New Sigma 150/600 contemporary (1 Viewer)

[Roy C]

Roy, many of your shots have a very soft look to them. Note that I do not mean soft like your shot is out of focus. I really do not know how to describe it very well. Perhaps it is the lighting they are taken in, or something you do in post. I think they look very nice, but it is not a look that I have ever gotten on any of my pics. As noted previously I generally try and shoot in full sun. My guess is that these are shots in diffuse light?

I think it is all a question of taste - all these over sharpened, close-up, and badly composed pics that one sees may appeal to a lot of folk but I prefer a more aesthetically pleasing image.
To be honest I have not seen a single pic from you that I would call a nice image, sharp maybe but mostly very badly composed and the bird is more often than not way too big in the frame to make a decent image. I think you are at the stage where you would not recognize a good 'image' if it was staring you in the face so I take anything you say with a pinch of salt I am afraid .

I can guarantee that if you posted your images on one of the critique forums that is managed by top bird photographers you would be absolutely slated - but always in a nice kind of way as they would know that you are very much a novice by your images (you could learn a lot from a few of these sites).

BTW that first Blackbird in flight shot was chosen from many 1000,s of other shots by a national organization (BBC) recently to champion the bird in a nation bird vote. It also featured on the BBC web site and has been published several times elsewhere - you may think it is soft but far better judges than you appreciated it as a bird image so what the likes of you think about it is irrelevant to me.

Anyway I will leave with one of my all time favorite bird shots that I have taken. I know you would not even start to appreciate but it may wind you up LOL

 

[Roy C]

BTW here is a shot to illustrate what I mean. Its reasonably sharp and shows a fair amount of detail but as a bird 'image' I am the first to admit it is aesthetically garbage. I prefer the stonechat shot above a million times more than this one.

 

[the black fox]

ROFPMSL well said roy .its like the magic roundabout init .:smoke:

 

[hosesbroadbill]

I think it is all a question of taste - all these over sharpened, close-up, and badly composed pics that one sees may appeal to a lot of folk but I prefer a more aesthetically pleasing image.
To be honest I have not seen a single pic from you that I would call a nice image, sharp maybe but mostly very badly composed and the bird is more often than not way too big in the frame to make a decent image. I think you are at the stage where you would not recognize a good 'image' if it was staring you in the face so I take anything you say with a pinch of salt I am afraid .

I can guarantee that if you posted your images on one of the critique forums that is managed by top bird photographers you would be absolutely slated - but always in a nice kind of way as they would know that you are very much a novice by your images (you could learn a lot from a few of these sites).

BTW that first Blackbird in flight shot was chosen from many 1000,s of other shots by a national organization (BBC) recently to champion the bird in a nation bird vote. It also featured on the BBC web site and has been published several times elsewhere - you may think it is soft but far better judges than you appreciated it as a bird image so what the likes of you think about it is irrelevant to me.

Anyway I will leave with one of my all time favorite bird shots that I have taken. I know you would not even start to appreciate but it may wind you up LOL

First of all, I think both of you have misunderstood me or perhaps I just don't speak the same language that you do. I am not in any way saying that there is anything wrong with those shots Roy. I am not using the term soft in a bad way and that is what I was said. I was inquiring if the look of the shots is due to the light or the way you process them. They have a very pleasing look to them and that is what I mean by soft. Almost like a painting. I was complimenting you Roy and wondering how the look was achieved.

None of the rest of what you said is relevant to the performance of the lens but is typical childish behavior from the few of you loud mouths on this forum. It is clear who the knobheads here are. It is clear who reacts in a defensive and childish manner. I always find it funny that people who don't take sharp images always talk about compostion :-O

 

[MiguelM]

I agreed that portrait photos of birds that look like an ID Card picture are less pleasing than photos showing some of the surrounding habitat

 

[capdegat]

black fox - are you the Roy C fan club president ? While Roy does produce excellent shots he's also and always has been to me a big-headed git. Each to their own I say .If you put pictures up expect to get some criticism ! We don't all like the same and by the way I can't say I'm a big fan of Hosebroadbill's style either

 

[tommybj]

I too think pictures looks better when composed properly, but I don’t think that is how you see how sharp a lens is and that is what I think matter for Isaac at first and then the composition comes in second. We can all learn to make a good composition (I certainly hope), but we can’t make a lens sharper than it is. I find most of Isaac pictures perfect in sharpness and they have helped me deciding for the C. I can’t use a good composition to help me decide, because that’s all on me and not on the lens.

