweight though. For travel, I am considering the new Sony E-Mount APS-C 70-350mm for the A7Rii as I'd get that extra crop factor 'zoom' and still have a massive file on the R series Sony sensor and a fraction of the weight in the lens.

In Switzerland the Sony is cheaper than the tamron. Crazy. This is partly because the Sony is crazy "cheap" here, the equivalent of USD $1867, or GBP 1346.... (that's including all taxes)

Great review, but I have to point out that you missed the teleconverter topic. This alone makes the Sony much more versatile.

I just bought the Sigma lens, and so far im very pleased with it.

Two notes; the sigma is only the least expensive in the UK, while in the US it's more expensive. Also, in terms of image quality, there seems to be some amount of copy variation. Another reviwer, Dustin Abbott, compared the Sigma and the Tamron and found the Tamron to be a little sharper, especially mid-frame, and the Sony was the sharpest out of all of them.

So glad you're able to provide such a comparison! However I think if reach is the absolute priority nothing can beat the sony + TC's. I know I wouldn't have been able to get the images of eagles or foxes here in ON Canada if I didn't have at least 840mm to work with (for context I'm using 24mp bodies a7iii/a9). I personally have no trouble with its size or weight.

Thank you Chris, that's a useful comparison. In Hong Kong, the prices of these 3 lenses are very close. Personally I will buy Sony if I need a long telephoto lens.

Amazing review! So detailed yet very concised. I actually bought the Sony 200-600 around 6 months ago as I saw no intention from either Sigma nor Tamron on releasing a superzoom for E-Mount. Now that all 3 lenses are officially out I can say that I'm actually pretty glad I went with the Sony, not because the other two are terrible lenses, but becasue it's best for what I need it for. Thanks again for the amazing review Chris! I would have no problem watching you reviewing paint dry or ice melting.

well done. perfect work!!!

Worth to mention only Sony can shoot with 20 and 30 FPS, and only Sony accept teleconverters. 3rd party lenses limited to 15 FPS.

Thank you!

Nice, very nice

About the wobbly foot of the sony, mine was too, and there are 4 screws to tighten under it. I don't know the others but the internal zooming of the Sony is areal pleasure to use as it can be moved just by one finger.

Good review.

You may look initial cost but remember you will have this lens for YEARS!! I had the Sigma before the Sony came out main reason was the update block that also is used for adjusting the different settings to your style of shooting like leading or lagging shot sharpest point. The reason I went Sony even though I had the Sigma was first it was a Canon mount and used an adapter (this one is Sony mount) making longer and when using the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters lens identification along with teleconverter ID with total mm was not in metadata properly in Lr or PS but that issue not covered in this review. Also an issue of telephotos on Canon/Nikon cameras with a teleconverter is AF does not work when lens and teleconverter are f/8 combined (Checked on my Canon T2i), but on the Sony 200-600 AF worked great even with 2x but was said tracking AF was a problem f/13+ but I had no problems with white pelicans flying behind trees always locked on during horizontal tracking. Nothing said here BUT what made me happiest with the Sony 200-600mm was IS + IBIS (A7iii) off tripod was the ability to lock AF on to the moon with just the lens in Full Frame and APS-C but also with 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on, attached to a binocular harness for stability getting a 1800mm (sensor crop APS-C) image filling the entire frame, look trying to find the big moon at 1800 is a skill in itself but a good test if ever tracking birds and shooting 10FPS but getting a perfect in focus capture in single shot is amazing to me! And using bracketing able to do HDR imaging of moon phases without PS blending work like shooting with a mounted telescope on a tracker. While I had the Sigma before the Sony came out I captured the lunar eclipse on a cold 20 degree January night from hours before to an hour after while on a tripod not only getting the moon but stars around it with focus locked on everything tack sharp every image all night without a tracker (did not have one) with only a buddy heater under and a fan blowing on the protective filter (get one of those) to prevent frost build up.

The Sigma may focus the closest, but according to factory specs, the Tamron has the greatest magnification. ("Closest focus" doesn't always equal "most magnification" because magnification is a function of distance and focal length. Two lenses with identical closest focus distances will differ in magnification if they differ in focal length when at closest focus.) Sony 0.20x Tamron 0.32x Sigma 0.29x

I recently compared the Tamron and Sony on the street in daylight, using my A9. The Sony is noticeably faster in picking up faces and eyes. That could change with a Tamron firmware update, but I have a feeling the Sony lens will always be king.

