sony a6500/MC11 with Sigma 100-400

Enclosed a few images with Sony A6500/MC11/Sigma 100-400. i am not a pixel peeper and if you are: i suggest you look elsewhere. I have used this combination while on a bird photography trip to Spain. I also use Nikon but i am interested in a smaller, easier camera/lens package. My camera shop asked me to try this combination out. The lens is compact, well built, decent AF and good image quality. I do think it needs, at least, an option for a tripod collar. Maybe a job for RRS or kirk? I put the combo on a uniqball but it is unstable and i also noticed some flex. Overall i am pleased with the results. I have another trip lined up and will take this small rig with me again together with  Sony 70-400, sigma 150-600 and  Sony A9. Enclosed 4 images. I only converted them and no adjustments were made.

Blue Rock thrush 1/320 F6.3 ISO400 400mm
Oscillated lizard 1/1000 F6.3 ISO400 400mm
Corn bunting 1/320 F6.3 ISO400 400mm
Displaying Blue rock thrush 1/320 F6.3 ISO400 400mm
[font='Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]


[/font]

Gotta edit out those formatting tags when copying and pasting text... It's just too hard to read

Looks like the lens might be a good budget option but there clearly are compromises compared to the new native 100-400 or even mounting a Canon 100-400 II with the MC-11 or metabones. - mainly maximum aperture and, as you say, the lack of a lens collar.

I would be very skeptical of putting such a lens on a converter without a tripod collar. My 2 cents. The sigma also has no collar unlike some others, so all that weight on the camera mount? Nice shots though.

Budget option or not, the image quality is very good in my humble opinion. The tripod collar is a miss for sure, although it is very easy to work with this lens out of the hand so to speak. Surely the likes of Wimberley and RRS will be able to design a tripod collar solution for this lens? And yes Neil, when I put it on the Uniqball it became rather unstable and I felt at times the lens mount would snap . A teleconverter is a total non starter I think. Saying that: it is a very nice lens and it was very useful during my trip to Spain. I used both the 150-600 and this 100-400 far more then my 500mm. For hide work the perfect combination.
Rene

I just retyped the text and added another image but again i got all these weird formatting tags...how can i get ride of them? remove formatting is greyed out! many thanks
thanks

rene wrote:I just retyped the text and added another image but again i got all these weird formatting tags...how can i get ride of them? remove formatting is greyed out! many thanks
thanks

You will never get that if you type your info directly into NSN - once you cut and paste text, that can happen.  It's easy to edit out, just click on the little piece of paper at the right of the small icon bar right above the text entry box.

Thanks EJ
Rene

Neilyb wrote:I would be very skeptical of putting such a lens on a converter without a tripod collar. My 2 cents. The sigma also has no collar unlike some others, so all that weight on the camera mount? Nice shots though.

You probably wouldn't worry about putting the 135mm Sigma Art lens on that mount, although at 1130 grams it's just 30 grams lighter than the Sigma 100-400. There are a lot of primes without lens collar that are in the same weight range as the Sigma 100-400, some even exceed it. Like the 28mm Zeiss Otus, with a whopping 1390 grams.

I often use the Canon 400/5.6 L with the Sigma MC 11 converter on the Sony a6500. That lens is 1250 grams and there is not the slightest hint that the lens mount is suffering under that load.

Thanks for posting those images, Rene. They appear to match, or even slightly exceed; the image quality of the Sony 70-300 G OSS; at least my copy. Have you tried any BIF images with the lock-on focus function with this lens? An if yes, how well does it work?

No I haven't tried BIF and I wouldn't hold your breath over it. I try this weekend if the weather permits
Rene

Jens Peermann wrote:

Neilyb wrote:I would be very skeptical of putting such a lens on a converter without a tripod collar. My 2 cents. The sigma also has no collar unlike some others, so all that weight on the camera mount? Nice shots though.

You probably wouldn't worry about putting the 135mm Sigma Art lens on that mount, although at 1130 grams it's just 30 grams lighter than the Sigma 100-400. There are a lot of primes without lens collar that are in the same weight range as the Sigma 100-400, some even exceed it. Like the 28mm Zeiss Otus, with a whopping 1390 grams.

I often use the Canon 400/5.6 L with the Sigma MC 11 converter on the Sony a6500. That lens is 1250 grams and there is not the slightest hint that the lens mount is suffering under that load.

I agree completely except that the Sigma 100-400 is much longer at full zoom than the Sigma putting weight further from the camera body and increasing the stress on the mount, vibrations also increased greatly.

But the images look good and it seems Sony may finally be on the verge of a real take over (not to mention Sigma's march into the high end market).

I really like this set up. Now next week i am going to try the A9 with MC11 and Sigma Sports 150-600...that will be interesting. There are so many conflicting reports about this combination (i know Sigma is working on a firmware update) but if it is decent i might move over completely. If Sony E mount is that succesfull: why does Sigma takes so long to bring lenses in E mount to market? Seems a missed opportunity!
Rene