• 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.

Does the Sigma 150-500 really get to 500mm? (1 Viewer)

A

alanrharris53

Well-known member
I have had the Tamron 200-500 for a few years and got some decent shots with it. But not being able to justify £6K for a canon lens and wanting faster AF and image stabilisation I thought the Sigma 150-500 might be better provided the IQ is similar.

I managed to get a second hand copy of the Sigma from someone on Birdforum and first impressions are quite positive. The weather has been too dark to make any comparison of IQ - hopefully I can do a more detailed comparison at the weekend. But one thing has puzzled me.

Taking a photos of the same object from the same position with both lenses set at 500mm on the same body the Tamron appears to be about 5-10%"longer".

So is the Sigma really a 500mm lens or is the Tamron actually going beyond 500mm.

Or am I missing something somewhere and being a plonker?
 
When I was thinking of getting one of these I quite often saw this complaint. People seem to think it's about a 470mm
 
I've not actually measured it, but 450-475mm seems about right based on repeated use. I have the same issue with my 28-70mm Sigma, which is more like a 28-60.
 
I wonder if this is true only on some brands of cameras or if the experience is general? I have no personal experience but speculate that adapting the lens to different cameras could have slightly different outcomes?

Niels
 
Some time ago I photographed an obliging resting pigeon from the same spot with a Tamron 28-300 set at 300mm followed by an old Nikkor 70-300 - the metal bodied push pull one. The results were amazingly different - the picture from the Nikkor looked to have been taken with a much longer lens. So I'm sure there are plenty of other variations out there.
 
I read somewhere 150 - 500 sigma falls short at the top end. While the Canon 100mm - 400mm exceeds its top end, of 400mm. And they ended with a similar top end.
Regards
Colin
 
acorn said:
I read somewhere 150 - 500 sigma falls short at the top end. While the Canon 100mm - 400mm exceeds its top end, of 400mm. And they ended with a similar top end.
Regards
Colin
Click to expand...
From everything I have read the 100-400 is reckoned to be somewhere around 385mm at the long end although I believe the shooting distance could be a factor. There is a old thread somewhere on BF where someone posted two pics taken with the same camera on the same day from the same spot, one with the 100-400 at the long end and one with the 400/5.6 - the target was was noticeable larger with the prime.
I also saw a thread on another forum where someone compared shots with the Bigma (50-500) at the long end and the 400/5.6 and they could hardly believe how little difference there appeared to be in focal lengths. The poster calculated the bigma as being around 460mm at the long end.
It seems like zooms are more variable than primes probably because of the lens construction. I have also read that the focal length of zooms are calculated when shooting at infinity.

Before anyone jumps on me I must emphasise that I have not personally tested any of the lens mentioned but could probably find the threads I quoted.
 
Last edited:
tjsimonsen said:
Michael Furtman did a test some time ago that showed that the 100-400 is slightly shorter at the long end compared to the 400/5.6:
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

Thomas
Click to expand...
Focal length wise the review is pretty much in line with with lots of other test I have seen with the zoom coming in at around 385-390mm.
I know it is off subject but I was a little surprised at how lowly he rated the 400 DO against the other two substantially cheaper lenses - I guess you are paying big bucks for the lightweight 400/4 DO technology.
 
Thanks for the info guys - even if some of it is wandering off my original topic.

I thought here was something called the trade secritions act in the UK! Not sure how you can call it a 150-500 lens if it is only 470. It makes a difference as I am always having to croppics of small birds so having to take another 7 ot 8 % off compared to the Tamron will make a difference to IQ.
 
Last edited:
alanrharris53 said:
Thanks for the info guys - even if some of it is wandering off my original topic.

I thought here was something called the trade secritions act in the UK! Not sure how you can call it a 150-500 lens if it is only 470. It makes a difference as I am always having to croppics of small birds so having to take another 7 ot 8 % off compared to the Tamron will make a difference to IQ.
Click to expand...

I think someone on Birdforum (though I cannot recall who) said sometime ago that a common characteristic of long zooms is that the max focal length is shorter when focusing close compared to near-infinity focus. If I understand this correctly, a lens can be 500mm if measure at near-infinity focus, but a little shorter close to it's minimum focus distance. So technically it would be a 500mm.

Thomas
 
OK, but that doesn't explain why the same shot taken from the same distance with the same camera body shows the Tamron to be longer than the Sigma when they are both supposed to be 500mm.

Anyway it is sunny today so I will go out and compare some more. I am sure the Sigma will give good results.
 
When you have a chance maybe shoot at 500mm, then try backing off the zoom a bit and comparing the images. I found substantially sharper results near 400mm than all the way out to 500mm. Of course, that's probably nearer to 375mm, considering the FL discrepancy were talking about here. Even so, when scaling the 500mm shots to match the pixel resolution of the 400mm shots, the 400mm shots are always far and away sharper. Also, ƒ8 is almost always necessary to maximize contrast by eliminating CA. My sharpest most contrasty images have always come from these settings. I wonder if my copy is a little soft, or if this is the norm. You always read about the bum lenses before the good ones, so it's hard to say based on web forums alone.
 
