Long zoom under €1500: FE 70-300 or Sigma MC-11 + 150-600 C?

[Pieter]

Perhaps a bit too early for this question as neither option is available yet (more on that shortly), but I'm searching for a replacement for my E 55-210 4.5-6.3 (currently using it on a6000). I'll primarily use it for photographing wildlife, often birds in flight. Although I enjoy the relatively small 55-210, I find it too short. I therefore came up with the following wish-list:

 -  300mm or more range (on 35mm-frame, so 450+ equ. on APSC)

 -  stabilized (booo for no IBIS on a6300!)

 -  AFC/lock on AF capable

 -  €1500 max

 

Given my budget, the new 70-200 2.8 GM +2×TC obviously won't be an option. Sigma said in their press release on the MC-11 that the adapter won't support AFC, but several hands-on reviews (such as this one) state that in fact it does. For the sake of argument, let's assume that indeed it does support AFC (fingers crossed). As far as I know I've then got only two serious options:

 1)  Sony FE 70-300 G (€1450)

 2)  Sigma MC-11 + 150-600 Contemporary (€250 + €1000 = €1250)

(3)  LA-EA4 + Sigma 50-500: €270 + €1180 = €1450 --> not an option as it's shorter, more expensive, worse AF and probably lower IQ than the 150-600)

 

All the good news considering about the supposed center sharpness of the new 70-300 I wonder how good its effective resolution is at maximum zoom when compared to the Sigma's, especially on a high pixel-density APSC-sensor. EG: will the FE 70-300 @300 mm, cropped to a 600 mm equivalent image size, provide better image quality than the Sigma @600 mm? Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 150-600 C on an APSC Sony-body via Metabones or something? Really curious about how well it performs as I fear I'll be let down by it on a sub-frame sensor.

 

Cheers, Pieter

[lenoindex]

You will have better experience with the native lens for sure, and it will most likely have superior IQ.

 

The question is really if you need the extra reach from 300mm to 600mm,

 

Have you ever played with a long lens? It is hard to work with, it takes a lot of practices just to learn how to keep your target in the frame let alone for the AF part,

 

And it complicates your camera bag...I don't like taking my Tamron 150-600 out even after all my practices to make this huge and heavy thing usable.

 

But if you think you will always wonder what is like to have these extra reach then the sigma is a very good choice, probably the best one given your budget.

 

Really depends on what you are doing with such a long lens. But I think the Native 70-300 will be more suitable for the most.

[yali]

You'll probably get the best AF and quality from the FE 70-300. From the MTFs it looks very good.

Also it is quite small and light.

The FE is actually best at 300mm. I've never heard about the Sigmas being particularly sharp at the tele end...

[JimmyD]

I would say none of the above.  Read the reviews or rent the Tamron 150-600 and test for yourself, and I think you will find this to be your best option.  Other than some legacy glass for nostalgia, the only non-native E mount glass I have tested and liked enough to keep is the Tammy 150-600.  Well built, very sharp. Not quite as sharp and not quite as much contrast right at 600mm, but right from 150mm to about 550mm its a gem.  Particularly at under $1,000.   

[Pieter]

@JimmyD: Tamron is not an option for me. Like I said I need stabilization on a6000 and the A-mount Tamron doesn't have it. I have my doubts about AF when converting a Canon-mount Tamron to Sony E. The Sigma is supposed to act like a native lens with the MC-11 so should have super fast AF. I've read lots of reviews on both the Sigma and the Tamron and I think proper AF and stabilization more than makes up for the very slight center IQ difference.

 

What I'm curious about is how well either 150-600 performs on APS-C. Does it actually provide much extra reach on a dense pixel sensor? If the FE 70-300 is tack sharp @300 it can be cropped for extra zoom. If the 150-600 only adds fuzziness on the long end there's no point carrying all that extra weight for barely any effective reach.

[Michael_j]

I have to ask why you need stabilisation on such a long lens? You are well into tripod or bean bag territory here and stabilisation is ineffective at best and generally it is recommended that it be turned off.

 

Believe me, even if you have the physique to hand hold a 600mm lens for any time you will have great difficulty framing and photographing with it, let alone getting sharp results, especially with an APS camera.

[Pieter]

So you're saying this guy doesn't benefit much from his stabilization? He doesn't look all that muscular either and he sure took some great shots. Respect for the guy next to him tho... I guess I'd indeed be using the 150-600 on a tripod mostly but at least I want to have the option not to. Given the fairly slow aperture I'm quite sure I'd benefit lots from stabilization.

 

What worries me more about the Sigma is this test. Sure wonder how good de AF is on the MC-11. Guess I'll have to wait a bit for reviews on both options once they become available, exciting weeks ahead!

[Lescatalpas]

I just sold my Sigma 150-500 and ordered the new native 70-300mm.  Although I was very happy with IQ of the Sigma, it's a beast to carry around, and it does not fit any normal camera bag. I switched from a big DSLR to the Sony  A7II and I feel the the much smaller and lighter 70-300 suits the A7 series much better. From the few images I have seen from the 70-300 I have no doubts it will be at least as good as the much longer beasts. What is very appealing too is the ability to focus from just under 3 feet. I find that an added bonus.

[Lescatalpas]

I just sold my Sigma 150-500 and ordered the new native 70-300mm.  Although I was very happy with IQ of the Sigma, it's a beast to carry around, and it does not fit any normal camera bag. I switched from a big DSLR to the Sony  A7II and I feel the the much smaller and lighter 70-300 suits the A7 series much better. From the few images I have seen from the 70-300 I have no doubts it will be at least as good as the much longer beasts. What is very appealing too is the ability to focus from just under 3 feet. I find that an added bonus.

I own the FE 70-300 now for just under a week. It's a marvel!  No comparison with the big Sigma, the IQ of this lens rivals the Zeiss Sony 55 f/1.8. And it is so versatile, from portraits to wildlife. The IQ is so good, you don't miss the extra 100 or 200mm. Highly recommended!

[dikkeduif]

I own the FE 70-300 now for just under a week. It's a marvel!  No comparison with the big Sigma, the IQ of this lens rivals the Zeiss Sony 55 f/1.8. And it is so versatile, from portraits to wildlife. The IQ is so good, you don't miss the extra 100 or 200mm. Highly recommended!

 

Would be cool if you could post some pictures!

[Lescatalpas]

Would be cool if you could post some pictures!

https://flic.kr/p/GHTAAG

https://flic.kr/p/GK7kV7

https://flic.kr/p/GKgsa8

 

All adjusted to my taste in lightroom

[dikkeduif]

https://flic.kr/p/GHTAAG

https://flic.kr/p/GK7kV7

https://flic.kr/p/GKgsa8

 

All adjusted to my taste in lightroom

 

Much appreciated. Looks quite sharp!

[JimmyD]

+1 for the FE 70-300 G.  Just got mine today, took a few quick snaps at lunch and WOW.  Very well built, feels greet on the A7R II and IQ looks really good.  Really sharp, right from wide open.  Saying goodbye to my FE 70-200 f/4.