Roy I think most of your pictures are perfect as well, I sure wish I in time would be able to deliver same quality as you do. However, I can’t understand why you point fingers at Isaac and his pictures, regarding both composition and close-up. Most of the pictures you have taken with the C are close-up and not composed properly, I know you mostly took them to show us the quality with the C but it contradict what you tell Isaac.

My point is, we all take pictures because we like it and think it’s fun, some like them to be as sharp as possible and others are more into composition. At the end of the day, most of us takes pictures for own pleasure.

 

[wardy11]

Forgive me but I thought this thread was related to a particular lens and not a witch hunt against certain individuals!
Roy has made and continues to make a huge contribution to this forum and offers valuable comments and images which show just what is possible with lenses. Also, throwing insults at each other is neither helpful or necessary - we all have our opinions of what is good and what isn't but I for one do value people who have more experience and having used a variety of lenses, can offer their hands on opinions of same.
If people can't be objective and appreciate the efforts of others without resorting to kindergarten antics then maybe they should play elsewhere!!
I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Roy and other contributors continue to offer their findings and photo's for our benefit and ignore the nasty comments that are most likely derived from envy anyway!
Keep up the good work RoyC & co, you are appreciated by some of us.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Forgive me but I thought this thread was related to a particular lens and not a witch hunt against certain individuals!
Roy has made and continues to make a huge contribution to this forum and offers valuable comments and images which show just what is possible with lenses. Also, throwing insults at each other is neither helpful or necessary - we all have our opinions of what is good and what isn't but I for one do value people who have more experience and having used a variety of lenses, can offer their hands on opinions of same.
If people can't be objective and appreciate the efforts of others without resorting to kindergarten antics then maybe they should play elsewhere!!
I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Roy and other contributors continue to offer their findings and photo's for our benefit and ignore the nasty comments that are most likely derived from envy anyway!
Keep up the good work RoyC & co, you are appreciated by some of us.

Another member of the Roy fan club speaks out. Funny we hear nothing from you when Roy or Jeff spew their insults. Or when you do for that matter. This forum is indeed about a lens. Yet some of us seem to think its a platform to preach and a place to get pats on the back. Composition has nothing to do with the performance of a lens except if we are talking about composing a shot with all focus points available with this lens as opposed to say a 100-400 with teleconverter that only has 5 points available.

For what it's worth while I like shots with scenery and take some, I don't post them here. I think they do nothing to show how sharp a lens is. I think seeing the fine feather details is so much more useful. For this reason I post close ups. In addition I also enjoy the close up interactions with the birds and find much less sport in taking a long distance shot. But this is purely a personal preference. I like seeing the birds close up. Seeing them in a way that you often can't study them in the field. Enjoy them in a way that is difficult with fast flying or feeding birds. But again what ever people enjoy is fine by me and I enjoy the diversity without the need to chastise others for differences in opinions.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

I too think pictures looks better when composed properly, but I don’t think that is how you see how sharp a lens is and that is what I think matter for Isaac at first and then the composition comes in second. We can all learn to make a good composition (I certainly hope), but we can’t make a lens sharper than it is. I find most of Isaac pictures perfect in sharpness and they have helped me deciding for the C. I can’t use a good composition to help me decide, because that’s all on me and not on the lens.

Roy I think most of your pictures are perfect as well, I sure wish I in time would be able to deliver same quality as you do. However, I can’t understand why you point fingers at Isaac and his pictures, regarding both composition and close-up. Most of the pictures you have taken with the C are close-up and not composed properly, I know you mostly took them to show us the quality with the C but it contradict what you tell Isaac.

My point is, we all take pictures because we like it and think it’s fun, some like them to be as sharp as possible and others are more into composition. At the end of the day, most of us takes pictures for own pleasure.

Very well worded and glad that anything I posted was a help. Now get ready for some personal attacks from the birdforum mafia. Also you have made a terrible mistake of using facts in your argument. :-O According to some here they are simply not needed.

