Sigmas S & C versions 150-600mm lenses

My girlfriend's "C" lens is producing soft images at all focal lengths and distances, despite my AFFT settings on the Nikon D500 camera, and the Sigma dock calibrations. My "S' version, on the other hand, is tack sharp, having done the same AFFT on the camera (also a D500)., and the Sigma dock calibration. About 100 feet away across the street is a handicapped small sign that has a small bar code at the bottom, maybe only a inch big. With my lens I can easily read the numbers below the bar code. With her lens I can only tell that there are indeed numbers at the bottom of the bar code. I ended up sending the combo out to Sigma and they maintain that I made a huge mistake by calibrating the camera at all. The tech said to leave the AFFT calibration to "0" and only use the dock with this setup. They went on to further say that after testing her combo out that it is well within their standards. I will get the lens and body back today, so I can re - test again. When I first got my camera I AFFT my D500 according to E.j.s very thorough article on how to achieve AFFT on the D500. My setup is great - hers is horrible!   E.j. - do you think Sigma is right in saying to not calibrate the camera body? 

With that camera (D500 and D5), I would leave AFFT at zero and calibrate the lens with the dock and as long as calibration can be achieved with the Dock and not touch AFFT.  Only if the optimum calibration result falls outside of the range that the lens can be calibrated to with the dock, would I start to mess with AFFT.

But, that being said, for a single focal length in a single situation, auto AFFT, if done properly, should for that situation produce the sharpest image the lens is capable of - it just wouldn't be optimal through the full zoom range and focus distance range so your concern about the sharpness of the lens is still valid.

I'm curious to see how the new Tamron 150-600 performs - on paper it should be somewhere between the C and the S and might be a better choice for the budget conscious 150-600.  The Sport is a much more sophisticated optical design and much better build quality and made to tighter tolerances than the Contemporary model so it's not too surprising that there are differences but the center sharpness shouldn't bee too different.

I would think to check on image quality maybe you would be best to take test images focused using live view. That way focus tuning is out of the picture so to speak. My thinking is that will tell you with certainty whether or not the lens is a good copy. If the image is still bad, you can go back to Sigma with that, if it's good then play with the various fine tune options to get the camera matching live view.

Just a follow up on what ultimately happened: The lens and body (D500) went back to Sigma for a re-calibration and AFFT. After a couple phone calls back and forth Sigma determined that her lens was well within their tolerances. The tech told me that Sigma has a version of the dock which goes deeper than the dock we the public can purchase, so the lens was setup using "their" docking system. He also compared her lens to a couple they had there and it again fell within tolerances. Well, I got it back, and although they improved it maybe 5-10%, it still was soft at all focal lengths/distances. I gave up on it, sold it back to B&H, and got her the Nikon 200-500mm. I calibrated that lens and it is producing very sharp images throughout the focal length and distances I was hoping for. So she's a happy camper again! My S version of the 150-600mm is so much better than that terrible C version was! I feel bad because I've recommended that lens to a few people in the past, but won't recommend it again in the future. 

Probably the same dock but with software that allows them to do more. I'm eager to see what the new Tamron produces.

I sent my Sigma 500 f4.5 to Sigma for calibration as it was soft from about 10M - infinity. They told me it was within tolerances and could not be calibrated further. Which is complete BS when the lens performs badly on three different bodies. It was then that I moved to the Canon teles and I have be cynical ever since

Neilyb wrote:I sent my Sigma 500 f4.5 to Sigma for calibration as it was soft from about 10M - infinity. They told me it was within tolerances and could not be calibrated further. Which is complete BS when the lens performs badly on three different bodies. It was then that I moved to the Canon teles and I have be cynical ever since

Realize that is a 20 year old optical design and not part of the global vision series which has very limited focus calibration capability.  It is has absolutely nothing to do with what can be done today.

Mark Picard wrote: I gave up on it, sold it back to B&H, and got her the Nikon 200-500mm.

Mark, I am curious to know if you are finding (with regards to sharpness) the Nikon 200-500 to be as sharp as your Sigma "S"?

Hi Mark

Glad you did what you had to do and came to a conclusion.  I know you recall that I am one you recommended the C to.  But you needn't feel badly, because in the end I have to decide what I want for me.....and I just could not see that lens.  I know the S is top shelf, but too heavy for me.  

On the other hand, the 200-500 is very sharp, but not before an AFFT.  When I first got it I wondered why everyone was giving it 5 stars.  It was soft.  I pulled out the LensAlign, ran test after test found it to be what everyone has said, very sharp!   And it only weighs a little over 4 pounds.  

