New Sigma 150/600 contemporary (2 Viewers)

hosesbroadbill · Apr 19, 2015

Roy C said:
There does not look to be a lot in it to me. I notice that most all of them was shot at less than 600mm - a lot being quite a bit less (you must have been darn close, I have never got within 30 metres or so of a Oystercatcher and its usually a lot further than that lol).
I suppose the only way you could really compare is to shoot at some static target and on a tripod with both lenses at the same focal length.

At this time of year the Oystercatchers are completely preoccupied with themselves. There are a few beaches where plenty of people are always there with cameras. The birds are often very tame as long as you exercise the usual cautions. I just sit down and wait for them to come to me. Always go away from where the people are. Inevitably someone will get too close and flush them. Then they fly right up to where I am. Once they start battling they will fly right past you over and over. A few of them practically hit me. We're too close for focusing and moving way too fast.

from what I can see the Sigma may be a bit sharper but maybe I am just imagining it. The shots of them landed were taken earlier as I said with softer light so I am not surprised that they seem a bit sharper. Need to get a few more shots to form an opinion.

Curious if anyone sees any differences?

Nick Leech · Apr 19, 2015

Chaps, here is the link to my Flickr page showing some test shots.

a) Sigma C
b) Tamron
c) Canon 400mm f5.6
d) Canon 400 with x1.4 extender (Canon Mk2)

These are the only test shots I have left, having deleted all the others!

Same target, same camera (70D), all tripod mounted with cable release, same ISO, f8. All similar shutter speed.

I can see very little difference between the Siggy-C and the Tamron. I slightly prefer the IQ on the Tammy, but very close.

Interested to hear other people's take on these!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130850507@N03/?

Paul - Herts · Apr 19, 2015

I have a slight preference for the Sigma but, imo only, both beat the 400 and tc combo plus the 400 zoomed in looks way softer

tommybj · Apr 19, 2015

hosesbroadbill said:
At this time of year the Oystercatchers are completely preoccupied with themselves. There are a few beaches where plenty of people are always there with cameras. The birds are often very tame as long as you exercise the usual cautions. I just sit down and wait for them to come to me. Always go away from where the people are. Inevitably someone will get too close and flush them. Then they fly right up to where I am. Once they start battling they will fly right past you over and over. A few of them practically hit me. We're too close for focusing and moving way too fast.

from what I can see the Sigma may be a bit sharper but maybe I am just imagining it. The shots of them landed were taken earlier as I said with softer light so I am not surprised that they seem a bit sharper. Need to get a few more shots to form an opinion.

Curious if anyone sees any differences?

If I should do a "blind test" I would not be able to tell which picture were taken with Sigma or Tamron they are very close both in sharpness and contrast.

But i'm curious what maked the AF slower with the Sigma. Others has told it was the Tammy with slower AF when compared.

Nick Leech · Apr 19, 2015

Tommy, I felt that the Tamron was very slightly quicker to AF than the Sigma-C. For example, setting the focus at minimum focus and pointing the lens at a distant tree and seeing how quick it is to AF on the distant object. For the copies I had to compare, the Tamron was very slightly quicker than the Sigma-C.

I note that Isaac thought the same - see his post #117 above.

hosesbroadbill · Apr 20, 2015

Only had a very short time this morning. And by short time I mean like 20 minutes. 10 minutes spent driving, 7 or 8 walking and about 2 minutes taking pics. Just went to a local pond that has some geese. Thankfully they were close. These are just to show the kind of detail I got with the lens. All are at 600mm and all are not cropped at all. Didn't take Tamron with me to compare. No time today. Anyway the shots are not so interesting but they are all closeups of just the head and all are full frame.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16998015847/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17017913040/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17205454425/in/photostream/

Also processed a few more pics from yesterday.

1st a flying Oystercatcher with the Sigma

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17203182292/in/photostream/

And 1 with Tamron in nicer light than posted yesterday (wish that other bird was not in the background)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16997313117/in/photostream/

Not nearly enough time today to have a decision about performance of the lens but I am very happy with the detail on the geese. All shots are a bit over exposed in the whites (again no time to get that right) but show excellent details.

KC Foggin · Apr 20, 2015

They all look pretty damn good to me.

hosesbroadbill · Apr 20, 2015

KCFoggin said:
They all look pretty damn good to me.

