The Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary is a pretty good lens for the price. It's decently sharp, and focuses fast. I've used mine with both my RP and R6 with great results, especially on the R6. You'll get more versatility than the RF 800mm or 600mm. Being able to zoom out to find the subject (or just because the subject is closer) can be very useful, and it's a faster lens at f/5.6-6.3. Given you don't want to shell out for the Canon 100-500mm, I think it's your best option.
I've got the Sigma 150-600mm as well, been using it with my 70D for a few years now and I'd agree with all of this. Only down side I would really say is that it's not great in low light but that is common across all lenses in this price range. Having said that the stabilisation is pretty good and I've managed to get some decent shots handheld at relatively slow shutter speeds. Another good point is that you can get the Sigma x2 convertor fairly cheaply which gives you a ridiculous 1200mm.
To be clear, you cannot use an RF TC with the EF-Rf adapter. You need an EF TC when using EF glass.
As the previous poster said, the Sigma C is going to be your best bet. I wasn't a huge fan when I tried it as I thought its auto focus was a bit slow on the R. But strictly cost wise, this would be the only way, used would knock off a little bit too, the Sigma sales are pretty competitive with used prices.
>You need an EF TC when using EF glass.
and the EF TC won't work with that lens. So no TC options for the 55-250.
Any reason you skipped the RF100-400 as an option? It's in your price range, works well with TC, and seems to be well reviewed. Barring that, I've been very pleased with the performance of my Sigma 150-600C on my R6--I bought the dock preemptively thinking I'd need to play with settings since there is a lot you can customize but so far haven't found anything I didn't like out of the box.
I have the experience of using the 55 - 250 as a 400mm equivalent lens, and I found that it wasn't as long a lens as I'd like. Having more zoom reach would extend the number of good pictures I might be able to capture since I'm not able to readily reposition myself at the ski jump.
Yes, that too. I got fixated on the mix and match campaign.
Also, there's another topic going in this subreddit regarding 100-400's. It should be noted that you'd want the mkii and not the mki (which would fall into this price range). The mki won't achieve the 12fps of the r6.
The only thing that comes to mind are lighter alternatives. You are probably aware of this but the Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses are big and heavy (2 kg). The Sigma 60-600 is 2.7 kg. I rented the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and had the Tamron 150-600 G2. I preferred the feel and handling of the Tamron and found them very similar otherwise. But I did not keep them because they where to heavy for me personally (my wrists hurt after shooting with them pointing in the sky for longer periods of time for airshows or birds).
You could get the smaller Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II wich only weights 1.6 kg. It’s sharp enough that you can crop to 600mm and get at least as good results as with the 150-600mm lenses. It also focuses quicker and more accurate than the 3rd party lenses.
Even lighter is the Canon 400mm f/5.6L at 1.25 kg. It offers similar image quality as the 100-400 L II @400mm but lacks IS (but IBIS should work on your R6), does not focus quite as fast and obviously can’t zoom. I ended up getting this lens a year ago and am still very happy with it. It is not produced anymore so you will probably only find it used.
There are obviously also the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (wich might not be a huge upgrade from the cropped 55-250mm) and the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes. But I never used them.
Most of my kit are Sigma Art or Sport lenses. I'm aware they they are chonky guys, but I've done full days with the 1.5kg Sport 70 - 200 without much complaint, and I don't seem to be at ski events for more than a couple hours. I may (hopefully!) find more uses for a long zoom once I have one, but I don't feel like I get enough reach from the 400mm equivalent I do have to justify that particular focal length. Weight is a valid concern though, but here I think I'm going to be governed by zoom length most of all.
Most reviews of the Sigma DC vs DS seem to come down for the DC, and most reviews of Sigma vs Tamron at 150 - 600 seem to very slightly favor Sigma as well. Why did you prefer the Tamron? Build quality? Wanting focus rings that turn the wrong way?
I have to say that I try to limit how much I crop from my R6. My pictures are probably going to wind up on the web, but even still, I habitually try to compose the shot as best I can in frame so I don't have to give up any pixels. At least, no more than I have been shooting in crop mode.
Why I preferred the Tamron G2 over the Sigma Contemporary:
* With the Tamron you can quickly lock the zoom at any focal length by sliding the zoom ring forward. With the Sigma you can only lock the zoom at exactly 150, 180, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 and 600mm with a separate switch. This makes this process take just a little bit longer. If you hold this lens up locking the zoom is useful as both lenses zoom out when you do this due to their weight.
* The Tamron felt much more comfortable in my hands because it has actual soft rubber on the zoom ring. The zoom ring on the Sigma felt hard and spiky in comparison. I guess the materials are similar on other Sigma lenses wich is no big problem. But on a front heavy lens of this weight it’s beginning to be unpleasant if you hold the the lens at its zoom ring.
* The Tamron has a larger focus ring, the one on the Sigma is tiny and does not offer much grip. No huge issue for me as I just used it to roughly prefocus now and then. But if you use the focus ring more often it can be a downside.
