Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS Lens Announced

[Tim Mayo]

Sigma has announced a new 60–600mm F4.5–6.3 DG DN OS Sports lens that unlike their SLR version has been designed specifically for mirrorless cameras and is available in both Sony E-mount and L-mount versions.

I did review the Canon EF version of this lens using the MC-11 adapter way back in 2019. Even with the adapter it was a cracking lens so I’m fairly confident that Sigma will have only improved this lens further.

However, it’s priced at $1999 in the US and £1999 in the UK. The US price matches the price of the fantastic Sony FE 200-600 but in the UK the Sony lens sells for £400 less at £1599.

I think at this price unless you really need that 60-200mm of focal range it’s going to be a very tough sell over the Sony 200-600, especially with all third-party lenses restricted to 15 FPS and the Sigma also weighing in at 370g / 13 oz. more than the Sony.

See the blog article for further details and early reviews.

Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS Lens Announced - AlphaShooters.com

Sigma has announced a new 60–600mm F4.5–6.3 DG DN OS Sports lens that unlike their SLR version has been designed specifically for mirrorless cameras and is available in both Sony E-mount and L-mount versions. I did review the Canon EF version of this lens using the MC-11 adapter way back in...

www.alphashooters.com

 

[Brownie]

I've been watching this as it evolved. It's a fantastic range, but that's it. There's no advantage in speed, the lens trombones so weatherproofing won't be as effective as the 200-600, and it's likely the zoom ring will be much stiffer due to the seal. I also doubt the IQ will be any advantage and may in fact not be as good. Considering the price, there's really no compelling reason to choose it over the Sony, and there's certainly no reason to switch if you already have the Sony.

You can have my Sony 200-600 when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Selling it for the same price as the Sony 200-600 is... there is no polite way to say it... is stupid. Who in their right mind would choose this Sigma over the stellar Sony? Honestly I think they would have to price it around $1100 to make it appealing to some. It would not be appealing to me as the Sony is a bargain IMO considering the sharpness and build (internal zoom is a huge plus). But to some people where $1999 is a bit too much they could be swayed to Sigma IF the price was lower. But it's not (at least not now), so I can't imagine they will sell many in E mount (maybe in L mount). I am not going to bother to watch the review videos, but my guess is the reviewers will all say something about this (that the Sony is the better purchase).

 

[Tim Mayo]

I've been watching this as it evolved. It's a fantastic range, but that's it. There's no advantage in speed, the lens trombones so weatherproofing won't be as effective as the 200-600, and it's likely the zoom ring will be much stiffer due to the seal. I also doubt the IQ will be any advantage and may in fact not be as good. Considering the price, there's really no compelling reason to choose it over the Sony, and there's certainly no reason to switch if you already have the Sony.

You can have my Sony 200-600 when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Same here. This would probably sell really well if it was released before the 200-600, but Sony really smashed the ball out of the park with that lens. It's also unpleasant to use such a large external zoom lens after being spoilt by the the internal zooming 200-600. I don't think the Sigma supports the Sony teleconverters either, just their own L-mount versions.

 

[Brownie]

I don't think the Sigma supports the Sony teleconverters either, just their own L-mount versions.

You are correct, and it didn't even occur to me when I was responding. Another negative.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I had a look at Mr Frost's review of this last night. Performance looks up to the mark, but the size and weight of this bloody beast, wow! I had the 150-600mm Sigma for two days before I took it back and swapped it for my Sony and just the difference in handling alone made that decision very worthwhile. The Sony just balances so well and has such a short easy zoom throw, they miraculously made this beast of a lens feel light and nimble, and not to mention the bigger gap between the foot and the lens body fits my large fingers way easier as I basically just hold the foot to operate it that way it's super easy to go from carry to shoot very quickly. Also, physically I won't get worn down so that's a non issue, but I found the Sigma mentally wears you down after long use because it's such a mission to operate whereas I can use the Sony all day and not feel agitated or what not because of it's ease of use, it is literally like an extension of your arm.

This new Sigma is even more lens with what looks like identical zooming mechanism. Now my first observation when I went from the Sigma to the Sony was that the Sigma felt clumsy in comparison so as it has already been mentioned, I'm not seeing anyone buy this new one instead 1. Especially for the same price and 2. When you would still need to have other lenses with you along with this anyway. It is definitely not like this would be a go to for it's 60-200mm range for general walk around city/street shooting or something.

 

[spudhead]

Too late to the party I think for sigma, maybe some will buy for the short end but I do not see it at the price point, no internal focus and so on the 200-600 is a near perfect zoom lens for me and delivers more than I had hoped for.