I’m not a fan of the color fringing from the Sigma.

All three seem like great lenses, tbh.

Good video. You may want to consider how these lenses work with teleconverters.... - that will be a key decision factor for nature especially bird photographers

As far as I know, the Sony lens also have an advantage of working with Sony teleconverters. I've read that the AF is not working when you use Sony TC with Sigma lens (in this case it was 100mm-400mm). I don't know if it also applies to Tamron, but I guess it does. Also I've read that Sigma cannot produce TC for E-mount because of the agreement made with Sony, so they only make it for L-mount.

I really want to see som new Prime Tele Lenses, like fx 300 4.0 (4.5), 400mm 4.5 (5.6) and 500mm 5.6.

Would've been interesting to also include the Sony 100-400 GM with teleconverter.

Hi, I have a query. I bought sigma 150-600mm lens recently and using it with Sony Alpha 7iii body. I am having an issue with focusing distant subjects with full zoom. It's all blurred whenever I am trying to focus... There is no problem with a close subject though... I am confused if it is a lens problem or camera setting issue .. I am clicking with the setting- AF-C and focus point flexible... I am new in this field, so if you plz suggest me something it will be very helpful to me.

Contrary to the Christopher Frost said, this is a video showing us which is the best lens (For our use) or for sharpness, size, contrast, bokeh, macro and flares.

I have three questions: 1. Did you test the in-lens stabilization on a camera with in-body stabilization (IBIS)? The reason I ask is some combos where both types of stabilization are active make for a lot more assistance. This is most likely with native lenses, such as the Sony OSS lens on a Sony camera with IBIS. I'm wondering if the 3rd party lenses can do the same. 2. Did you put these lenses on a tripod fitted with a gimbal head? That's popular with big telephotos like these three and generally works best with internal focusing and zooming lenses like the Sony 200-600mm because those may change balance less when racked in and out. Lenses that extend can upset the equilibrium on a gimbal to some extent. It's usually not a big deal and certainly doesn't prevent using them on a gimbal, but is something a frequent gimbal user might notice. 3. On a related note, both the Sigma and the Tamron have an Arca-Swiss quick release compatible dovetail built right into their tripod mounting feet (as required for most gimbals and handy for other things, as well). Does the Sony have this too? The 3rd party manufacturers have started doing this on all their lenses that are fitted with tripod collars. I just wonder if and when the OEM companies (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) will start doing the same. It's a small and simole, but thoughtful feature all lens makers should incorporate. It doesn't detract in any way from using some other mounting method,big the Arcs system isn't your choice. At the same time, the Arca QR system is by far the most widely used and versatile. Thanks for the interesting video. By the way, I wonder if Sigma is getting away from offering two versions of their 150-600mm: a more expensive Sport and a more affordable Contemporary. This new Sport version is smaller than the old one (for DSLRs), with weight and price reductions too that put it a lot closer to the old Contemporary version.

Awesome video as usual. The Sigma's image stabilization didn't look great. I have the 100-400mm C and it's not great either (although it's a Canon mount lens on a Sony camera, but I've heard others mention the lackluster stabilizer too).

This is a great video comparison showing three super Telephoto lenses. Now is the hard choice of choosing the sony or Sigma!?

I always hit the like button before watching the video. I have a total confidence in Mr. Frost's reviews.

What should also be noted is that you can only use teleconverters on the Sony. Sigma isn't allowed to build teleconverters for sony E-mount and at least for the Sigma 100-400, the original Sony 1.4x converter isn't working. I have tried it...

I am surprised that for such a lens extensive comparison there are no comments on the handling difference between a non extending and extending lens. If you are shooting primarily sports a non extending length is a non-brainer, and it would come ahead of anything else in terms of a lens choice here. Nevertheless thank you very much for making this extremely useful review!!! Might worth spending a bit of time explaining why the Sony AF is so much superior (fast linear motors) supporting 20 and 30 fps. In fact the Sony is an incredible package for the money.

While I can understand some people maybe being bummed by the Sony being 200mm at widest, I'd argue this is actually a good thing comparatively. Why? Ask yourself what some of the more common zoom lenses are for people. 24-70, 70-200. This fits in nicely right after that so you have a smooth transition between things. Now admittedly this involves extra lens switching for that 150-200 range, however honestly speaking I don't know if that is a big deal since if you're needing this zoom range chances of wanting to be that slight bit wider (and not being able to take a step or two) back is probably rare.