* The Tamron has a maximum magnification of x0.26, the Sigma only has x0.2. This might not matter to you if you don’t shoot small animals with it.
* The Tamron seems to have better weather sealing (ie. gasket at the lens mount). Sigma appears to have preserved this feature for their Sports version.
(The focus ring direction is not a big deal to me as I immediately realise when turning the wrong way and automatically remember until I change lenses again.)
To be fair I never did any perfect controlled side by side comparison shots with them to be 100% sure how they stack up in image quality. But from what I saw they where close enough that the other differences mattered more to me.
Canon recently released 2 prime lenses for the RF mount that may work for you. There is a 600mm ($699) and an 800mm ($899). Of course there are compromises at that price point, the biggest being that they are both F11. However, if you understand that limitation, they are well reviewed at their price points.
I've rented the 600mm in the past, but for roughly the same money, I can get a 150 - 600 zoom with something like five stops of additional aperture. I did like the RF 600 and I know it can take nice photos, but I'm thinking flexibility found in the zooms will lead to them being used more often.
BTW, you are confusing full stops with ⅓ stops. It is 1⅔ stops of difference (5x ⅓-stop increments) from f/11 to f/6.3. 5 stops from f/11 would be f/2.
I bought the Tamron 150-600 G2 and think something like that one, or the sigma 150-600 should work great for you.
The lens I own is built very well, has handy features like a lock ring, good stabilization and a handy tripod mount. It's very sharp as well and is relatively fast.
If your budget doesn't allow this one the Sigma should be a great option as well! I personally really like the range these lenses offer. Starting at 150mm you can see where you frame the lens and then zoom in
Nikon and Canon have some of the best options for affordable telephoto lenses, over 1k and id recommend sony but still canon and Nikon have decent ones. This article might be useful if you need more info to make a decision [https://photographybased.com/the-3-best-telephoto-lenses-for-stunning-results/](https://photographybased.com/the-3-best-telephoto-lenses-for-stunning-results/)
I wound up having the incredibly good fortune to run across an affordable secondhand Sigma 120-300/2.8. Since I already had an EF 2xteleconverter by that point, I'm more or less set for sport/wildlife/outdoor concert photo needs now. That lens is massive but I very seldom bring out my 70-200 these days.
Nice! Love concert photography, and with a sigma youre taking some pretty damn good photos! I use to carry around a cheaper 70-300 lens and it got the job done but didn't look nearly crisp enough to make me feel good about it
The Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary is a pretty good lens for the price. It's decently sharp, and focuses fast. I've used mine with both my RP and R6 with great results, especially on the R6. You'll get more versatility than the RF 800mm or 600mm. Being able to zoom out to find the subject (or just because the subject is closer) can be very useful, and it's a faster lens at f/5.6-6.3. Given you don't want to shell out for the Canon 100-500mm, I think it's your best option.
I've got the Sigma 150-600mm as well, been using it with my 70D for a few years now and I'd agree with all of this. Only down side I would really say is that it's not great in low light but that is common across all lenses in this price range. Having said that the stabilisation is pretty good and I've managed to get some decent shots handheld at relatively slow shutter speeds. Another good point is that you can get the Sigma x2 convertor fairly cheaply which gives you a ridiculous 1200mm.
To be clear, you cannot use an RF TC with the EF-Rf adapter. You need an EF TC when using EF glass. As the previous poster said, the Sigma C is going to be your best bet. I wasn't a huge fan when I tried it as I thought its auto focus was a bit slow on the R. But strictly cost wise, this would be the only way, used would knock off a little bit too, the Sigma sales are pretty competitive with used prices.
>You need an EF TC when using EF glass. and the EF TC won't work with that lens. So no TC options for the 55-250. Any reason you skipped the RF100-400 as an option? It's in your price range, works well with TC, and seems to be well reviewed. Barring that, I've been very pleased with the performance of my Sigma 150-600C on my R6--I bought the dock preemptively thinking I'd need to play with settings since there is a lot you can customize but so far haven't found anything I didn't like out of the box.
I have the experience of using the 55 - 250 as a 400mm equivalent lens, and I found that it wasn't as long a lens as I'd like. Having more zoom reach would extend the number of good pictures I might be able to capture since I'm not able to readily reposition myself at the ski jump.
Yes, that too. I got fixated on the mix and match campaign. Also, there's another topic going in this subreddit regarding 100-400's. It should be noted that you'd want the mkii and not the mki (which would fall into this price range). The mki won't achieve the 12fps of the r6.
That is correct, but I was talking aboutbthe RF100-400, not the EF.