 

[LandyShooter]

It would be appealing to me as I film from a vehicle with a door mounted tripod, being able to put one camera on it and get such a wide range of lengths is very appealing - I need 3 different types of shots ideally, and 200mm doesn't often cut it for a wide/context shot.
However I also shoot a lot handheld and its even heavier than the Sony and I have a brand new 200-600, so no purchase from me for a long time - and especially need to see how AF is in video mode...

Still great to see such interesting things coming along! I love the idea of it!

 

[Brownie]

I wish Tamron would do something more with their 50-400. I've often wished I had something a little wider when the 100-400 is mounted. If they could improve the IQ at the long end and make it a little faster, like 3.5-5.6 or something it'd be next on my list.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I wonder if the greatest appeal of the 60-600 will be to newcomers, people without a lot of experience using long zooms. I can imagine the reaction: "I only need one lens - WOW!".

I owned the Canon version of the 150-600mm Contemporary, and that already extended a long way. It was very slightly lighter than the 200-600, but much less convenient.

Now that I have tried the 2x tele converter on the 200-600 with the A7RV, I have no temptation to look at the 60-600.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Meh. While I admire the technology Sigma have used to create this lens, I have always thought it's a real stretch to expect it to be fantastic through the range, and there is no way it can better the 200 600. 60-200 is far better covered by other lenses, even if it will cost more. The weight would be a big no no for many too, as enough complain about the 200 600 which isn't heavy at all IMO.

 

[AZHeaven]

First and foremost? This lens, while versatile with the 60mm on the wide end and 600 on the long end, weighs in at 5.5 lbs. And extends to 17.25 inches?
My 2 lens kit, Sony 24-105 and Sony 100-400 weighs just a 1/2 lb more and I get 58mm more on the wide end. Is it for some? Probably. I'm hoping someone, Sony, Tamron or Sigma comes out with an internal zoom 150-400 f4 like SAR rumored awhile back. Yeah, I know! SAR is not that reliable!

 

[mapleleaf56]

Honestly I wouldn’t swap my Sony 200-600 for any other lens.. it’s the main reason I change from Nikon to Sony..

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Honestly I wouldn’t swap my Sony 200-600 for any other lens.. it’s the main reason I change from Nikon to Sony..

Same!

 

[Gaz]

First and foremost? This lens, while versatile with the 60mm on the wide end and 600 on the long end, weighs in at 5.5 lbs. And extends to 17.25 inches?
My 2 lens kit, Sony 24-105 and Sony 100-400 weighs just a 1/2 lb more and I get 58mm more on the wide end. Is it for some? Probably. I'm hoping someone, Sony, Tamron or Sigma comes out with an internal zoom 150-400 f4 like SAR rumored awhile back. Yeah, I know! SAR is not that reliable!

I like the specs of the FE 24-70 F2.8 GM ii as my go-to lens, but I haven't read any reviews yet, and before I replace my existing lens, I'd like to have fun with a longer range to decide if it's for me. The Sony 100-400, though, is very attractive, and I've caught myself peeking at it through the shop window with my hand on my wallet.

Only a dedicated collector would buy this Sigma lens if they already own a Sony-200-600 telephoto, but I think Sigma has picked up on my dilemma.... Should I buy the sony 100-400 and fill my needs for a wider lens with a zoom, or prime, or two; or, should I buy the Sigma 60-600 and a decent wide-angle zoom? Sigma would have me buy its lens and work up my guns. What I noticed while travelling recently was that people see your big lens. They attract attention, which isn't good for urban photographers! None of the zooms in the list are discrete, so I'm leaning towards the 100-400 first up, then replacing my current zoom with more discrete primes for wider angles.


In an ideal world, with a healthy assistant to help carry the gear and money, no object, I'd buy a good range of primes and camera bodies to match.... But then, I'd become the dedicated collector, and get the sigma just in case that one moment arises.

G

 

[MrFotoFool]

The added weight of the Sigma over the Sony (one pound heavier) is definitely a deal breaker. I find the Sony a bit heavy as is and would not want anything heavier. In fact, I am hoping Sony will come out with a lighter version II of the 200-600 as they have done with the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 and reportedly are about to do with the 16-35 f2.8 .

 

[Paul stuart]

the only way the sigma would out perform the sonys eco is if you are on safari and only allowed one lens and body and a elephant came close ,otherwise just get the sony 200-600 and a tamron 28-200mm and your covered.

 

[MrFotoFool]

The added weight of the Sigma over the Sony (one pound heavier) is definitely a deal breaker. I find the Sony a bit heavy as is and would not want anything heavier. In fact, I am hoping Sony will come out with a lighter version II of the 200-600 as they have done with the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 and reportedly are about to do with the 16-35 f2.8 .

I was mistaken about the weight because B&H erroneously lists the Sony as weighing 4.65 pounds. Based on other sites the correct weight appears to be 5.4 pounds, which makes the Sigma only a fraction heavier at 5.5 pounds.