• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Sigma 150/600 contemporary (2 Viewers)

The other thing is, and I know this has been said before is that I think that people really do not understand that when using 600mm that you still need to be very close to the subject. These are $1,000-$2,000 lenses that are optically very good under ideal conditions. Once you have to give them a heavy crop or less than ideal lighting conditions then the shots really suffer.

For this reason, I think the C is a great lens. It is light enough to hand hold for long periods of time. Plus it is very sharp given the right circumstances.
 
the black fox said:
Nick and Roy , I think that with a aps.c camera as long as you keep your aperture smaller than f8 your not going to see much difference between the two models ,however with larger sensors and/or shooting at larger apertures then the sport will give better overall performance .as Nick saw last week I have no trouble personally using and hand holding the S. But I,m a big bloke .

Looking at some tests done earlier this week by another forum member using a 5d3-v- a 7d2 the I.q from the former shone through which makes me wonder about going full frame as well ,I have long been under the impression that the crop sensor format is purely a optical illusion and you in fact gain very little from it even after cropping ,and probably why I,m hesitant to use the 70d
Click to expand...
Jeff,There is no doubt that a FF like the 5D3 gives a lot better overall IQ than a crop sensor but I have tried several test on birds, comparing a 1.6 cropper against a 5D3 shot cropped to the same field of view and the 7D yields more fine detail every time - That's not so say that the cropped FF shots are not 'cleaner' but they do not show the same amount of detail for sure. I guess it depends on what most important better IQ or more detail. If you can get near enough with a FF cam then that is the very best option but do not underestimate the reach advantage a crop Cam has over a full frame if you are reach limited (I did which is why I have now bought a 7D2 to compliment my 5D3). For all non reach limited situations I will still use the 5D3 but for most of my birding shots I will use the 7D2.
EDIT: A good way of telling how a FF cam would be on your 600mm lens is to use the 70D and shoot at 375mm - that gives you the same FOV as the FF.

I did take some shots with the C and my 5D3 for the first time today but the weather is so bad that I could not really test it for IQ differences. I did however slap the 1.4x tc and was amazed at how well it AF's on the combo in very poor light, I took a few shots at static objects hand held at ISO 3200 and slow shutter speeds and was highly surprised at the results. I cannot wait to try it out in decent light.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
Jeff,There is no doubt that a FF like the 5D3 gives a lot better overall IQ than a crop sensor but I have tried several test on birds, comparing a 1.6 cropper against a 5D3 shot cropped to the same field of view and the 7D yields more fine detail every time - That's not so say that the cropped FF shots are not 'cleaner' but they do not show the same amount of detail for sure. I guess it depends on what most important better IQ or more detail. If you can get near enough with a FF cam then that is the very best option but do not underestimate the reach advantage a crop Cam has over a full frame if you are reach limited (I did which is why I have now bought a 7D2 to compliment my 5D3). For all non reach limited situations I will still use the 5D3 but for most of my birding shots I will use the 7D2.
EDIT: A good way of telling how a FF cam would be on your 600mm lens is to use the 70D and shoot at 375mm - that gives you the same FOV as the FF.

I did take some shots with the C and my 5D3 for the first time today but the weather is so bad that I could not really test it for IQ differences. I did however slap the 1.4x tc and was amazed at how well it AF's on the combo in very poor light, I took a few shots at static objects hand held at ISO 3200 and slow shutter speeds and was highly surprised at the results. I cannot wait to try it out in decent light.
Click to expand...

Could you post some of the shots you get if/when you have some nice light with the 7d2 and the 1.4x iii. I'd love to see them.
 
I was not happy with the consistency of the AF with the Sigma 1.4x (latest model) so I returned it. That was with the 7d2 and 1d x.

Will try the Canon version today, a friend is bringing his over. I also have a kenko coming next week for testing.

Just for reference on my Nikon cameras the sport was working great with the new Sigma 1.4x.
 
micloi said:
I was not happy with the consistency of the AF with the Sigma 1.4x (latest model) so I returned it. That was with the 7d2 and 1d x.

Will try the Canon version today, a friend is bringing his over. I also have a kenko coming next week for testing.

Just for reference on my Nikon cameras the sport was working great with the new Sigma 1.4x.
Click to expand...

Please let me know how you do with the Canon 1.4x iii. Would be very good to know that you and Roy both get good performance with it.
 
Just tried it (mk3), much better than the Sigma. Not perfect but that was in overcast weather. I am sure that in good light it will work great.

I ordered a used MK1 to use and compare with the Tamron next week as I did not want to spend so much for the mk3 for something I will rarely use. Will keep you posted
 
hosesbroadbill said:
Please let me know how you do with the Canon 1.4x iii. Would be very good to know that you and Roy both get good performance with it.
Click to expand...
I am using the Canon 1.4x tc MkII NOT the MKIII.
It AF's very well considering f9 but I have not got anything yet to see how the IQ is for birds - just saying
 
Last edited:
More shots from the weekend with the Sigma to show how good it is. Forget the aesthetics of the shots. Just check out the sharpness, colors and contrast.

