Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 14 posts | 
by MND on Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:48 am
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 1 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
I’m considering purchasing the 150-600 Sport for use with my D850. I notice that the price has dropped by $200 to $1799. Does this indicate that perhaps a mark II version is imminent?

Any problems with the 150-600 Sport with the D850?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:40 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I see absolutely no reason for a Mk II - what would Sigma add to the lens that it doesn't already have?
 

by Gary Irwin on Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:38 am
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Hi E.J.;

I know you're a fan of Sigma glass. Have you had a chance to directly compare the Nikon 200-500VR against the Sigma Sport 150-600? If so, how would you summarize the Sigma's strengths/weaknesses?

Also, how does the superzoom compare to the new Sigma 500mm in terms of sharpness and contrast? General impressions are fine.

Thanks!
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:27 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Hi Gary, yes I have and the Nikon while light and convenient is no match for the Sigma Sport - not even close - especially on a full frame camera. The Sigma 150-600 contemporary is more in the class of the Nikon 200-500, not the Sigma Sport lens. But... the Sigma 150-600 needs a very complex 16 point focus calibration done with the Sigma dock to get everything the lens is capable out of it. None of those zoom lenses are capable of the fine detail rendering that the Sigma 500 f/4 can render on high megapixel cameras. My review of the 500 can be found here on NSN and the 150-600 Sport is reviewed here:
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sigma%20150-600.pdf
 

by Gary Irwin on Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:26 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks E.J.! Excellent review of the 150-600 BTW.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:11 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
By the way, after shooting the 500 f/4 in Brazil for many thousands of shots, my opinion of the lens has skyrocketed well beyond what my review said. It is a truly exceptional lens at any price, much less a fraction of the Canon and Nikon.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:50 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Mike, make sure you go and test them yourself before you buy. I took out a Sigma 150-600 Sport for a full day. I AF Fine Tuned it for 600mm only. The lens is beautifully constructed and looks great in every way. The Sigma kills the Nikon in construction and weather sealing, but then it costs $1000 more here in Canada. I really wanted to buy one, but it paled in comparison to 4 different Nikon 200-500 I have used. I borrowed a friend's 200-500 for two full days and shot with it here at my place. While the Sigma was no where close to as sharp as my 500 VR, the Nikon 200-500 is.  You would have split hairs to the nth degree to see any difference. In short, my 500 VR is now up for sale and I am going to purchase a Nikon 200-500. Now, I do not test lenses professionally and  technically like EJ does, and I do not have his technical knowledge in this area, but I do have good eyes and I am very fussy about my images. All I can say is the Nikon 200-500 passes the test for me, where the Tamron and Sigma did not. I wish I could demo a Sigma that Ej has fine tuned to see it at its best, but that is simply not possible here. The other thing that turned me away from the Sigma is f6.3. While it doesn't seem like a huge difference, it really is.The Nikon 200-500 is amazingly sharp wide open at f5.6. The four people I know that own it are all very good photographers and love it. They would not have purchased it before testing and seeing how great it is. I can't remember the AF speed on the Sigma, it may be better than the Nikon which is fairly slow. That being said, in the two days I used it, I really did not miss any shots because if it. I would not call it a good flight shooting lens though. Check my Recent Images page, where all the Jay, Chickadee, Junco and Nuthatches shots are with the 200-500. I can send you 100% files for you to see how sharp this lens is.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:56 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I do agree with Tim on the f/6.3 - in really low light it can be difficult to see your subject, compared to an f/4 lens, less so to an f/5.6 but it is still noticeable.  For me, in low light, my eyes cross a threshold between f/5.6 and 6.3 in being able to properly see my subject.  This came to light for me while photographing an Antpita in Ecuador this winter - a bird that really likes dark place under brush.  I could barely see it with my 150-600 but with my 70-200, even with a 1.4x it was easy to see.
 

by MND on Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:21 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 1 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Hey Tim.

Thanks for your well constructed reply, as always I appreciate any advice coming from you. As yet I haven't tried the Sigma but I did buy a 200-500 earlier this year to use with my D500. I have seen lots of sharp images people have taken with this lens (including your Recent Images). I could not get that good a photograph with mine. I tuned it at the typical focal length that I use and still it wasn't that good. I returned it after a week.

