sigma 150-600 contemporary

[Tannin]

^ Nice work Andrew. That'll be the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index, so yes, it includes dividends, but not franking credits. However, it also includes a number of unrealistic and optimistic assumptions. These include zero brokerage both buying and selling, zero administration and compliance costs, so call it about even.

PS: I have an HP 12c too! Also a later model, possibly a 41c. Alas, I haven't used them for ages. These days I prefer Quattro Pro.

[Cage]

hi there,
i'm looking at a new lens for sports and bird . so the 150-600 is in mind.
i am looking at the Sigma contemporary because it gets finance approval sooner. A friend says get the sports.
I've seen some reviews and shots from the c on this forum. Is there any paricular concerns i should be considering with the contemporary?

BTW. its to go on a Nikon D750

thanks

I went through this exercise last year with the two Sigmas, the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500. Being retired I had the time to look at heaps of comparisons and reviews and to be perfectly honest there wasn't a huge difference between any of them IQ wise, certainly no real stand-out or loser, but the Sigma Sport was always either at or near the top.

I think what swayed me to get the Sport was the weather sealing and the very good price I got from Camera Pro https://www.camerapro.com.au/sigma-1...kon-mount.html

Yes it's a big heavy lens which I use with a tripod and a Wimberley sidekick, and it's a joy to shoot with. Oh, and the Dock is a must have accessory @ $59.00

I have absolutely no regrets with my purchase.

[bobt]

it's a joy to shoot with. Oh, and the Dock is a must have accessory @ $59.00

So this part interests me .... I have the lens but not the dock. Can you tell me more about that and what difference it made to you?

[Cage]

So this part interests me .... I have the lens but not the dock. Can you tell me more about that and what difference it made to you?

Hi Bob,

The dock allows you to fine tune the autofocus at different focal lengths, so you are able to fine tune it at say MFD, Infinity, and selected points in between, and save the settings.

[bobt]

Hi Bob,

The dock allows you to fine tune the autofocus at different focal lengths, so you are able to fine tune it at say MFD, Infinity, and selected points in between, and save the settings.

So you actually do notice the difference in your images? I thought it might be such a fine adjustment no-one would actually see it. Either that or it was just to correct a faulty lens. Good to know it's been found useful - I might buy one ... one day.

[J.davis]

Highly recommend getting the USB Dock, bobt.
I check calibration about six mth intervals.

[Tannin]

Hmmmm ... As compared to a Canon lens where it just works properly all the time without any mucking about. I daresay Nikon lenses are the same. (But yes, if I owned a Sigma or Tamron lens, I'd buy the dock too.)

(Well, actually I do own a Tamron lens, but I haven't had it long enough to discover any need for adjustments. But there should not be any such need with a simple 85mm prime. A a long zoom is a much more difficult ask.)

Sigma fans, please note that this isn't to diss Sigma, (Or Tamron.) With a Canon lens (or a Nikon) the manufacturer has full access to everything known about Canon bodies (or Nikon as the case may be), including both public knowledge and proprietary trade secret information, and no need to make any compromises to suit other-brand kit. But this isn't the important bit, the real kicker is that every future Canon (or Nikon) body, teleconverter, flash, or other relevant accessory for the next 20-odd years will be designed to be compatible with, thoroughly tested using, and if necessary modified to suit that lens you just bought. This is the key reason to get a dock: to allow firmware updates for as-yet unreleased kit you will want the lens to work with one day.

It's no secret that I don't rate the 600mm f/6.7 zooms. But used withing their limitations, they do a remarkably good job for the money, and for the sake of $100, why wouldn't you get the dock?