Chipping Sparrow

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17169600619/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17169510049/in/photostream/

Tree Swallow

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17174800099/in/photostream/

House Wren (some day I need to learn how to clone out branches)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16738499244/in/photostream/
 
micloi said:
Is that for the Nikon fit one?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's for the Nikon.

Just received a mail from Sigma Corporation of America claiming Nikon mount should be available now, but because Canon is much bigger a marked there are not as many available and they all should be to people which have preordered and backordered them. If no order or preorder late June or July if even then.
 
Last edited:
Got fairly close to Stonechat's today (within 5-6 yards at times) but must say I was fairly disappointed with the results. atmospheric conditions may have contributed a little but I suspect it was either some AFMA needed and/or Camera shake from handholding. I will have to do another MA test and next time I am going to use a tripod.
If you get fairly close to the bird with this lens you can crop quite a lot and get a nice image but when the bird is small in the frame then the fine detail is just not there to crop much IMHO. This is very similar to results I got with the Tammy 150-600 when I had one although at the moment I think that the Siggy shades it.
Attached is one of the better ones but I had loads of binners, it was taken from around 6 metres I guess but still had to crop a fair bit.
 

Attachments

  • stone02.jpg
    stone02.jpg
    214.4 KB · Views: 280
Last edited:
Roy C said:
Got fairly close to Stonechat's today (within 5-6 yards at times) but must say I was fairly disappointed with the results. atmospheric conditions may have contributed a little but I suspect it was either some AFMA needed and/or Camera shake from handholding. I will have to do another MA test and next time I am going to use a tripod.
If you get fairly close to the bird with this lens you can crop quite a lot and get a nice image but when the bird is small in the frame then the fine detail is just not there to crop much IMHO. This is very similar to results I got with the Tammy 150-600 when I had one although at the moment I think that the Siggy shades it.
Attached is one of the better ones but I had loads of binners, it was taken from around 6 metres I guess but still had to crop a fair bit.
Click to expand...

That is the main reason why I typically only post photos of close birds. I do not think that any of these cheap zoom lenses are capable of big crops when the birds are far away. That is why people pay $10,000 for I guess. I think these lenses are really good at close range in good conditions.
 
So, would the Canon 7D Mkii with the 100-400 mk ii, actually 383mm at the long end, plus the 1.4 converter be a better option do you think?
 
hosesbroadbill said:
That is the main reason why I typically only post photos of close birds. I do not think that any of these cheap zoom lenses are capable of big crops when the birds are far away. That is why people pay $10,000 for I guess. I think these lenses are really good at close range in good conditions.
Click to expand...
I must admit I have not got a single shot in the field from the Siggy that I have been happy with yet but I will soldier on. Every 'cheap' zoom lens I have ever used as been fine when when you can get really close but very average if you have cannot get that close and this one is no different.
Like you mentioned earlier,even with 600mm on a 1.6 crop Camera you have to very near to capture good detail in a bird, over something like a 400mm lens a 600mm only gives you a few extra metres to play with.Its amazing the people you talk to out in the field who think that these big lenses can take good shots from 'miles' away :-O
IMHO you certainly do not have to pay anything like 10k to get a 'decent' birding lens that can render nice detail from a distance. Something like a used Canon 500/4 IS Mk I is a brilliant lens even with a 1.4x tc on board. With a lens like the 500/4 (even at 700/5.6) you can post a web size image where the bird is small in the frame at around 900 pixels on the longest side and still see nice detail, I always think that is the test of a really good lens.
For any youngsters out there who often find themselves reach limited and want the best IQ I would advise them to save up for a Canon (or Nikon) big prime even if it is a second hand one. Just wish I was 10-15 younger but all this digital photography lark has all come to late for me :C
 
Colin M said:
So, would the Canon 7D Mkii with the 100-400 mk ii, actually 383mm at the long end, plus the 1.4 converter be a better option do you think?
Click to expand...
Tough call Colin but there is no doubting the 100-400 mkII is a nice lens. All zoom lenses suffer from the so called 'focus breathing' and their max focal length is always measure at infinity - the closer you shoot from then the less the actual focal length will be. The Sigma 150-600 would be no different in this respect. I have not seen any measurements but if you shot the Siggy at the long end of the zoom at near to the MFD I would guess that it would not be anywhere near 600mm.
With a lens like the 100-400 II it would not be brilliant with a converter but I suspect the bare lens could stand quite a lot of cropping. If I had the choice again I think I would go for the 100-400 II in preference to the Siggy. I guess at the end of the day it depends what type of bird shots you want to get - the 100-400 II would be good for aesthetically nice images where the bird is not necessarily big in the frame, but if you want shots where the bird is almost filling the frame (scorned upon by good wildlife photographers) then a longer focal length would be best.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
I must admit I have not got a single shot in the field from the Siggy that I have been happy with yet but I will soldier on. Every 'cheap' zoom lens I have ever used as been fine when when you can get really close but very average if you have cannot get that close and this one is no different.
Like you mentioned earlier,even with 600mm on a 1.6 crop Camera you have to very near to capture good detail in a bird, over something like a 400mm lens a 600mm only gives you a few extra metres to play with.Its amazing the people you talk to out in the field who think that these big lenses can take good shots from 'miles' away :-O
IMHO you certainly do not have to pay anything like 10k to get a 'decent' birding lens that can render nice detail from a distance. Something like a used Canon 500/4 IS Mk I is a brilliant lens even with a 1.4x tc on board. With a lens like the 500/4 (even at 700/5.6) you can post a web size image where the bird is small in the frame at around 900 pixels on the longest side and still see nice detail, I always think that is the test of a really good lens.
For any youngsters out there who often find themselves reach limited and want the best IQ I would advise them to save up for a Canon (or Nikon) big prime even if it is a second hand one. Just wish I was 10-15 younger but all this digital photography lark has all come to late for me :C
Click to expand...