What I do NOT like about the lens is the long zoom "throw" from 200-500.  You cannot move the entire range without repositioning the hand.  And I do not think the AF is all that fast.  It is just fine...but not really fast for BIF.  So I question if this is a first choice BIF lens.

But that is ok for me.  I needed something longer and real sharp.  The 80-400 AFS is very sharp for close work, but I have to really work to get sharpness at distance.  Now I need to buy this 200-500.... LOL.

I rented it for a month and now want it, but have not let go of that $1500 yet

Tim Zurowski wrote:

Mark Picard wrote: I gave up on it, sold it back to B&H, and got her the Nikon 200-500mm.

Mark, I am curious to know if you are finding (with regards to sharpness) the Nikon 200-500 to be as sharp as your Sigma "S"?

I give the nod to the Sigma by a tad. Just my personal opinion, certainly not even close to being scientific! They are both sharp enough for my tastes, and I think my Sigma is a little contrastier (word?) than the Nikon, so perhaps that is what I see as sharper. Obviously, one can just increase the contrast and levels adjustment in post to simulate the other. I am REALLY impressed with the Nikon's VR. You can actually see it working when you press the shutter. I know it works on the Sigma too, but it seems to work better on the Nikon. I can literally see it in action. I tried several shots handheld at 500mm at F8 and down to a 30th of a second shutter speed with good results. Yes, I said that right, a 30th of a second handheld! 

My style of wildlife photography is different than most people. I need to be able to get shots off quickly, as my main subjects (moose) don't stand around waiting for their picture to be taken. Real wild moose in Maine are just like White-tail deer and will run away upon encounters. I shoot most of my images from my truck on old, unused logging roads(with my camera next to me). Most times (especially in the Fall rut season) I only get 5-10 seconds and they're gone back into the thick forest. I simply don't have the time to set up even a monopod, much less a tripod, so everything is done handheld. I love having the ability to use my Gitzo when I can, but with these wild moose I simply can't.

Sometimes I will sit in the woods in full camo (during the rut) and call in the bulls using my mouth to simulate a cow moose call. Even in this situation I can't use a tripod because I just don't know where they might pop up. Sometimes it is behind me or to my sides, and I can't be moving a tripod around - they will leave due to the movement alone. I also need to have a zoom lens to be able to compose properly - a fixed prime just wouldn't cut it. I also don't want to carry several different lenses with me on those trips - too much motion again changing lenses. So that is why I chose a zoom telephoto instead of a prime. I can live with the fact that it might be 2 or 3% less sharp than the primes, but I can't see it happening any other way for me. I had a 600mm Nikon VR lens that I sold last year. Too much of a bear to lug around for me, plus it was fixed at 600mm - no ability to compose on the fly. 

Thanks Mark . . . . that is good info and really appreciate the response Even though I shoot mostly birds, some of your reasons for wanting a zoom are similar to mine. My biggest concern right now is sharpness. If my findings had been only 2 or 3% less sharp than my prime, I would have bought the Sigma "S" in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, my findings were that it was at least 20% less sharp, or more. I wish I knew someone around here (like you) who owns this lens and had it properly fine tuned, so I could see what it can do first hand.

Thank you for that Mark.

Sounds good.  Most agree with Mark that the Sig is a tad sharper, while just a few say the Nikon is a tad sharper.  I would expect the Sig to be just that tad sharper.  It is good enough for me.  In fact, it is darn sharp.  I know because I had it for that month.  I loved it.  It give me that extra length I always needed; it is VERY affordable and sharp.   I am excited about it and willing to accept the fact that is is not a stellar BIF lens.  Besides, what is?

Over at FM forum (oops!  LOL) saw a shot today taken with the 1.4TC on it. I do not like TC's but would accept a 1.4 if its performance was very good on this lens.   That is over 1000mm with the crop body.  The thing is....the shot was sharp.  Even at just 750, this will probably be all the super telephoto I will ever need.  Relative to other superteles that are its length, this one is lightweight.  I'll add the Kirk foot and for that price of $1500...will be thrilled with the whole thing.

Tim, I empathize with your rental situation up there.  Just what if....you called Lens Lender
and asked them to get one of those (Sig S?) in and you would promise to be their first rental customer for it ?  I do guess they would be more likely to buy the 200-500.  Is that worth a try?

Robert