I think I'm going off topic here, but since I've already started, I might as well give some quick examples.

The first image is fairly self explanatory, but I'll add some comments. These are cropped portions of a USD 1 Dollar bill. The scale of the 500mm image was reduced to match the per-pixel scale of the 400mm (403mm) image. That alone should give the 500mm image an advantage since down-sizing always "sharpens" the image. I think the result speaks for itself.

As for the Male Cardinal images, these were the two closest direct subject images I could find in my archives to closely demonstrate the effect in real field use. In this particular circumstance the Cardinals are both 100% crops. Aside from importing the original RAW files into Adobe Light Room, and compressing into JPEG, these are completely unprocessed.
 

Attachments

  • side by side.jpg
    side by side.jpg
    153.5 KB · Views: 155
  • male cardy 500mm F63.jpg
    male cardy 500mm F63.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 196
  • male cardy 403mm F80.jpg
    male cardy 403mm F80.jpg
    83 KB · Views: 190
Fowl Mouth said:
I think I'm going off topic here, but since I've already started, I might as well give some quick examples.
Click to expand...

I don't really think that you are comparing apples to apples here. You are comparing a 500mm wide open shot to a 400mm f8 (= a full stop down) shot. You need to compare the same aperture.

Thomas
 
alanrharris53 said:
OK, but that doesn't explain why the same shot taken from the same distance with the same camera body shows the Tamron to be longer than the Sigma when they are both supposed to be 500mm.
Click to expand...

Beats me, I only repeated what I think someone else has said - I never claimed that I understood it8-P

But if I was to venture an explanation it would be that the smaller zoom ratio of the Tamron could be part of the explanation.

Thomas
 
tjsimonsen said:
I don't really think that you are comparing apples to apples here. You are comparing a 500mm wide open shot to a 400mm f8 (= a full stop down) shot. You need to compare the same aperture.

Thomas
Click to expand...

You are partly correct. I do have the comparisons you speak of burried away, somewhere. 403mm ƒ6.3 is sharper than 500mm ƒ6.3. 403mm ƒ8 is sharper than 500mm ƒ8. 403mm ƒ8 produces higher contrast than 403mm ƒ8, and so on. My reason for the test was not because I am an over technical thinker who likes doing the tests, but because I wanted to know where I could achieve the sharpest and cleanest results in my images...in the field.

As for my previous post, I simply did this to show the difference between the settings that many newcomers to the lens will be likely use (500/6.3) vs the settings where both FL and aperture are at their respective sweet spots. If anyone cares, I'm happy to dig out the separate crop files for these different settings. But only in the name of honest interest. I'm not looking to prove a point, simply offering to pass on a solid year's worth of extensive use with this lens.

One thing I'll say, I've grabbed several decent shots wide open and zoomed out to 500mm. It certainly is possible.
 
Thanks everybody.

I managed to get out yesterday and took some pictures with both the Tamron and the Sigma. Not very scientific but trying to reflect the real conditions in the field.

First went and took some bird photos at a local spot where they are fairly tame. Overall in good light there seemed to be little difference in the image quality between the two lenses at 500mm f8. (As mentioned above the Tamron is also a lot sharper at f8 than wide open.) If anything the Tamron apeared very marginally sharper - but I took about 200 photos and it was only noticable on one or two shots.

The difference in reach at 500mm was not noticable in actual use. Although I still think it might be an issue when taking birds at a greater distance than I was shooting yesterday, where you have to crop more.

The AF is a lot faster with the Sigma too. I managed to grab a couple of black headed gulls in flight which I couldn't manage with the Tamron. I haven't posted them as they are not great shots, but convinced me the potential is there.

I then went to take some picture of the deer in the local park. As I got there it turned very dark. And after taking about another 200 shots it started to snow! So I didn't get chance to compare with the Tamron but I know from experience that the photos I was taking at slow shutter speeds with the OS on would have been impossible with the Tamron.

Overall intial impressions are that the OS and AF are both showing the advantage I was looking for in moving over to the Sigma. But the Tamron is still a good lens in good light and may well be marginally sharper at 500mm.

I will keep both lenses for a while and do some more comparisons but initial shots here if you are interested...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/sets/72157623467395414/
 
Last edited:
The Swan comparo does seem to favor the Tammy regarding detail, but I don't think it is because of better lens resolution, rather because of larger image scale. It's amazing to see the dramatic difference in scale between the two, assuming they were shot from like distances. To my eyes the contrast might be a bit better with the Siggy, but it's hard to tell since it seems there are slight exposure variations. The deer shots are very nice.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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
919
gerald762
gerald762
C
I've got a Canon R7 and need to update my lenses
Replies
15
Views
1K
Barred Wobbler
Barred Wobbler
shrek48
D7200 + sigma + TC ?
Replies
3
Views
739
gerald762
gerald762
E
Upgrading from Sigma 150-600 C to Nikkor 500mm PF
Replies
4
Views
2K
rezMole
rezMole
C
Tamron 150-600 G2 or Sigma 150-600 C on D500?
Replies
10
Views
4K
Colin06
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top