I have thought long and hard about buying a 500 f4. Long and hard but keep going back to weight and versatility. Version one is a beast. You can get here in the US a nice copy for about $5,500. Throw in a $500 tripod (at least that much) plus another $500 Wimberley head and another $450 for a 1.4x iii and you are basically $7,000 plus tax. IQ will be better for sure, especially if you need to print things out. But will it be 5 to 6 times better? No way. Not for the kind of shooting I do which is basically taking advantage of close birds while birding. Typically in good light.

Otherwise the zooms are far more portable, way lighter, way easier to use for BIF. And for me the most important part is I can walk around with it all day. Use it while birding along with my binoculars (swarovski 10 x 42's so not so light) and my scope and tripod (kowa 883 and a heavy tripod to use in high wind). No way I could do that with an f4. So if I went to say Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge and want to do some shore birding then I would have to either go with the f4 or with my scope. Or have different heads and things with me.

That is just not something that I would do. So for my use I think I will stick with this lens for a long time. Only thing that may sway me is if the 400 DO ii proves to be that much better than maybe I will buy it. Have the money saved but just don't think the other lenses will work for me. I guess at some point you need to make a decision. Either you are a birder and taking pics while birding or you are a photographer and take the gear with you to take pics.

Or you have two sets of gear. One to use while birding and another to take for special shots.
 
hosesbroadbill said:
I have thought long and hard about buying a 500 f4. Long and hard but keep going back to weight and versatility. Version one is a beast. You can get here in the US a nice copy for about $5,500. Throw in a $500 tripod (at least that much) plus another $500 Wimberley head and another $450 for a 1.4x iii and you are basically $7,000 plus tax. IQ will be better for sure, especially if you need to print things out. But will it be 5 to 6 times better? No way. Not for the kind of shooting I do which is basically taking advantage of close birds while birding. Typically in good light.

Otherwise the zooms are far more portable, way lighter, way easier to use for BIF. And for me the most important part is I can walk around with it all day. Use it while birding along with my binoculars (swarovski 10 x 42's so not so light) and my scope and tripod (kowa 883 and a heavy tripod to use in high wind). No way I could do that with an f4. So if I went to say Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge and want to do some shore birding then I would have to either go with the f4 or with my scope. Or have different heads and things with me.

That is just not something that I would do. So for my use I think I will stick with this lens for a long time. Only thing that may sway me is if the 400 DO ii proves to be that much better than maybe I will buy it. Have the money saved but just don't think the other lenses will work for me. I guess at some point you need to make a decision. Either you are a birder and taking pics while birding or you are a photographer and take the gear with you to take pics.

Or you have two sets of gear. One to use while birding and another to take for special shots.
Click to expand...
I was not referring to you when I advised a 500/4 but to anyone who cannot get access to 'semi tame' birds and will always be reach limited. I do not blame you using one of these lightweight lenses if it suits you but you cannot speak for anyone in the UK who will most always be reach limited.You seem to have access to close-up birds but I know a lot of folk here in the UK frequent RSPB reserve for most of their birding that they will always be reach limited as getting very close to the birds is not only difficult but frowned upon - most of the hides in these places are placed so they are a good distance from the birds to alleviate disturbance so good quality long lenses on a tripod is the only way they will get really nice shots.
I repeat my advise for anyone who is reach limited most of the time and want really nice IQ - save up for a second hand lens like the 500/4, you will not regret it. Of course if you are happy with the quality from one of these cheap zoom when shooting small birds for 15 metres or more then that is great - I most certainly am not :-C
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
Sigma 150-600 Contemporary or Sports
Replies
4
Views
929
gerald762
gerald762
P
Advice for getting back into bird photography - Camera and Zoom lens
Replies
7
Views
1K
MelospizaMelodiaFan
MelospizaMelodiaFan
D
Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 'Sports' lens for E mount
Replies
1
Views
1K
DavidSwanepoel
D
Andy Strachan
Sigma 150-600 - (DG) or (DC)??
Replies
3
Views
2K
Andy Strachan
Andy Strachan
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top