Christopher, I just want to put the new 7artisans 50mm f0.95 on your radar. While it looks like it won't be very sharp wide open, it may still be a very useful lens for me. The Tamron's small size makes it a phenomenal proposition for travelling with some wildlife and bird photography. Otherwise, why on Earth has no one else made a zoom in this range with a constant aperture besides Nikon? The Nikon 200-500 f5.6 also seems to be about 1,200 pounds. If I were a non-pro wildlife and bird photographer, I would choose the Nikon system purely for that lens. I assumed everyone would copy it within months. But it's been years and no one else has a comparable lens in that price range.

Hey Chris, could you test out the Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 lens please? I think it might be interesting alternative to a 24-105, with a faster aperture

Perfect review, I love your work. At 8:03 I think that the focal length is 200mm, not 600mm :-)

I got the 200-600 on sale for $1,400, but if I couldn’t find that deal and had to do it all again, I think I could be happy with the sigma. The only thing is that you really cant underestimate how amazing internal zooming is in harsh environments… that said it barely fits in my 31L prvke bag haha.

I'm concerned regarding their focal length. I ve some tamron lens but apparently their longest zoom is not the 'true focal length' compared to Canon counterpart. Eg 50mm in tamron is equivalent to 38-42mm in Canon lens. Have you seen any difference of these 3 lens at 500mm?

Would like too see if there is a major difference between the 150-600 DG DN vs MC-11 Adapted DG OS HSM Contemporary

I bought the Tamron 150-600 years ago for use on my nikon dslr. When I upgraded to my Z6, I found the Tamron did not work with the new autofocus. Soooo, I had to buy the Nikon 200-500mm.... moral of that story for me is STICK TO FIRST PARTY LENSES! IMHO.

if only the sigma didnt have so much CA! still on my list of super telephoto lenses though for that price.

I chosen tamron 150-500 for a6600, it was the only one that I could handle a little longer and don't get muscle strain ;D. Nearly same AF as 70-350 in good lighting, tamron got sometimes problems in low light, stabilization for photo is same as 70-350, with video sony 70-350 was slightly better.

Thanks for helping me quantify the, arguably, insignificant difference between the three. I think my verdict is that I'll end up buying a Sony GM telephoto when someone decides to pay me a few grand for a photo shoot.

Was literally waiting for this video on your channel.. Please compare Canon RF 100-500mm with Sony 200-600mm.. That'll be a very helpful for those who are planning to invest into new system for wildlife... I think many people wanna see whether CANON'S 100-500mm can KEEP UP with SONY 200-600mm or not!!

Just a thought. With today's high res cameras, is there really a need for teleconverters? I'm thinking that TCs have a (more or less) negative impact on the image quality, and with the absurd amount of megapixels in modern cameras you could just crop if needed?

In regards to dust, always thoroughly check inside the lens before accepting your purchase. Not that it REALLY matters, but my copy of the 200-600 had a lot of large specks of dust behind the front element. To be honest, I don't find a pump zoom lets in any more dust than a non-pump design. My 100-400 doesn't have a single speck of noticeable dust even when using a powerful light to inspect.

With 20/20 hindsight and limited cash, I would have gone for the Sigma, but I got the Tamron instead as it came out first and I didn't know of the Sigma version coming out (buyer's remorse). That said the Tamron still performs really well on a sunny day and doesn't disappoint, and the Sony version is a joy to use but a total pain in the back lugging it around. Personally, I don't really see the need for a teleconverter most of the time, and I would probably rent the Sony version with a teleconverter for days which I need it.

Bought the Sony. Fantastic lens until you go shooting small wildlife such as birds. The minimum focus distance of 10 meters (I measured 13 paces) drove me crazy. A little warbler would pose 3 meters away and I couldn't get focus. So, I sold the Sony and bought the Sigma. I did a formal test using a tripod and I found the Sigma could do 26cm at 150mm and 2 meters at 600mm, It cost me a lot to switch but I'm happy I did. If you are not a birder then either is great. I might note that at 150mm the Sigma is in macro territory. The Sony, not so much.

These lenses really are all over the place re their optical performance. Expecting top optical performance at this price point is bound to reveal compromises. Can't wait to see Nikon's upcoming 400mm Z and 200-600 Z lenses, if their other mirrorless lenses are anything to go by we're in for a bit of a treat, fingers crossed.