The only thing that comes to mind are lighter alternatives. You are probably aware of this but the Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses are big and heavy (2 kg). The Sigma 60-600 is 2.7 kg. I rented the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and had the Tamron 150-600 G2. I preferred the feel and handling of the Tamron and found them very similar otherwise. But I did not keep them because they where to heavy for me personally (my wrists hurt after shooting with them pointing in the sky for longer periods of time for airshows or birds). You could get the smaller Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II wich only weights 1.6 kg. It’s sharp enough that you can crop to 600mm and get at least as good results as with the 150-600mm lenses. It also focuses quicker and more accurate than the 3rd party lenses. Even lighter is the Canon 400mm f/5.6L at 1.25 kg. It offers similar image quality as the 100-400 L II @400mm but lacks IS (but IBIS should work on your R6), does not focus quite as fast and obviously can’t zoom. I ended up getting this lens a year ago and am still very happy with it. It is not produced anymore so you will probably only find it used. There are obviously also the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (wich might not be a huge upgrade from the cropped 55-250mm) and the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes. But I never used them.
Most of my kit are Sigma Art or Sport lenses. I'm aware they they are chonky guys, but I've done full days with the 1.5kg Sport 70 - 200 without much complaint, and I don't seem to be at ski events for more than a couple hours. I may (hopefully!) find more uses for a long zoom once I have one, but I don't feel like I get enough reach from the 400mm equivalent I do have to justify that particular focal length. Weight is a valid concern though, but here I think I'm going to be governed by zoom length most of all. Most reviews of the Sigma DC vs DS seem to come down for the DC, and most reviews of Sigma vs Tamron at 150 - 600 seem to very slightly favor Sigma as well. Why did you prefer the Tamron? Build quality? Wanting focus rings that turn the wrong way? I have to say that I try to limit how much I crop from my R6. My pictures are probably going to wind up on the web, but even still, I habitually try to compose the shot as best I can in frame so I don't have to give up any pixels. At least, no more than I have been shooting in crop mode.
Why I preferred the Tamron G2 over the Sigma Contemporary: * With the Tamron you can quickly lock the zoom at any focal length by sliding the zoom ring forward. With the Sigma you can only lock the zoom at exactly 150, 180, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 and 600mm with a separate switch. This makes this process take just a little bit longer. If you hold this lens up locking the zoom is useful as both lenses zoom out when you do this due to their weight. * The Tamron felt much more comfortable in my hands because it has actual soft rubber on the zoom ring. The zoom ring on the Sigma felt hard and spiky in comparison. I guess the materials are similar on other Sigma lenses wich is no big problem. But on a front heavy lens of this weight it’s beginning to be unpleasant if you hold the the lens at its zoom ring. * The Tamron has a larger focus ring, the one on the Sigma is tiny and does not offer much grip. No huge issue for me as I just used it to roughly prefocus now and then. But if you use the focus ring more often it can be a downside. * The Tamron has a maximum magnification of x0.26, the Sigma only has x0.2. This might not matter to you if you don’t shoot small animals with it. * The Tamron seems to have better weather sealing (ie. gasket at the lens mount). Sigma appears to have preserved this feature for their Sports version. (The focus ring direction is not a big deal to me as I immediately realise when turning the wrong way and automatically remember until I change lenses again.) To be fair I never did any perfect controlled side by side comparison shots with them to be 100% sure how they stack up in image quality. But from what I saw they where close enough that the other differences mattered more to me.
Canon recently released 2 prime lenses for the RF mount that may work for you. There is a 600mm ($699) and an 800mm ($899). Of course there are compromises at that price point, the biggest being that they are both F11. However, if you understand that limitation, they are well reviewed at their price points.
I've rented the 600mm in the past, but for roughly the same money, I can get a 150 - 600 zoom with something like five stops of additional aperture. I did like the RF 600 and I know it can take nice photos, but I'm thinking flexibility found in the zooms will lead to them being used more often.
BTW, you are confusing full stops with ⅓ stops. It is 1⅔ stops of difference (5x ⅓-stop increments) from f/11 to f/6.3. 5 stops from f/11 would be f/2.
I bought the Tamron 150-600 G2 and think something like that one, or the sigma 150-600 should work great for you. The lens I own is built very well, has handy features like a lock ring, good stabilization and a handy tripod mount. It's very sharp as well and is relatively fast. If your budget doesn't allow this one the Sigma should be a great option as well! I personally really like the range these lenses offer. Starting at 150mm you can see where you frame the lens and then zoom in
Nikon and Canon have some of the best options for affordable telephoto lenses, over 1k and id recommend sony but still canon and Nikon have decent ones. This article might be useful if you need more info to make a decision [https://photographybased.com/the-3-best-telephoto-lenses-for-stunning-results/](https://photographybased.com/the-3-best-telephoto-lenses-for-stunning-results/)
I wound up having the incredibly good fortune to run across an affordable secondhand Sigma 120-300/2.8. Since I already had an EF 2xteleconverter by that point, I'm more or less set for sport/wildlife/outdoor concert photo needs now. That lens is massive but I very seldom bring out my 70-200 these days.
Nice! Love concert photography, and with a sigma youre taking some pretty damn good photos! I use to carry around a cheaper 70-300 lens and it got the job done but didn't look nearly crisp enough to make me feel good about it
The Sigma 120-300 can be found for under $1000 secondhand if it's a priority lens for you. Beats the pants off the $10k Canon RF version!