Looking at various images taken with the two lenses and while I realize that the images were taken by people with very varying degrees of ability in image capture and post processing I prefer the majority of results from the Sigma over the Nikon.

I just bought a Sigma 135mm F1.8 and I'm extremely impressed by it so it's made me reconsider a Sigma. I do like the idea of being able to calibrate it at the different focal lengths as described in E.J's excellent review.

I'll give the Sigma a try and if I can't get results I'm happy with I'l send it back and try another 200-500 because it's entirely possible I got a bad copy.

Cheers
 

by MND on Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:28 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 1 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
E.J. Peiker wrote:I do agree with Tim on the f/6.3 - in really low light it can be difficult to see your subject, compared to an f/4 lens, less so to an f/5.6 but it is still noticeable.  For me, in low light, my eyes cross a threshold between f/5.6 and 6.3 in being able to properly see my subject.  This came to light for me while photographing an Antpita in Ecuador this winter - a bird that really likes dark place under brush.  I could barely see it with my 150-600 but with my 70-200, even with a 1.4x it was easy to see.

Agreed. I'm not a walk around bird photographer, I prefer sitting in an arm chair with a cup of tea taking photo of birds in my yard. Occasionally I'll go take pictures of Eagles at Conowingo Dam but usually its in good lighting. I'm certainly not going to be photographing Antipita's in a South American forest  :mrgreen: 
 

by Tim Zurowski on Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:24 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
MND wrote: I could not get that good a photograph with mine. I tuned it at the typical focal length that I use and still it wasn't that good. I returned it after a week.
That is one of the problems with this lens (and many others) There are good copies and bad copies. A couple of friends had to send their first copy back and get a new one. The second copy is razor sharp. After doing my own tests, I simply cannot believe the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon. If it was, I would own one. ;)
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:54 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Tim Zurowski wrote:
MND wrote: I could not get that good a photograph with mine. I tuned it at the typical focal length that I use and still it wasn't that good. I returned it after a week.
That is one of the problems with this lens (and many others) There are good copies and bad copies. A couple of friends had to send their first copy back and get a new one. The second copy is razor sharp. After doing my own tests, I simply cannot believe the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon. If it was, I would own one. ;)
Well, having handled over 100 Sigma 150-600 and at least 3 dozen 200-500's, if the lenses are both properly calibrated, the Sigma smokes the Nikon, especially as you get off axis.  The 150-600 Sport is very difficult to calibrate but if it is done right, the lens is best in class.  The 200-500, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary along with the Tamron 150-600 G2 (which is also slightly better than the 200-500) are value kings though.  And if you shoot with a crop body, the differences become smaller.  Also, the Nikon can only be calibrated at one focal length and one shooting distance, while that can make that focal length and that distance very good, it means that other focal length's and distances are compromised.  Both the Tamron and Sigma models can be calibrated at 4 focal lengths and 4 shooting distances for 16 calibration points and the lens's internal computer than interpolates for in between distances - it's the power of lens based calibration tables rather than a single body based calibration value.  Finally, certainly there are bad copies of lenses and typically it is a higher percentage of the whole early in a product's life cycle.
 

by mikeojohnson on Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:25 pm
mikeojohnson
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: 21 Dec 2003
Location: Estero , Florida
Member #:00374
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I have a somewhat related question for Ej: Have you tried the sigma 150-600 C or S with the mc11 on a Sony Emount camera? If so, how is the AF performance in your opinion?
thanks,
Mike
"Photography intensifies the experience of life"
http://www.mojphoto.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:08 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
mikeojohnson wrote:I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I have a somewhat related question for Ej:  Have you tried the sigma 150-600 C or S with the mc11 on a Sony Emount camera?  If so, how is the AF performance in your opinion?
thanks,
Mike
On an a9 it should be half decent once Sigma optimizes the FW for the MC11, on any other Sony mirrorless camera to date it's poor to barely acceptable and certainly not for any kind of real complex movement tracking
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
14 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group