Upgrading from Sigma 150-600 C to Nikkor 500mm PF (1 Viewer)

[Earnest lad]

Please may I request advice. For the past 3 years I have used for my birding the Sigma above. Relatively speaking, the Sigma 150-600 C is, I understand, somewhat of a "budget lens". The camera is a Nikon D7100. This is my first lens and my first DSLR camera.
I have learned a prime lens is better but far more expensive. I read the 500mm Nikon PF above, is good. Presumably better images would be attainable for me with the latter than my existing set up. I do understand they are more expensive than the Sigma but still potentially within financial reach.
Please can anyone advise as to whether I would likely be able to shoot significantly better quality images with the Nikon 500mm PF lens than I currently do with my Sigma, or, would it just be a marginal improvement on the existing lens.

 

[DJ ODonnell]

Telephoto zoom lenses do offer flexibility when in the field by letting the photographer choose the focal length to frame the subject. However, that flexibility comes at a cost. At the far end (> 300mm) the image sharpness starts to fall off. To counter act this, the lens must be stopped down to f/8, which means that to freeze actions, like birds in flight, the shutter speed must be reduced or the ISO must be increased. A prime lens is optimized to provide the best sharpness when the lens is wide open. I once owned the Sigma 150-500mm lens and was able to get good photos, but when I switched to the Nikon 500mm PF, my success rate was much better. There is one other consideration. I now use Topaz AI in post production. This software does a remarkable job of reducing noise and sharpening a photo. The combination of the 500mm and the Topaz software is incredible. My advice is to get the 500mm PF and get the Topaz software, but keep the zoom lens for situations where the flexibility is an asset. But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong (and I'm sure others to reply will point that out).

 

[Ian Byrnes]

Please may I request advice. For the past 3 years I have used for my birding the Sigma above. Relatively speaking, the Sigma 150-600 C is, I understand, somewhat of a "budget lens". The camera is a Nikon D7100. This is my first lens and my first DSLR camera.
I have learned a prime lens is better but far more expensive. I read the 500mm Nikon PF above, is good. Presumably better images would be attainable for me with the latter than my existing set up. I do understand they are more expensive than the Sigma but still potentially within financial reach.
Please can anyone advise as to whether I would likely be able to shoot significantly better quality images with the Nikon 500mm PF lens than I currently do with my Sigma, or, would it just be a marginal improvement on the existing lens.

I had the same dilemma a year ago & started to get 'prime' envy. I had initially used a D500 with a 100-300 & Tc1401, changed to a Contemporary the same as you & achieved far better results. Birding friends were using the Nikkor 500 f5.6 or Canon equiv on d850 or Sony full frame bodies but I couldnt justify the £3500 to £6000 cost for the lens nor did I want to change my excellent d500. Eventually I bought a well priced used Sigma150-600 Sport. When it came the images were a bit soft so had to use my dock to attempt to calibrate it. It took all morning to do but what a difference it has made.
The lens was the best buy I have made other than the camera & calibration, although lengthy really worked.
Images are very sharp, have superb colour accuracy, great AF, it performs great in all lights AND compared to my friends primes - I actually think mine are as good if not better on BIF.
I paid £800 for the Contemporary from Amazon & have kept it as a good back up. The Sport was £870 from e.bay - used but in great condition. Therefore much cheaper than primes.
The only draw back is the weight. It's beautifully built & like a tank. I hand hold the majority of the time & it takes its toll on my arm & shoulder. I've found hide photography gives my muscles a break.
The Nikkor 500 is much smaller, lighter & so transportable but if you're on a budget the Sport is worth considering.
Regards
Ian

 

[Earnest lad]

I had the same dilemma a year ago & started to get 'prime' envy. I had initially used a D500 with a 100-300 & Tc1401, changed to a Contemporary the same as you & achieved far better results. Birding friends were using the Nikkor 500 f5.6 or Canon equiv on d850 or Sony full frame bodies but I couldnt justify the £3500 to £6000 cost for the lens nor did I want to change my excellent d500. Eventually I bought a well priced used Sigma150-600 Sport. When it came the images were a bit soft so had to use my dock to attempt to calibrate it. It took all morning to do but what a difference it has made.
The lens was the best buy I have made other than the camera & calibration, although lengthy really worked.
Images are very sharp, have superb colour accuracy, great AF, it performs great in all lights AND compared to my friends primes - I actually think mine are as good if not better on BIF.
I paid £800 for the Contemporary from Amazon & have kept it as a good back up. The Sport was £870 from e.bay - used but in great condition. Therefore much cheaper than primes.
The only draw back is the weight. It's beautifully built & like a tank. I hand hold the majority of the time & it takes its toll on my arm & shoulder. I've found hide photography gives my muscles a break.
The Nikkor 500 is much smaller, lighter & so transportable but if you're on a budget the Sport is worth considering.
Regards
Ian

Thank you for that most helpful advice. I like the expression "prime envy"! I think my best takeaway from your contribution is the part about callibrating the Sigma. I have been using it "out of the box" so to speak, for about three years. I may have to bite the bullet and take it upon myself to do a callibration. I do have the dock. Perhaps the callibration exercise will make a big difference on the contemporary as it has done on your sport. Thank you again.

 

[rezMole]

I have been through quite a few "main" birding lenses, from a cheap 70-300 Nikon lens (the plastic one) right up to the 500mm PF.
My first upgrade was the Tamron 200-500 f6.3. A decent lens, but very soft at >400mm. I then moved on the a Sigma 500mm f4.5 prime (bought second hand). What an improvement. I knew then that I would never go back to a zoom. However, it was too large and heavy and when the Sigma 150-600 Sport came out, I bought one. I was blown away by the fact the it gave me images as good as, if not better than the Sigma prime! Lenes must generally have just got better over the years
The main downside was that this lens was lighter than the prime, but not by much. Unfortunately, with my increasing age and more travelling I wanted something lighter. During the "Covid season" I built up quite a bit of extra cash due to cancelled holidays, so to cheer myself up, I took the plunge and got myself a Nikon 500mm PF. (It was during a Nikon 10% off everything promotion and from a store who were also having a sale, so cost me just over £3k).
I wasn't expecting a big improvement over the Sigma Sport, which can produce very good images. What I really liked about the Nikon 500 PF was the weight saving.
But, wow, what a lens. Using it on a D500 (I previously used a D800). Not only is it far easier to use, especially for BIF, being more manageable, lighter and super fast in acquiring focus (and keeping it), it also produces really sharp images. I thought I'd miss the zoom functionality, but haven't really (I also have a 24-120mm Nikon lens, which I take with me on trips, just in case, on the rare occasion I need to photograph something close, or take a landscape picture). I can now travel easily, even not bothering lugging a tripod around (unless I need it for use with a scope). Birding is so much easier with the Nikon 500mm PF. I truly is a brilliant lens. It is almost as good as their big primes, but so manoeuvrable.
Also, it is better weather sealed. My Sigma Sport (despite claiming to be fairly waterproof) has let in dust and moisture. I assume caused by pumping in all that air when zooming. The Sigma served me well for several years, but the Nikon 500 PF is just in another class. I think it will be a lens I will keep for many years to come. It may seen expensive, but even if I had the money to splash out on a more expensive 500 or 600 Nikon f4 prime, I don't think I would.
One last comment, the lens does seem to be a great match for the D500. I'd love a D850, but the AF system in the D500 works like a charm with the 500PF.