Sigma 200mm F2 DG OS | Sports (L-Mount) vs Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports (L-Mount)
Key differences
- —The 200mm F2 DG OS | Sports (L-Mount) is 675g lighter (1820g vs 2495g).
- —The 200mm F2 DG OS | Sports (L-Mount) is faster: f/2 vs f/4.5 (≈2.3 stops more light).
- —At launch the 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports (L-Mount) cost $1,300 less ($1,999 vs $3,299).
- —For close-ups the 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports (L-Mount) reaches 0.42× vs 0.13×.
Which to choose
- 200mm F2 DG OS | Sports (L-Mount)
Choose it for:
- +The lightest option: 1820g, 675g less than the next
- +The brightest aperture: f/2, about 2.3 stops more light
- +A physical aperture ring
- +The sharpest results in reviews
- +The nicest background blur in reviews
- 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports (L-Mount)
Choose it for:
- +The widest view: starts at 60mm
- +The longest reach: up to 600mm
- +The best close-ups: 0.42× magnification
- +The lowest launch price: $1,999, $1,300 less
Computed from published specs, confirmed launch prices and, where every lens has at least two reviews, review scores.
- Mount
- L-Mount (FF)
- L-Mount (FF)
- Focal length
- 200mm
- 60–600mm
- Max aperture
- F2◆
- F4.5–6.3
- Weight
- 1,820g◆
- 2,495g
- Dimensions ⌀ × L
- 118.9 × 201.0mm
- 119.4 × 279.2mm
- Volume
- 2232 cm³◆
- 3126 cm³
- Density
- 0.82 g/cm³
- 0.80 g/cm³
- Filter thread
- ⌀105mm
- ⌀105mm
- Min focus
- 1.70m
- 0.45m◆
- Max magnification
- 0.13×
- 0.42×◆
- Elements / groups
- 19 / 14
- 27 / 19
- Aperture blades
- 11◆
- 9
- Focus drive
- HLA Linear Motor
- HLA Linear Motor
- Stabilisation
- Yes
- Yes
- Weather sealed
- Yes
- Yes
- Aperture ring
- Yes · de-click
- —
- Released
- 2025
- 2023
- MSRP (USD)
- $3,299
- $1,999◆
- Sharpness
- 9.5◆
- 8.6
- Bokeh Rendering
- 9.3◆
- 7.8
- Autofocus Speed
- 9.0◆
- 8.8
- Flare Resistance
- 8.4◆
- 8.3
- Build / Sealing
- 9.2◆
- 8.9
- Value / Size
- 8.1
- 8.5◆
Performance overlay
- 200mm F2 DG OS | Sports (L-Mount)
- 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports (L-Mount)
◆ marks the best value in a row. Scores are 0–10 editorial ratings.