Thanks. I agree that the Sigma is a quite good lens for the money. When time and sun cooperate I will get out and get more comparison shots. Not sure if it is going to be worth keeping as I already own the Tamron (I know you know that :t

. But if I keep getting those kind of details I may be swayed.

A few other minor pros for the Sigma as compared to the Tamron. The lens hood is sturdier feeling. The case that it comes with is quite nice and the lens and hood fit in like a glove. Tamron does not come with any case at all. Minor, but if one was thinking of buying one as compared to the other, those two things are certainly pro Sigma.

Minor pro Tamron is the tripod foot. The one of the Tamron is larger and longer. I like that more and often use that to hold the lens or to balance it on something. The lens foot on the Sigma is very small. So small in fact that I had a hard time holding it and carrying the lens. Kept feeling like it would slip out of my hand.

Minor, but just pointing out differences...

Another thing that hampered me trying to track BIF with the Sigma was that the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction as the Tamron. So I kept turning it in the wrong direction. Obviously something you would get used to. Tamron turns to the right and the Sigma to the left.

hosesbroadbill · Apr 20, 2015

Nick Leech said:
Chaps, here is the link to my Flickr page showing some test shots.

a) Sigma C
b) Tamron
c) Canon 400mm f5.6
d) Canon 400 with x1.4 extender (Canon Mk2)

These are the only test shots I have left, having deleted all the others!

Same target, same camera (70D), all tripod mounted with cable release, same ISO, f8. All similar shutter speed.

I can see very little difference between the Siggy-C and the Tamron. I slightly prefer the IQ on the Tammy, but very close.

Interested to hear other people's take on these!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130850507@N03/?

I think the Sigma looks the best. It is a bit hard to tell as the Tamron shot is brighter with a different shutter speed but I like the Sigma more. Very close but to my eye the Sigma is a bit sharper. Honestly after staring at the black and white lines for a few seconds it messes my eyes up. So I took a break and then went back to it. Both times I liked the Sigma more than Tamron and both versions of the Canon.

the mac 13 · Apr 20, 2015

hosesbroadbill said:
I think the Sigma looks the best. It is a bit hard to tell as the Tamron shot is brighter with a different shutter speed but I like the Sigma more. Very close but to my eye the Sigma is a bit sharper. Honestly after staring at the black and white lines for a few seconds it messes my eyes up. So I took a break and then went back to it. Both times I liked the Sigma more than Tamron and both versions of the Canon.

Hi there, I agree that Sigma look the best, however, the Canon 400 without TC looks a bit back focused?

Roy C · Apr 20, 2015

The Sigma certainly looks a bit better in that test. Anyone know if there is any stock in the UK?
When I had the Tamron I was always reasonable happy with the IQ at 600mm (stopped down to f8) but my main gripes were AF on flyers where there was not much contrast like distant curlews and it was also very difficult to latch onto small fast flyers (small waders in the main for me). I also found that it would not take a lot of biggish cropping which I, unfortunately, often require.
Although I guess I should not expect the Sigma or any other reasonable priced zoom to stand very heavy cropping I was hoping the AF may be a bit better than the Tamron, early indications from you guys are not encouraging in that respect. Both lenses look excellent value for money and now that I have got myself a 1.6x cropper again I may well give the Sigma 'C' a whirl for myself to see if I can get my birding enthusiasm back lol.
In the mean time I will soldier on with the old 400/5.6 which I know I can take massive liberties with regards to heavy cropping. The attached was taken last week and is cropped to about 20% of the full frame so represents something like 2000mm fov (without the Camera crop factor) according to my dodgy maths :eek!:
p.s. keep the samples from the Sigma 'C' coming guys :t:

Roy C · Apr 20, 2015

BTW 'Crazeenick' Next time you do the test it would be good if you crop the test pics right down to the test pic itself (Tammy v Sigma C that is) that way it is much easier to evaluate the results (say take three or four pics with each lens and then just put up the best one from each).
Another good option for trying out lenses is to get a target like the 'tame' Owl I use - it helps to pick up fine detail I find.

Nick Leech · Apr 20, 2015

Like the "tame owl" idea Roy! Useful simulation of a target bird.