So If you were to choose one for APSC WITH UNLIMITED BUDGET WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE? I KNOW YOU LIKE THE SONY FOR FULL FRAME BUT AS FAR AS APSC ID LIKE TO HEAR WHICH ONE YOU WOUKD CHOOSE. THANKS!

Sony might be expensive but that internal zoom is worth every bit of money, I would take that!

I know, it´s a totally different beast altogether, but since I bought the Sony RX10 IV, which is only 1.1kg and has roughly the 35mm equivalent lens of 24mm-600mm f6.3-f11, I just bring this to almost everywhere. It is not as good and not as high resolution, but the difference to these lenses is just not worth it for me and it is just so versatile. But that's just me.

as often, the tamron seems to be a good compromise.

Warranty period should also be a factor to consider. Sigma has a 4 year warranty, the Sony has a 1 year warranty. I'm not sure about the tamron.

You should´ve added the Nikon p1000 just for fun.. ;D

I assume the third stabilization mode for the Sony is only for left-right shake (is for panning up and down). Can someone confirm this?

Between the Sony and sigma. Rented the Sony for this weekend!

Does anyone know why the Tamron is more expensive in Europe whereas it's the cheapest in the US? Would make a lot more sense if it was cheaper than the Sigma in the UK.

I'd say go for Sigma 100-400 DN for the compact size and low price. But Sony all the way for anything serious.

The Tamron ends up being the same mass as the Sigma once you add in the tripod collar and lens hood.

Why did you compare them at different focal lengths?

a7Siii is not only a old camera it is also out of date sensor. Try testing new lenses with newer Sony cameras.

I think Tamron is the best

Nothing wrong with being soft in the middle! How is the Sigma the better value at $100 more than the Tamron?

How severe is the Sigma’s color fringing? That can change my mind back to Sony…

Has anyone ever told you that you have great posture?

The Tamron would be the easiest choice if it were just equally sharp as the others :(

based on this comparison we should expect Tamron to lower the prices very soon imo. I would go for the sigma, seems to be an excellent allrounder.

Hi nice review but your comments on the Sony build quality has me vexed. I had a 200-600mm lens for about 6 months. The paint on the lens was very thin and would wear off quite quickly. The lens hood kept coming off so I ended up having to carry it off the lens till I needed it. The lens mount kept coming loose it was the 4 small screws holding the mount that was at fault. I thread locked them which seemed to stop it. So it was changed for a Sigma 60-600mm and a Canon R5 much better now

damn the CA on the sigma from 350 is soooo bad

I just scrolled through all your videos looking for a review of the Fuji X 16mm 1.4. lens. I got a little car sick. Wish there was a more efficient way to look through a user's uploads. I didn't, surprisingly, see a review.

The reason why I bought the Tamron was the size, the Sony wouldn’t have fit in my backpack

I read that at high ISO, the Tamron and Sigma are really bad at autofocus.

Super thanks for the comparison. At the end I'll go for the SIGMA: while I need the 600mm (so Tamron is out), the portability factor for me - I'm NOT a pro - is a primary concern. No probs for 15 fps limitation (I've an A7r3), no probs for potential dust (my usage is far more limited than a pro), no probs for AF. Image quality - looking at many other reviews/comparisons as well - seems quite close to the Sony (a little less at the center, a little sharper at the edge). And I like other Sigma features more, such as the included arca plate, bag and... +/- 30% lower cost. So... waiting for the Sigma to be available in Italy :)

Hehehe, Sony have minority share at Tamron...... 😁😁😁

Barely any different in sharpness, but lots more color fringing on Sigma.

Sup Chris buddy brother in Christ 😁🙏😃🪐🌏🔥

If the sigma had internal focus, id get it… but it doesnt.. so its probably going to be the sony

Sigma has CA.

And what about Nikon lenses, so they are the main ones, it's a shame that there is no comparison with at least the most popular 200-500mm f5.6, otherwise thanks for the comparison

It's a bit odd that both the Sony and Sigma lenses reach to 600 mm here while the Tamron model selected was to 500 mm (while Tamron has a 150-600 mm G2 ready for comparison).

💔💔💔

The sony is the worst balanced, it's too long and too unbalanced (front heavy ) for a walkaround which is why i now have the sigma 150-600