 

[cango]

For what it's worth while I like shots with scenery and take some, I don't post them here. I think they do nothing to show how sharp a lens is. I think seeing the fine feather details is so much more useful. For this reason I post close ups. In addition I also enjoy the close up interactions with the birds and find much less sport in taking a long distance shot. But this is purely a personal preference. I like seeing the birds close up. Seeing them in a way that you often can't study them in the field. Enjoy them in a way that is difficult with fast flying or feeding birds. But again what ever people enjoy is fine by me and I enjoy the diversity without the need to chastise others for differences in opinions.

amen to that

 

[Ad B]

Hi all,

last Saturday I could try the Sigma 150-600 lenses. Both the Sport and Contemporary.
I really liked the Contemporary.
I made one shot, over a little lake, about 50 meter, from a double slide above the water...
At 600 mm, with the shutter at 1/80 sec...!
With the check at my camera screen (Nikon D750) at 100%, it looked still quite sharp.

But I noticed something... With the C lens (I didn't try that on the S lens...)
Letting the lens racing through its whole AF area, from 2.6 mtr to Infinity, at 600 mm.
At 150 mm it was stunning fast, both ways.
At 600 mm it was a bit slower, but...
From 2.6 towards Infinity its is quite a bit slower as from Infinity towards 2.6.
From Infinty to 2.6 its was fast, from 2.6 to Infinity it was a bit to slow for action...
Have others noticed something like that? With other lense too?

Thanks.
Ad B

 

[the black fox]

this is the same with ALL zoom lenses ,also most primes ,that's why they are fitted with focus limit switches ,if you switch to 15mtrs to infinity I.e mid range there both lightning fast

 

[micloi]

Sigma 150-600 C and Nikon 300mm pf

Both using the D7200

Nikon 300mm + 1.7x at 510mm f9, ISO 800
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...ay comparison/D7200 and 300mm pf (1) copy.jpg


Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary at 600mm f8, ISO 800
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...on/Nikon D7200 Sigma 150-600mm C (3) copy.jpg

 

[bcl05]

Sigma 150-600 C and Nikon 300mm pf

Both using the D7200

Thanks for that. Both look great to me. I have a new D7200 and am looking to get my first long lens for bird photography. I've been an avid birder for years but am a beginner photographer. Between these two options, which do you think is easier to use, and would be easier to learn with?

Thanks in advance!

 

[micloi]

Thanks for that. Both look great to me. I have a new D7200 and am looking to get my first long lens for bird photography. I've been an avid birder for years but am a beginner photographer. Between these two options, which do you think is easier to use, and would be easier to learn with?

Thanks in advance!

Tricky, that's why I have both a prime and a zoom between myself and my wife.

The 150-600mm is a little longer and is a zoom. It is also cheaper
On the other hand the 300mm can be used as an f4 lens and is much lighter.

So it depends on your budget and if you would rather have the convenience of a zoom lens or something lighter and that can be used in lower light if need be.

 

[Roy C]

Here are a few big ugly and soft close-ups snapped with the the Siggy C today for those that appreciate that sort of thing - I am sure I have a soft copy but there we are 3
BTW I think photography is all about trying to capture the moment as seen by the human eye - obviously most folks on here disagree which is fine by me, each to their own

 

[micloi]

Here are a few big ugly and soft close-ups snapped with the the Siggy C today for those that appreciate that sort of thing - I am sure I have a soft copy but there we are 3
BTW I think photography is all about trying to capture the moment as seen by the human eye - obviously most folks on here disagree which is fine by me, each to their own

You have to try harder Roy, these are not ugly or soft enough
Good shots.

 

[Mike-P]

BTW I think photography is all about trying to capture the moment as seen by the human eye - obviously most folks on here disagree which is fine by me, each to their own

Personally I think photography is all about getting out and enjoying yourself, for me there is no right or wrong way as long as the photographer is happy with the results. I must admit when thinking about buying a lens I look more at the up close and personal stuff as it gives me a better idea of sharpness but once the purchase has been made then I do prefer the scenic shots.

I returned my Sigma 150-600mm sport version a couple of months ago due to various issues but now have the C version on back order from Amazon and hopefully look forward to trying it at a couple of airshows next month.

 

[stevo]

black fox - are you the Roy C fan club president ? While Roy does produce excellent shots he's also and always has been to me a big-headed git. Each to their own I say .If you put pictures up expect to get some criticism ! We don't all like the same and by the way I can't say I'm a big fan of Hosebroadbill's style either

Nothing wrong with constructive advice that Roy C gives,and no i'm not in his or anyones fan club.Always sniping through jealousy on these forums.

Steve.B