Ref cropping the test photos down, I thought it was quite interesting to compare IQ on the "wood grain" areas of the shed door around the outside of the test chart. Interestingly on a couple of test pics I had a situation where comparison of the test chart markings seemed to indicate the Siggy-C had the edge on IQ, but looking at the wood grain areas, I preferred the Tammy!

I guess it just goes to show there is not much in it!

I am now very interested in knowing whether the Siggy Sports at 600mm is any sharper than the Siggy-C and Tammy. If it is, I might get a Siggy Sports despite the heavy weight. After all, it is still a lot lighter than a Canon 600mm prime (especially the Mk1!).

hosesbroadbill · Apr 20, 2015

Roy C said:
The Sigma certainly looks a bit better in that test. Anyone know if there is any stock in the UK?
When I had the Tamron I was always reasonable happy with the IQ at 600mm (stopped down to f8) but my main gripes were AF on flyers where there was not much contrast like distant curlews and it was also very difficult to latch onto small fast flyers (small waders in the main for me). I also found that it would not take a lot of biggish cropping which I, unfortunately, often require.
Although I guess I should not expect the Sigma or any other reasonable priced zoom to stand very heavy cropping I was hoping the AF may be a bit better than the Tamron, early indications from you guys are not encouraging in that respect. Both lenses look excellent value for money and now that I have got myself a 1.6x cropper again I may well give the Sigma 'C' a whirl for myself to see if I can get my birding enthusiasm back lol.
In the mean time I will soldier on with the old 400/5.6 which I know I can take massive liberties with regards to heavy cropping. The attached was taken last week and is cropped to about 20% of the full frame so represents something like 2000mm fov (without the Camera crop factor) according to my dodgy maths :eek!:
p.s. keep the samples from the Sigma 'C' coming guys :t:

Roy it is interesting how perspective, backgrounds and light changes things. We have a nesting pair of Great Horned Owls that nested right on a busy path at a widely visited National Park. I stopped by one evening last week and light was not good. The Tamron had a bit of problem focusing cause there was very little contrast. Birds are in the middle of a tree and tangle and there are lots of sticks and tress in back. It hunted for a minute and then focused. On the other hand out at the beach while trying to track flying Oystercatchers it locks on very fast. But I found that in low light/contrast situations that the 400 5.6 also struggled to lock on to focus. I tested the 2 of them and in good light the 400 was certainly faster to focus but not so much faster that it bothered me.

We just have had our local Purple Martins return for the season. Not all are in. I will take both lenses there and test getting flight shots of them. The Martins are close and fast so any limitations with the lens will show themselves quite well.

Roy C · Apr 20, 2015

hosesbroadbill said:
Roy it is interesting how perspective, backgrounds and light changes things. We have a nesting pair of Great Horned Owls that nested right on a busy path at a widely visited National Park. I stopped by one evening last week and light was not good. The Tamron had a bit of problem focusing cause there was very little contrast. Birds are in the middle of a tree and tangle and there are lots of sticks and tress in back. It hunted for a minute and then focused. On the other hand out at the beach while trying to track flying Oystercatchers it locks on very fast. But I found that in low light/contrast situations that the 400 5.6 also struggled to lock on to focus. I tested the 2 of them and in good light the 400 was certainly faster to focus but not so much faster that it bothered me.

In low light all these 'slow' lenses will struggle inc the slow 400/5.6 but I found that even if stella light the Tamron struggled to lock on to targets that were not that contrasty whereas the Canon had not trouble whatsoever on the same targets. As far as Oystercatchers goes they are just about the most contrasty target you could have (black and white) so I would fully expect the Tammy or any other slow lens to lock on to these with no problems.
I certainly agree about the light issue - I went out today and latched on to some nice birds (Wheatear and Linnet) took a couple of hundred shots. Got home and uploaded them to the PC and they are basically garbage - it was very bright and I had the sun behind me but at the end of the day the light was just too harsh I guess. I have lost count of the number of times I have been out on bright sunny day and ended up binning everything - will I ever learn :-C

hosesbroadbill · Apr 20, 2015

Roy C said:
In low light all these 'slow' lenses will struggle inc the slow 400/5.6 but I found that even if stella light the Tamron struggled to lock on to targets that were not that contrasty whereas the Canon had not trouble whatsoever on the same targets. As far as Oystercatchers goes they are just about the most contrasty target you could have (black and white) so I would fully expect the Tammy or any other slow lens to lock on to these with no problems.
I certainly agree about the light issue - I went out today and latched on to some nice birds (Wheatear and Linnet) took a couple of hundred shots. Got home and uploaded them to the PC and they are basically garbage - it was very bright and I had the sun behind me but at the end of the day the light was just too harsh I guess. I have lost count of the number of times I have been out on bright sunny day and ended up binning everything - will I ever learn :-C