[basketballfreak6]

hmm, the canon measures sharper for sure but out in the field the IQ difference is so minor i wouldn't consider that to be the differentiating factor for the 100-400II against the sigma

to me if you want faster aperture and first party af you get the canon, if you want 600mm and some cash savings you go the sigma, pretty simple really, everyone has different priorities

i got the sports version myself only because i didn't want to wait for the contemporary version to come out and i got a crazy good price on launch ($1700 from digi direct at the time), if i were to buy today i'd probably get the C for the cost and weight savings, on that note i hand hold the S with no issues whatsoever, i walk around with it just with a R strap for hours quite easily

here is a handheld shot at 600mm ISO 10000 on my old 5D mk3 (and i still had to push about 2/3 stop in post because it was that dark where i was) at 1/80 shutter speed and the lens shot wide open at f6.3 can still render individual feather details on that eastern yellow robin so i think it's plenty sharp really

Eastern Yellow Robin by Tony, on Flickr

[Tannin]

It's a fine lens. But it would be sharper if you'd shot it with a 100-400 II and cropped a bit harder. Check the comparisons for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=7&APIComp=0 Plus, the Sigma is hugely heavier, has horrible handling (the worst of any long lens I've used, though the Canon 200-400/4 runs it close), inferior IS (any lens without Mode III IS is, in my view, automatically inferior to any other remotely similar lens with it), is approximately three elephants heavier, and only does f/6.3.

Is 1/3d or a stop important? My word it is.

The Sport was a clear upgrade on the 100-400 Mark I (so long as you could live with the weight, the handling, and the f/6.3), and it may very well be the best low-cost answer for Nikon owners (the Nikkor 80-400 seems rather friendless despite its spectacular price; however the 200-500, low price notwithstanding, is apparently pretty good and might give the Sigma a run for the money) but I strongly encourage any Canon owner to go for the 100-400 II if the big iron is out of reach. Excluding the $10,000+ monsters, the 100-400 II is simply the best lens I have ever owned or used. More than likely, it will be years before any competitor matches it.

For people wanting 600mm, please do not be seduced by the lure of the cheap f/6.3 zooms. They are perfectly OK lenses (even if not the best choice in that price bracket) but they are not remotely, not by any stretch of the imagination, in the same class as the big 400, 500, and 600mm f/2.8 and f/4 primes. If you really want the reach, raid the piggy bank a bit harder and look for something like a second-hand 500/4. Yep, it's even heavier than a Sport hurts your pocket too, but it is easier to hand-hold and vastly more capable. We are not talking an incremental difference here, the gap between them is a chasm.

[jim]

I haven't used any of the lenses discussed, but the above makes sense to me. Perhaps the idea of buying a sodding expensive lens second hand is off-putting to most people, but doing that made a noticeable difference to my bird photos. I have a Tamron 150-600 and was fairly happy with it, figuring that the lens was probably better than I was and that any lack of quality in the final images was due to user error. That's probably mostly true but after I bought a well worn Nikon 200-400 I just stopped using the Tamron. And the long primes are reputedly even better.

[Tannin]

The various Nikon 200-400s have been around for approximately forever, each new model even better than the last. Wonderful things. For years I wanted one (but would have had to change systems 'coz I have Canon bodies). Then Canon brought out their own (which is equally well-regarded, though a bit of a beast off-tripod) and I could have bought one last year. But in the end, after much dithering and many changes of mind, I went for a 600/4 instead. As things have turned out, that was the right decision - not because it's a better lens (every single one of the big whites, and from everything I have ever heard the big blacks too, is wonderful in its own special way) but because the particular combination of strengths the 600 offered was more suited to my needs than a 200-400/4 or a 400/2.8 or another 500/4. Is the 200-400 the lens you used for those unforgettable Silvereyes in your aunt's apple tree Jim?

- - - Updated - - -

PS: one of the nice things about having top-quality gear is that you can no longer worry about gear.

With something like your 200-400 (or my 600/4 II), there are no excuses. You can't say "I would have done better today if I'd had a Canikon Supermegalens". You have already got one of the best lenses human ingenuity has ever produced. If the shot isn't up to scratch, the reason is that you didn't get it right, so try harder. It might sound silly put like that, but I reckon it's a real factor.

[jim]

Yes, they were the 200-400. People complain that it isn't quite as good with distant subjects as it is with near ones, but I don't often use it over 20 metres or so. It's the first generation and the AF is no longer perfectly reliable, but it works most of the time and when I don't get the shot, yes, I know it was me not the lens.

I cost $2800 imported from the US, so not really a bank breaker.

[LindaMarea]

those shots are gorgeous!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Tony - brilliant shot of the Robin!