Shame about today. Just goes to show how damn hard it is to get a really nice photo. Have to get so many factors in your favor. Close bird, nice light, good background, interesting pose or action, hold steady, correct settings and exposure and on and on.

With regards to the Sigma for me it will have to be better by a bit than the Tamron in order for me to keep. I will be losing money by having to sell my Tamron at a loss so I need to do tests and be sure.

One thing thing will sway me one way or the other is the focus speed and accuracy. But then that brings up an interesting question. If Sigma is a bit sharper but slower do you keep it over a slightly less sharp (remains to be seen) but faster and more accurate Tamron? So more tests are in order...

hosesbroadbill · Apr 22, 2015

Went out for a bit before work. Sun was in and out. My feelings about the focusing of the lens is the same as last time out. I think the Tamron is snappier. I just don't feel like the Sigma is as fast at focusing. Took about 100 pics of totally common things like House Sparrows, Robins and Mallards. Rest of migrants were not cooperative. Also played with the focus limiter moving it from full to the lowest distance setting. All seemed to have the same result. It works fine I guess but it is not as good as what I have been used to.

2 best shots from the morning were of a very exciting House Sparrow! Bird was there one second and gone the next. But light was good and shutter speed was enough that I feel the pic should be sharper. Not saying that is the lenses fault. I must have moved too much or SS was too low as the bird was moving a bit and singing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16612984434/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17049248299/in/photostream/

MiguelM · Apr 22, 2015

Maybe AF speed could be tweaked with the dock?

tommybj · Apr 22, 2015

hosesbroadbill said:
Went out for a bit before work. Sun was in and out. My feelings about the focusing of the lens is the same as last time out. I think the Tamron is snappier. I just don't feel like the Sigma is as fast at focusing. Took about 100 pics of totally common things like House Sparrows, Robins and Mallards. Rest of migrants were not cooperative. Also played with the focus limiter moving it from full to the lowest distance setting. All seemed to have the same result. It works fine I guess but it is not as good as what I have been used to.

2 best shots from the morning were of a very exciting House Sparrow! Bird was there one second and gone the next. But light was good and shutter speed was enough that I feel the pic should be sharper. Not saying that is the lenses fault. I must have moved too much or SS was too low as the bird was moving a bit and singing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16612984434/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17049248299/in/photostream/

They look almost fine to me. My quess is you were very close because if you look at the fine feathers going from the chest to the wings they look out of focus. So maybe it is backfocusing a tiny bit or maybe it should have been F9 to get wider DOF.

Regarding the slower AF than the Tamron, is it much or if i didn't know about the Tamron, would i even notice? Guess it is faster than my old 150-500

hosesbroadbill · Apr 22, 2015

tommybj said:
They look almost fine to me. My quess is you were very close because if you look at the fine feathers going from the chest to the wings they look out of focus. So maybe it is backfocusing a tiny bit or maybe it should have been F9 to get wider DOF.

Regarding the slower AF than the Tamron, is it much or if i didn't know about the Tamron, would i even notice? Guess it is faster than my old 150-500

I was close. This is only cropped a bit. I guess it could be back focusing but didn't notice any of that with my Oystercatcher shots. Think 1/800th was just a bit too slow for a singing bird. Other thing is that there was a bit of a breeze so the side feathers were probably blowing a bit in the wind.

I am not sure if AF speed could be sped up with the dock Anyone know that? It is just a bit slower than the Tamron. You may not notice it if you didn't know about the Tamron. But I guess that also depends on what lens you were coming from as well.

New Sigma 150/600 contemporary (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Paul Herts

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Very, very long time member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Occasional bird snapper

Attachments

Occasional bird snapper

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread