View Full Version : A new birding lens for my Nikon.
As the title suggests I'm looking at a new long distance lens, initially on the D7200 and possibly on a D750.
Due to the size of my budget, the big primes are out of the equation, and I've narrowed the contenders down to three, the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 ED VR, the Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 G2 Di VC USD and the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport.
I've looked at heaps of comparisons and the following observations seem to be constant.
IQ: No stand-out winner but at 500mm, the Nikon by a smidgeon.
AUTOFOCUS: The Nikon again, with the VR giving the most stable image in the viewfinder.
VR/VC/OS: Once again pretty even
1.4 T/C COMPATIBILITY: :th3: for the Nikon, a bit hit and miss with the other two
FOCAL LENGTH: Longer is better, right? However most testers commented that the long end of the Tamron and Sigma was nearer to 550mm than 600mm and both lost some IQ @ 600mm Hmmmm.
WEATHER SEALING: Tamron, tick, Sigma, tick, Nikon, no mention, although you can get a waterproof camo cover for about thirty bucks.
MOUNT: Tamron, with it's Arca Swiss foot, the Sigma and Nikon a bit iffy, but not enough to be a deterrent.
UPGRADES: The Sigma and Tamron, with their docks, have a big advantage. The Nikon has already had firmware updates which requires the lens to be sent back to Nikon involving postage cost and time without the lens.
BRAND LOYALTY: I have the Nikon AF-S 300mm f4, a cracker of a lens which I'll keep, whatever I decide on, the Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro, cut ya' finger sharp, and the Tamron twins, the 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8's, both exceeded my expectations, so I'd be delighted if the 150-600 was in the same league.
WEIGHT: T - 1990g: N - 2300g: S - 2860g Not really a factor as I'd do little hand-held shooting
PRICE: Depending on when, and where you look, the price seems to increase in line with the weight, with the Tamron the cheapest, the Nikon a bit dearer and the Sigma a bit dearer again.
VFM: The Tamron looks the best Value For Money with it's weather sealing, Arca Swiss lens foot and tap-in colsole.
BEST FOR ME: This will be my birding lens and as you birders know you often only have a couple of seconds to find the subject, get focus, stabilise, and take the shot. The Nikon generally seems to do this a tad better than the other two.
There really is not a great deal between the three lens and I guess it comes down to how they each fit your particular needs, likes and dislikes. I think I'd be pretty chuffed to own any one of them.
I'm still undecided so any pertinent comments appreciated.
J.davis
02-07-2017, 10:20pm
I have the Sigma C lens and am very happy with it, bloody sight cheaper too.:D
arthurking83
03-07-2017, 8:12am
You probably already know of my anti-Nikon bias already .. and until they prove that they have made changes to their customer relations ethics, I refuse to recommend their products if an alternative exists.
Having said that tho, Those geeky docks are handy to play with, so recommendations come highly. Some folks see them as insurance for thirdparty incompatibility issues, I see it as a way to tailor the lens to suit your need.
ie. if you want faster focusing, and less emphasis on accuracy, you choose to tweak it as such. if you prefer more accurate, and less speed, then tweak it that way. The point is, you get to choose how it works for 'ya.
Note too tho, this doesn't mean that the lens is necessarily slow focusing or inaccurate at doing so .. it's that you get fine degrees of flexibility at either option.
I can only offer user based comments on the Sigma Sport lens, and offer a very good summary for it.
Can't be faulted, other than the stupid lens hood design. And even that negative comment is just me being pedantic!
The lens hood uses a screw in/out locking tab that is just plain annoying to have to use.
Instead of a full screw in/out system, they should have used a half turn screw to unlock it, then a spring loaded pull system that allows quicker removal and reversal of the lens hood.
Optically, I can't imagine you'd complain about it.
Obviously you wouldn't compare it's resolving power against a prime lens of the same focal lengths, but the comments re it's ability at 600mm are 'overstated' IMO.
The bigger issue at longer focal lengths is always going to be user technique. Be that hand held or even on a tripod.
Focusing speed on a D800E and D300 hasn't given me any cause for concern .. but I've yet to try a Nikon 200-500 lens either.
Other than the Nikon 70-200/2.8 lenses I've occasionally tried, I can't really think of any lens that really focuses all that much faster.
Accuracy in 'everyday' use will come down to what your everyday usage actually is.
Teeny birds hiding in amongst twigs and branches .. lens may hunt .. ie. as in the camera may struggle with the distractions!
If the subject is out in the clear .. like a cocky would roost on the highest point out in the open on a bare tree limb .. focus is fast and accurate.
At the apertures you're most likely to be shooting at, I don't think the f/6.3 apertures will be an issue for you.
Tannin
03-07-2017, 10:34am
G'day Kev,
I know little about the Nikon lenses so I can only make some comments on side issues.
On focal length, the very reliable Bryan Canathan (The Digital Picture) provides actual focal length estimates for the Sigma and the Tamron by comparing them to a Canon 600/4 prime. On that basis, he puts the Tamron at around 570mm and the Sigma at roughly 555mm.
The Digital Picture does not review Nikon lenses and after a quick search I couldn't find an equivalently authoritative source for the 200-500 focal length. In this DPR thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4022958 a poster compares his 200-500 to a Nikon 500/4 prime and claims the zoom is only about 460mm but I'm not convinced that he's measured it accurately - in particular, he does not state the distance to subject and you really must measure focal length at (or at least near) infinity. As I recall (source long since forgotten) even the big super-tele primes understate their actual FL by a small margin, meaning that figures for zooms calculated by comparison to a 500/4 or 600/4 will be a little lower still, but that need not concern us as we all know what to expect from a "500mm" prime.
TDP measures the Canon 100-400 Mark II at 383mm compared to the Canon 400/5.6 and 400/2.8; the old Canon 100-400 is similar. There is a clear pattern from all these measurements, and it would be surprising to discover the the Nikon 200-500 was not somewhere around about 475mm actual.
I'm a big fan of fast AF for birding, and even a small difference is a big difference, in my view. I'm always a bit skeptical about f/6.3 lenses. They work fine, but regardless of your shooting aperture all else being equal, a bigger hole in the glass is always better.
To me, the fact that the Sigma and the Tamron require upgrade and adjustment docks is a clear disadvantage. Obviously, you have to factor in the (not insubstantial) cost of the dock if you don't already have one. But more importantly, it says to me that the Nikon lens does not need a dock to ensure proper function and compatibility with future Nikon cameras. It will just work. I know that Canon go to a great deal of trouble testing new cameras and teleconverters and so on with all possible lenses going back many years to ensure compatibility, I'd be very surprised to discover that Nikon didn't do the same.
The Sigma is a massive, awkward lump of a thing. I know you say you wouldn't hand-hold much - well, if you owned the Sigma, you wouldn't! At 2.3kg, the Nikon is no lightweight either; nevertheless, half a kilogram in your hand or on your shoulder is a very significant difference.
Of those three, my choice would probably be the Nikon. Indeed, I have recently made a rather similar choice in deciding to upgrade my Canon 100-400 Mark 1 to the Mark II rather than to the Sigma or the Tamron. In my case, however, weight, hand-holdability, and AF speed were more important than focal length as I already have a 500/4 for tripod work. Also, the wide end is important as I don't own a 70-200 or 70-300 and I use the 100-400 a lot as a "poor man's 70-300" for landscape and other non-birding tasks.
That said, the Sigma is certainly a very competent birding lens - I refer you to the consistently excellent work Mark L does with his. I happen to know that a member here (not Mark) is planning to sell his as-new condition Sigma 150-600 shortly, so if you are leaning in the Sigma direction, that might be something to bear in mind.
@ Artie ....
You probably already know of my anti-Nikon bias already .. and until they prove that they have made changes to their customer relations ethics, I refuse to recommend their products if an alternative exists.
Many thanks for your comprehensive reply Artie. My only dealing with Nikon was with my D600 shutter replacement, and that went seamlessly.
My major concern is with QC as the term 'sample variation' came up all too frequently in tests for all three candidates. If I buy a cheap Chinese knock-off of anything I expect 'sample variation' and dodgy QC, but not in a $1500+ lens. Hell, that's about 10% of the price of a new compact car that also has software controlled functions and if they worked as well as those in camera lens there would be a new nouveau rich group, panel beaters ! Gawd, I hope the self drive cars are using better technology to decide when to apply the brakes, although it is probably some sort of radar gizmo.
Mate, I'm glad you are happy with your Siggy. It seems to be a well regarded bit of kit.
@Tony....
Appreciate you taking the time to assist with your inciteful reply.
My birding kit will generally be the D7200 with it's high pixel density and good high ISO performance. When using a tripod (Manfrotto 055CXPRO3) I mount my Wimberley Sidekick on a Markins ballhead, and where possible use a remote release. The Sidekick is the best bit of mounting hardware I have. :th3: With a long lens-plate I can balance my kit perfectly, and it is so well engineered that it has a 'sweet spot' where you lock it and it won't droop, but still allow easy vertical adjustment, with the horizontal adjustment being looked after by the ball-heads panning base. Works for me with my less than steady hands. :nod:
With the D7200's 1.5 crop factor my FOV @600mm is 900mm FX equivalent, so realistically I don't feel the loss of 75mm is going to be a huge factor. What will be the big learning curve, IMHO, will be adjustiing my shooting distance and focus points. If you look at the DOF snip below, at 10m even Weebill's are going to be a challenge unless they are side-on.
131306
I really want to get excited about the Nikon but it's not happening. LanceB has posted some great shots with his on a D500, with it's great auto-focus capability, but poor mongo got one with, I think, some out of alignment lens elements. :( It shouldn't be, but I guess that's a possibility with which ever one I choose, and for that reason I won't consider a pre-loved unit. :eek:
In my search of comparisons there does not seem to be a clear stand-out between the three, with various commentators subjectively giving one a slight nod over the other two. I think that they would all please me. :nod:
At this point I'm leaning toward the Tamron, although the new Aussie distributors trading name, Blonde Robot, is less than confidence inspiring. :lol2: I came across this reviewer that may be influencing my decision a tad. https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2 Only one persons opinion, but seemed to know what he was talking about and did not seem biased at all.
I think the Tamron ticks the most boxes for me, and from my experiences with their 24-70 and 70-200 I have a good idea of what to expect from their product.
Decisions, decisions !! :confused013
The two Tamrons I have I bought from Teds at not much more than Grey Market price.
The new distributor, Blonde Robot, has obviously decided to go the greedy route, and Tamron's current pricing is now 40% above the Grey Market price.
I HATE PRICE GOUGING !!!!
So on principle I'm scrapping the Tamron. Plus it's now about three hundred bucks dearer than the Nikon.
I've got the old version of the Tamron and it's an excellent lens. It's also much better at 600 than the reviews had led me to believe (or it would be if it really went to 600. It's shorter at 600 than the 200-400 f4 is at 400 with a 1.4x teleconverter, which I think is taking the piss a wee bit.)
To me, the fact that the Sigma and the Tamron require upgrade and adjustment docks is a clear disadvantage. Obviously, you have to factor in the (not insubstantial) cost of the dock if you don't already have one.
Maybe the docks are an advantage to allow you to do fine tuning without having to pay for some one to fix the slight front focusing your lens may have. Let's hope you don't need that with the Nikon lens.:)
I suspect I know a member here that would lend a dock if needed (not me, but if needed let me know).
I've not seen the Sigma required any upgrades?
AF speed with the Sigma is pretty good. If you have some detail infinity to minimum focal length in less than a secound with my 80D.
KevPride
03-07-2017, 10:35pm
I have the 200-500 f5.6 and have used on a d7100 and d500, I see no reason to part with it for either of the other lenses which were available when I got the Nikon last year. I hand hold the Nikon with ease.
Tannin
03-07-2017, 10:40pm
Maybe the docks are an advantage to allow you to do fine tuning without having to pay for some one to fix the slight front focusing your lens may have.
I must admit that I have never yet owned a lens - and I've had a few - that didn't focus correctly out of the box. (However I admit that I've only had three non-Canon lenses. Still got one of them: Tokina fisheye zoom. Lovely little thing.)
arthurking83
04-07-2017, 1:04am
I'd have to say, I enjoy the layout of TDP myself too, and seeing his lens results gives a sense of destiny placed in your own hands.
(ie. by that, I'm referring to the point that you view the test target images for yourself, and you believe what you want to see, and make your own choice).
So for me, not only did I have a slight bias against Nikon's lenses to begin with, the images of both the Sigma C and S lenses both displayed more clarity and contrast than the Nikon 200-500 lens.
Using that hair brained rationale, the Sigma(s) were a no brainer .. just a matter of which one. I think I saw just enough extra IQ quality in the S model to justify it's extra cost and weight(and size!!) to warrant the effort it'd need by comparison.
So: if you pull up TDP, (and as example) set the the main window to view image quality results of the Sigma lenses, and then for the lens to compare against to be the Nikon lens, firstly, the camera to choose for the Sigma lens should be the 1 Ds III, and for the Nikon lens the camera body should be the D3x. In choosing those camera bodies, you give the Nikon a slightlyu unfair advantage in that the 24Mp of the D3x shows slightly greater detail magnification than the 21Mp of the 1Ds III can display.
Yet!!... the Sigma(s) clearly resolve more contrast detail than the Nikon lens does. (note that if you choose the D810, the Nikon lens then displays more detail but it's contrast level is still inferior. As you well know, that's what those extra pixels do for resolving power! ;)
Another thing that turned me off the Nikon lens, harks back to the Nikon 105VR(macro lens) for me ... that is it's level of CA.
As soon as I noticed those 500mm sample shots of the test target and all that Magenta and Cyan fringing ripped my eyeballs out of their sockets ... I knew this lens wasn't for me(again) .. once bitten twice shy kind'a thing ;)
One other thing to note(back on TDP). if you decide that the Sigma lenses sound 'better' once again check the results of both lenses, and as you say you also want the 1.4x TC, TDP tests both lenses at 840mm with the Sigma 1.4x TC(model 1401).
The Sport lens clearly out performs the C lens with the TC attached ... and useful results will only be found at f/11. set to f/8(wide open) displays only mush from both lenses. At f/11, you can see useful detail from the S lens. Not so much from the C lens.
BTW .. they also test the lenses with the Sigma 2001 model 2x TC .. and well the results speak for themselves (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=9&API=3&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=9&APIComp=3)!
But the more definitive test results come from Lens Rental.
if you had Canon camera bodies .. the issue wouldn't even come to a head .. the no brainer answer is you'd just get their 100-400, as at 400mm, it out resolves them all.
Between the Nikon 200-500, Sigma 150-600C, and Tamron 150-600 lenses. the pecking order in terms of MTF is Sigma, Nikon and Tamron.
In the MTF charts the graphed value you want to look at for 'sharpness' detail is the purple 50lpmm curve.
Lens Rental's MTF(or sharpness) results is important because they don't measure a lens of each. They measure a minimum of 10 copies of each lens type, to give an averaged result.
So there may be one of each lens brand that is more exceptional in terms of outright performance against the other brands, but the chances of an individual getting that particular lens is 1 in 10.
So understanding that the average results they post, simply means that in a batch of lenses out there in some store at any one time, chances are that the Sigma lenses could be just that little bit more of a sure bet vs the Nikon, vs the Tamron lens.
Another important point from the Lens Rental tests of the Nikon/Tamron/Sigma lenses, was simply that the differences in IQ are so small, they'd barely register a comment one way or the other.
If you're happy with what your Tamron captures, you'd be equally happy with what both the Nikon and Sigma lenses also achieve for 'ya too.
So using TDP's image results, and Lens Rentals averaged results .. I feel 'more justified' in that choosing the Sigma was going to be less of a hassle to get a lens that gave sharp results.
other user's thoughts re the handling of the Sigma lenses also weighed in, and all claimed fast AF and accurate(+ the geeky nature of the dock thingy).
A few months after I had mine(and very little use mind you), Sigma did have a firmware update for the S lens, but only for a 'faster AF performance algorithm' update. It was my choice to use it or ignore it .. I loaded it.
A side note on Lens Rentals testing results on the 400mm shootout too!
They had a major issue in keeping the much heavier Sigma Sport lens steady as they tested it on their machine. They didn't post any results for that lens due to this vibration affecting IQ.
it is a heavy lens .. and I think this finding by Lens Rental may be important in some respects.
I'm not getting a lot of time to get out and play with any of my photography equipment lately. I try every now and then, but it's all too little and far between. So I'm not really in a good position to offer a genuine thorough assessment other than maybe a few hundred images shot with my Sigma.
AF is fast, IQ is good, handholding is hard(heavy) .. lens is heavy .. front heavy! ... it's a bit of fun learning something new. I've never been much into birding other than when out in a group environment.
Strangely, I find I don't have the patience to chase birds for more than about 20-30mins, but I have plenty of patience to sit and wait for the best moment for a landscape shot! :confused013
OK, I think it's time to try and rationalise why I think I need one of these lens.
My current birding lens is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF ED, with it's always attached TC-14E II. The T/C doesn't seem to have any detrimental affect on IQ so this gives me a very sharp 420mm f5.6 lens, or 630mm f5.6 equivalent FOV on the D7200.
But I always feel that I need more reach, as sometimes you just can't get any closer to your subject.
So comparing what I have to the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, I find that, allowing for about 5% focus breathing, I have a 475mm f5.6, so I'm only gaining 55mm :(
What about a T/C? From reports I've read, my current TC-14E II hunts a fair bit on the 200-500, and the TC-14E III (not enough change from $600.00 to buy a schooner) doesn't get the same glowing reports as my current set-up. Added to the fact that the only weather sealing is a gasket on the mounting face, I really don't see that I am gaining very much with this option. :(
The three 150-600's are, once again allowing a 5% deduction for focus breathing, going to deliver me 570mm, or 855mm equivalent on my D7200, a 36% increase over what I have now, which make the upgrade much more palatable.
From the point of view of IQ, all four are pretty comparable with no real stand-out, so that won't be a deciding factor.
But the fact that they are all dust pumps will. :nod: Living in a farming environment, with open-cut coal mining all around, dust is a fact of life so proofing against it's ingress is a very valid consideration for me.
The Sigma C has a "Dust proof and splash proof mount" .... so a gasket on the mounting face ?
The Sigma S has "Dust and splash-proof construction" .... no further elaboration, so one can only assume it's some additional sealing on the lens barrel
The Tamron G2 has "For greater protection when shooting outdoors, leak-proof seals throughout the lens barrel help protect your equipment."
So, it's down to the Tamron :dollareyes: and the Sigma S.
The Sigma is 560g heavier, so one could assume that it is better built, and about $1 per gram dearer, $2499 for the Siggy and $1899 for the Tammy, before negotiating and price matching. ;) Does the extra weight and cost make the Sigma a better lens. :confused013 According to all the reviews I've read, not necessarily.
Seems like I'm back to the Tamron again. I do understand that a lot of the difference in the price to the GM offerings is to cover the local warranty. It's also comforting to know that if I do happen to get a dud I can get it replaced or fixed without having to haggle with someone overseas whose first language is not English. I've had enough of that crap with Telstra. :( And I really should look at my two previous Tamron purchases as having a win, and not as having a loss in this instance.
Decision time !! I can make this changeover happen fairly quickly, IF I can convince myself to sell my Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF ED + the Nikon TC-14E II. It's such a sharp combo that I'd be gutted if the new lens wasn't as good, although I've nothing but praise for the other two Tamrons that I have.
What to do ????
Kev, I spend most of my photography time in the deep outback: deserts and near-deserts. Dust is a fact of life for me. I used to have frequent trouble with dust on sensors. (This was back in the day before self-cleaning sensors came along.) In fact, sensor dust was one of the two or three main reasons I switched from being a one-body man to a two-body man: simply to avoid lens swaps in constantly dusty environments. (And then a three-body man. Sigh. After that the rot set in and I got a bit carried away. These days I have take medication for the problem and have trimmed myself back to a mere four at any one time. I can handle it. I can stop any time I like.)
Um ... as I was saying, dust used to be a big problem, but I seldom give it a thought these days. I honestly can't remember the last time I had to clean dust of a sensor. Years, certainly. Granted, most of my lenses are weather-sealed, but the 100-400 certainly isn't, and although I generally dedicate one camera to the 500/4, I still remove the lens frequently to add or remove a teleconverter. The EF 100-400 is notorious among Canon users (at least the sort that post on Internet fora) for being a "dust pump". They whinge and moan about it the way a dog whinges if you leave him tied up and alone all day.
What actual effect does the dust the 100-400 "pumps" have on picture quality? None. Nada. Zip. Nil. Zero. The theory tells us that any reasonable amount of dust inside the lens makes practically no difference. I've owned two different 100-400 "dust pumps", used one or the other of them under harsh, dusty conditions for ... er ... 12 years now, taken tens of thousands of pictures with them. Lens dust is a non issue.
Dust on your sensor is the only dust you have to worry about - 'cause that does impact image quality - and with modern sensors, that's pretty much a non-issue too.
Do you remember that famous Lens Rentals article where they tested a lens with a massive great crack in the front element? It really made the point.
Mark L
05-07-2017, 10:13pm
So with the Sigma S.
First is the full photo. I could get closer with the second but you get the idea. (and minimal PPing here as that is my way).
131346
131347
Tannin
05-07-2017, 10:31pm
^ I suppose this is a tactless time to be talking about great big bills .... but I love that great big bill!
Kev, I spend most of my photography time in the deep outback: deserts and near-deserts. Dust is a fact of life for me. I used to have frequent trouble with dust on sensors. (This was back in the day before self-cleaning sensors came along.) In fact, sensor dust was one of the two or three main reasons I switched from being a one-body man to a two-body man: simply to avoid lens swaps in constantly dusty environments. (And then a three-body man. Sigh. After that the rot set in and I got a bit carried away. These days I have take medication for the problem and have trimmed myself back to a mere four at any one time. I can handle it. I can stop any time I like.)
Um ... as I was saying, dust used to be a big problem, but I seldom give it a thought these days. I honestly can't remember the last time I had to clean dust of a sensor. Years, certainly. Granted, most of my lenses are weather-sealed, but the 100-400 certainly isn't, and although I generally dedicate one camera to the 500/4, I still remove the lens frequently to add or remove a teleconverter. The EF 100-400 is notorious among Canon users (at least the sort that post on Internet fora) for being a "dust pump". They whinge and moan about it the way a dog whinges if you leave him tied up and alone all day.
What actual effect does the dust the 100-400 "pumps" have on picture quality? None. Nada. Zip. Nil. Zero. The theory tells us that any reasonable amount of dust inside the lens makes practically no difference. I've owned two different 100-400 "dust pumps", used one or the other of them under harsh, dusty conditions for ... er ... 12 years now, taken tens of thousands of pictures with them. Lens dust is a non issue.
Dust on your sensor is the only dust you have to worry about - 'cause that does impact image quality - and with modern sensors, that's pretty much a non-issue too.
Do you remember that famous Lens Rentals article where they tested a lens with a massive great crack in the front element? It really made the point.
Tony, it's not the dust, per se, it's the other stuff that comes in with it, like the dreaded fungi spores. I've already lost one zoom, that I bought new, because of fungus.
Tannin
05-07-2017, 10:40pm
^ Ouch!
I dare say you have considered a dry cabinet?
^ Ouch!
I dare say you have considered a dry cabinet?
Not only considered, but acquired.
arthurking83
06-07-2017, 7:53am
And maybe some kind of UV light to help kill off any spores.
Oh! .. and I remember you said you want a 1.4x TC to go with the new lens you acquire.
Does that mean you're going to use the TC you have, or that you're going to budget in a new TC to go with it?
I'd recommend that if you go with the Sigma, get the Sigma (TC1401).
Also if you go for the Tammy, then go for Tammy's 1.4xTC (TC-X14).
And maybe some kind of UV light to help kill off any spores.
Oh! .. and I remember you said you want a 1.4x TC to go with the new lens you acquire.
Does that mean you're going to use the TC you have, or that you're going to budget in a new TC to go with it?
I'd recommend that if you go with the Sigma, get the Sigma (TC1401).
Also if you go for the Tammy, then go for Tammy's 1.4xTC (TC-X14).
The T/C was really only a consideration with the Nikon. As the D7200 will be my go-to birding lens, the crop factor will be a big bonus @600mm.
I must confess that the Sport was always my first choice, but being a tight @rsed OAP I was looking for a cheaper alternative. Although the G2 seems to tick the same boxes, my gut feeling is that the Sport is just that tad better so I've requested a 'price match' on it. Be interesting to see what they come back with.
The top item on my birding bucket list is the Wedgie, so shooting with anything less than 600mm would be an exercise in frustration. :nod:
So the 300mm f4 has to go, and that decision was made a bit easier when reading Brad Hill's blog re his comparison of the Sigma vs Nikon 500mm f4's. He commented that at 500mm and f8 the IQ with the Sport was comparable with the two primes.
My Tamron 70-200 f2.8 has gone to WA and the Nikon 300mm f4 goes on sale today.
They are both great lens and I hate to part with them, but when you are not flash with cash you have to rearrange your toy box.
Geez, I hope the Sigma Sport lives up to the hype.
Next step is to get onto CRK about a price match. ;)
...Geez, I hope the Sigma Sport lives up to the hype...
So do I...seriously thinking about one myself.
Mark & others have been getting impressive results, and that extra 200mm closer (for me) would havta be an advantage, right?
Maybe a Christmas pressie to myself :grinning01:
So do I...seriously thinking about one myself.
Mark & others have been getting impressive results, and that extra 200mm closer (for me) would havta be an advantage, right?
Maybe a Christmas pressie to myself :grinning01:
Mark's stuff has gone to a new level with the Sport.
And it should fit in to your lens line up too with the only gap being between 105mm and 150mm, assuming of course that you move the 100-400 on.
I think the ideal birding set-up is the Sport on a good crop sensor camera (which you have) and will give you 960mm FF equivalent with 24Mb.
Sounds like a winner to me.
And it should fit in to your lens line up too with the only gap being between 105mm and 150mm, assuming of course that you move the 100-400 on.
Not keen on parting with the 100 - 400, but thought I'd try and swap it later for a 70 - 200...?
I'd be totally covered from 10 - 600 then. After that, NO MORE! (famous last words)
Reckon I've spent enough on this hobby :grinning01:
Cheers - :beer_mug:
Not keen on parting with the 100 - 400, but thought I'd try and swap it later for a 70 - 200...?
I'd be totally covered from 10 - 600 then. After that, NO MORE! (famous last words)
Reckon I've spent enough on this hobby :grinning01:
Cheers - :beer_mug:
I felt the same way about parting with my Nikon 300mm f4, sharp as a tack and a Pro quality lens. But it goes online today.
It's a bit of a dilemma to sell something you know is damn good and replace it with something you've heard is damn good.
From all reports the quality of the Sport is top shelf. I hope they are correct.
basketballfreak6
01-08-2017, 6:21pm
hey Kev, i can vouch for the sigma 150-600 sports, fantastic lens for the price and perfectly sharp wide open at 600mm
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7352/28023588151_8c4d1f2870_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/JGmdqX)Eastern Yellow Robin (https://flic.kr/p/JGmdqX) by Tony (https://www.flickr.com/photos/basketballfreak6/), on Flickr
shot handheld wide open 600mm at 1/80 shutter ISO 12800 on my 5D3 lol, check out the feather detail
Tony, that's super impressive hand-held at 1/80 sec, and the feather detail is what I'm hoping for.
Your local EYR is much lighter than my locals.
How far away were you and what f stop?
And have you pointed it at the stars yet?
Tony, that's super impressive hand-held at 1/80 sec, .....
This introduces the net thing in the equation. Do you have a monopod?
The lens is heavy and I just don't think it would work for me without a monopod and tilt head. Firstly it gives the camera stability when take the photos and secondly, instead of you having to hold it, it gives you something to rest the weight on while waiting for the birds.
This introduces the net thing in the equation. Do you have a monopod?
The lens is heavy and I just don't think it would work for me without a monopod and tilt head. Firstly it gives the camera stability when take the photos and secondly, instead of you having to hold it, it gives you something to rest the weight on while waiting for the birds.
Cheers Mark
I don't think I'll be doing much hand-holding. I have a monopod with a Kirk Tilt-head and a carbon fibre tripod with a Wimberley Sidekick so that should help with my less than steady grip. Just waiting for a buyer for my second lens and I'm good to go.
basketballfreak6
02-08-2017, 2:47pm
Tony, that's super impressive hand-held at 1/80 sec, and the feather detail is what I'm hoping for.
Your local EYR is much lighter than my locals.
How far away were you and what f stop?
And have you pointed it at the stars yet?
haha thanks Kev, not sure what you meant by EYR tho
it was shot wide open at f/6.3 (600mm)
haven't tried the stars, too big and heavy for my tracker, partly why i am thinking of possibly downgrading to the 'C' but hard to because my copy of S has been fantastic be it IQ or AF
hand holding wise i found it took a bit of getting used to at the start but non issue for me after a while, can walk around for few hours at a time with just a R strap (i do consider myself decently fit but i am by no means a big guy or anything pretty average built) and as you saw have gotten some good low shutter speed shots with it too
Hi Tony,
EYR = Eastern Yellow Robin :Doh: :lol2:
haven't tried the stars, too big and heavy for my tracker, partly why i am thinking of possibly downgrading to the 'C' but hard to because my copy of S has been fantastic be it IQ or AF
Wash your mouth out !!! Tony, mate, you don't downgrade a great lens to fit a lightweight tracker, you upgrade the tracker to suit the great lens. Now go get the
HEQ5 Pro, go on, you know you want to. :nod:
basketballfreak6
03-08-2017, 11:07am
Hi Tony,
EYR = Eastern Yellow Robin :Doh: :lol2:
Wash your mouth out !!! Tony, mate, you don't downgrade a great lens to fit a lightweight tracker, you upgrade the tracker to suit the great lens. Now go get the
HEQ5 Pro, go on, you know you want to. :nod:
hahaha you're right, shame on me
fun fact i actually was just looking at a HEQ5 Pro the other day....
WOOHOO Just ordered the Sport :efelant: :party7: :banana: :beer_mug:
Hopefully have it by the weekend.
- - - Updated - - -
Cheers Tony. :food04:
Has your new monster arrived yet?
Thought I'd better have the you-beaut USB Dock and ordered it too. (I can see Uncle Arthur sagely nodding his head :nod: )
Now the wait :( although it's blowing a gale here so wouldn't be much joy till the wind drops off.
Thought I'd better have the you-beaut USB Dock and ordered it too.
That's worth doing, just in case.
I brought my lens from Kel (Brian500au) and he offered his dock for me if the lens needed sorting.
I found the lens was front focusing by a fraction. The dock let me fix that. To fix this in the past meant paying money for someone else to fix it.
That's worth doing, just in case.
I brought my lens from Kel (Brian500au) and he offered his dock for me if the lens needed sorting.
I found the lens was front focusing by a fraction. The dock let me fix that. To fix this in the past meant paying money for someone else to fix it.
Doesn't your Canon have in-camera auto focus fine tuning ?
Mark L
08-08-2017, 10:14pm
Doesn't your Canon have in-camera auto focus fine tuning ?
Not sure, but don't think so.
But what has that got to do with the lens front focusing a faction if you can fix that in the lens??
Enjoy your new kit. It's wonderful I think.:)
Tannin
08-08-2017, 10:39pm
Nearly all semi-pro and pro Canon bodies made since the Stone Age provide micro-adjustment.
X0D Series: 50D, 70D, 80D. (Not the 60D for some reason.)
7 Series: 7D, 7D II.
6 Series: 6D, 6D II.
5 Series: 5D II, 5D III, 5DS, 5DS R, 5D IV.
1 Series: 1D III, 1Ds III, 1D IV, 1D X, 1D X II.
None of the various Canon bodies and lenses I have owned have ever needed it. Nor have the two Tokina lenses, though to be fair they were both quite short and at 12mm your depth of field is so enormous that precise focus becomes a bit academic.
One half of me thinks that the Sigma Dock is a bit of a scam designed to make you pay good money and waste useful time fixing things that should have been done properly in the factory in the first place. The other half of me thinks that Arthur is no fool, so there might be something in it.
Tony, in all fairness to Sigma I reckon it would be a challenge to design a lens to be compatible with the idiosyncrasies of three different camera operating systems, well two anyway, as the Sigma system should be OK.
And hopefully it gives you the ability to update it for new cameras.
basketballfreak6
09-08-2017, 3:18pm
WOOHOO Just ordered the Sport :efelant: :party7: :banana: :beer_mug:
Hopefully have it by the weekend.
- - - Updated - - -
Cheers Tony. :food04:
Has your new monster arrived yet?
hahaha no spending for me for a while...blew too much money on new lenses
also the dock is def while investment, personally i've been pretty unlucky with lenses and had a number of canon's and sigma's that need adjusting (tho my 150-600S was perfect out of box), the ability not only able to fine tune AF at different distances as well adjusting parameters like IS/OS/VR behavior and speed of focus etc not to mention firmware update is awesome, you can obviously still send it off to sigma or what not under warranty if you wish to but by having the option to do it at home yourself means no down time whatsoever, wish canon had something similar (and not just the simple MFA in body)
Oh Happy Days , it arrived on my doorstep this morning overnight from banana land :banana::banana::banana:
First impressions ..... It's humongous, and as expected, weighty, but I think the odd hand-held shot is a possibility. Oh, and it's a very high quality Pro grade lens.
It's still blowing a gale here so testing it outside is not a sensible option as anything in a tree is moving a metre or more side to side, and the wind is strong enough to cause vibration when using a tripod.
My first shot will be a test for auto focus accuracy, with adjustments if necessary. Dunno whether to use the dock or do it in-camera. :confused013
Congratulations Kev! I'm sure you will get great value from it. As you know, Mark and others here get excellent results with theirs.
(No new monster for me yet, BBF, might be another week yet. Should get the new Lens Coat and a collapsible hood for it tomorrow. Being physically longer than the 500, it will be a very tight fit in the front seat of a car, particularly with a 1.4 converter mounted.)
Oh Happy Days , it arrived on my doorstep this morning overnight from banana land :banana::banana::banana:
First impressions ..... It's humongous, and as expected, weighty, but I think the odd hand-held shot is a possibility. Oh, and it's a very high quality Pro grade lens.
It's still blowing a gale here so testing it outside is not a sensible option as anything in a tree is moving a metre or more side to side, and the wind is strong enough to cause vibration when using a tripod.
My first shot will be a test for auto focus accuracy, with adjustments if necessary. Dunno whether to use the dock or do it in-camera. :confused013
Geez, that was quick!!
Have fun playing with that new toy...I'll be watching from the side lines (cheap seats... :D)
Congratulations Kev! I'm sure you will get great value from it. As you know, Mark and others here get excellent results with theirs.
(No new monster for me yet, BBF, might be another week yet. Should get the new Lens Coat and a collapsible hood for it tomorrow. Being physically longer than the 500, it will be a very tight fit in the front seat of a car, particularly with a 1.4 converter mounted.)
Cheers Tony
I was rapt in how quickly mine arrived as I was like a kid a couple of days before Xmas. But :christmasparty: arrived early.
I've got a lenscoat in the mail as well as a front pinch cap.
PS: If I take the shelf out of my humidity control cabinet it will fit in standing on it's end cap, so that's good news too. :nod:
- - - Updated - - -
Geez, that was quick!!
Have fun playing with that new toy...I'll be watching from the side lines (cheap seats... :D)
C'mon Gazza, ya' know ya' want one.
I think one of the things that clinched it for me was reading in Brad Hill's blog where he compared it with the Nikon and Sigma 500mm primes, and @500mm f8 he commented that it was on a par, IQ wise, with the primes.
I hope to find out when the bloody wind drops off.
PS: I've just watched about twenty minutes of tutes on customising the lens settings with the dock. Now I really do need that cuppa, a BEX and a lie down, a long one.
J.davis
10-08-2017, 7:28pm
I found the best way to set the focus was with 5 AA batteries aligned at 45deg to the lens.
Take pics at the given ranges, and recheck. Focus on the centre one and space further apart as the distance increases.
I found the best way to set the focus was with 5 AA batteries aligned at 45deg to the lens.
Take pics at the given ranges, and recheck. Focus on the centre one and space further apart as the distance increases.
Cheers JD.
I've used that method in the past and it works well.
Mark L
10-08-2017, 10:18pm
My first shot will be a test for auto focus accuracy, with adjustments if necessary. Dunno whether to use the dock or do it in-camera. :confused013
Do your testing in camera and use the dock to adjust things later if needs be.
I tested and found things were front focusing a fraction. The dock is a step up from Sigma I reckon.
Do your testing in camera and use the dock to adjust things later if needs be.
I tested and found things were front focusing a fraction. The dock is a step up from Sigma I reckon.
Cheers Mark.
Do you have the OS on when shooting with your monopod?
Well that was a frustrating, and wasted hour. :(
Downloaded the Optimisation Pro software and tried to do the firmware update but the program kept hanging. Uninstalled it, reinstalled it, same thing. Went online seeking answers but no joy.
I had the dock plugged into my usual USB3 port, which is backward compatible, and then remembered seeing somewhere in Sigma's early blurb that the dock was compatible with USB1, so I tried it in a USB2 port and away she went. Sheesh !!!
Now to check how accurate the auto-focus is.
^ It will be something to do with the particular USB chipsets, I reckon, rather than a USB 2 / UBB 3 issue. Not that it makes any practical difference to you.
(In general, the USB 2 ports on a computer are controlled by an integrated multi-purpose main board chipset, while the USB 3 ports are controlled by an add-in chip, often from a different manufacturer.)
The wind is still blowing so haven't been able to test the auto-focus.
The B-fH's came in for their bath so decided to try some hand-held shots from about 12m.
The bird was in mottled light and wet, and I'm sure the OS didn't lock-on as I couldn't hold the lens steady enough to find the eye. This was the only one of about a dozen that was anywhere near focus but it has given me a bit of an idea of what the lens will be capable of in normal conditions.
131860
One thing I learnt is that I won't be hand-holding it unless there is something handy to use as a brace.
Kev, that lens should be perfectly hand-holdable. It weighs more than a kilogram less than the 500/4 I hand-hold as routine, and I am of slender build and pushing 60. No soda the Sigma, sure, but you can do it for sure. One stupid mistake I often see so-called expert photographers making on Youtube is holding a big lens like a 300/2.8 or a 600/4 by the tripod foot. This is just plain daft. They might as well give lessons in Camera Shake 101. For a steady aim, the left hand has to go out as close to the objective lens as practicable. (Basic geometry - the longer the baseline, the smaller the angle subtended by any given movement of the hand.)
Trust me, you will find that with a little practice you'll be hand-holding happily at 600mm. Hell, if a decrepit old coot like me can hand hold a one-third heavier lens at 700mm, you can manage the little Sigma no worries.
Kev, that lens should be perfectly hand-holdable. It weighs more than a kilogram less than the 500/4 I hand-hold as routine, and I am of slender build and pushing 60. No soda the Sigma, sure, but you can do it for sure. One stupid mistake I often see so-called expert photographers making on Youtube is holding a big lens like a 300/2.8 or a 600/4 by the tripod foot. This is just plain daft. They might as well give lessons in Camera Shake 101. For a steady aim, the left hand has to go out as close to the objective lens as practicable. (Basic geometry - the longer the baseline, the smaller the angle subtended by any given movement of the hand.)
Trust me, you will find that with a little practice you'll be hand-holding happily at 600mm. Hell, if a decrepit old coot like me can hand hold a one-third heavier lens at 700mm, you can manage the little Sigma no worries.
Tony, I've pushed 60, and 70, now I'm having a look at 80 in 4 years, if I make it.
I've been pretty slack, exercise wise, for the last couple of years but about to get back into it, so that should help.
I believe the lens is well and truly going to live up to my expectations. :nod:
Cheers Mark.
Do you have the OS on when shooting with your monopod?
Yes.
I tested a couple of times and while I got some nice photos with OS off I got better results with it on. All photos I've presented on AP have had OS on so don't be afraid to use it.
My 80D has 35 focus points. I use the centre point and the lens will go from infinity to two meter in less than a secound.
Still under 80? What a slacker! From now on, you must always hand-hold, and no namby-pamby cheating like using both hands for it either.
Still under 80? What a slacker! From now on, you must always hand-hold, and no namby-pamby cheating like using both hands for it either.
I'm gunna need a bigger camera. The D7200 looks like a toy on the end of the lens. :lol2:
And BTW Tony, the Sigma weighs in at 3.16kg with the hood on, which I think is around the same weight as your Canon.
And I've just done a quick 'n' dirty auto focus test inside with a tape measure at 45°, and like Marks lens it seem to be front focusing, but I won't do any adjustments till I can do the test outside at around 10m.
Oh Happy Days , it arrived on my doorstep this morning overnight from banana land :banana::banana::banana:
Just bought a 'Lotto' ticket for tonight. Shall I order mine now, or wait for the morning? :grinning01:
Just bought a 'Lotto' ticket for tonight. Shall I order mine now, or wait for the morning? :grinning01:
Gazza, I suspect that the price that I paid is going to increase by at least five hundred bucks.
Tannin
12-08-2017, 11:03am
Quite a bit lighter, Kev. Taking my figures from the ever-reliable Digital Picture -
Manufacturer specified weight. 500/4: 3.87kg; 150-600: 2.86kg. (Excludes hood and, in the case of the Canon, the tripod foot.)
Actual weight: 500/4: 4.015kg; 150-600: 2.86kg. (Still excluding hood.)
In-use weight: 500/4: 4.26kg; 150-600: 3.155kg. (A 35% difference.)
These figures should not be surprising. Both lenses are very solidly built for heavy-duty use with no shortcuts, but the 500 gathers roughly twice as much light and consequently needs more glass. It's actually surprising how light it is. (And the weight of the new Mark II 500 - 3.42kg in-use - is a downright miracle!) My guess is that Sigma were very keen to position the 150-600 Sport as the serious, professional quality lens it is, and were happy to spend a bit of extra metal on it to be sure that no-one doubted its build quality. It is interesting that the cheaper version of it - admittedly with different glass - comes in at just 2.035kg in-use, or less than half the weight of my 500. Even more interesting is that both the Tamrons weigh just 2.11kg.)
All that said, in my brief experience with the Sigma, I found it rather more difficult to hand-hold than I expected. (Ditto the Canon 200-400/4.) Was this (a) something to do with the weight distribution, I wondered? Or was it (b) to do with the more restricted choice of gripping points as the two zooms include both focus and zoom rings where the prime only needs a focus ring? Or (c) simply that I've owned the 500 for many years and am not used to holding the zooms? I'm inclined to suspect that (c) is the most important factor, but not the only one.
Anyway, I found the 150-600 surprisingly awkward, but I'd be happy to revise my opinion in the light of more experience with it. Feel free to post it to me and I'll try it out properly for a year or two and report my findings. :)
^ All that aside, my experience with the 500 was that I was aghast at the weight of it on first impression and didn't think it was anywhere near hand-holdable, but quickly became accustomed to it and have hand-held it regularly ever since. I reckon you might find the Sigma similar. Give it time and see what happens.
You must have the original version as I looked at the weight of the Mk II version which is considerably lighter at 3.2kg's.
I think I'll need a couple of weeks on the 5kg dumbells before I try hand-holding again. :nod:
All that said, in my brief experience with the Sigma, I found it rather more difficult to hand-hold than I expected. (Ditto the Canon 200-400/4.) Was this (a) something to do with the weight distribution, I wondered? Or was it (b) to do with the more restricted choice of gripping points as the two zooms include both focus and zoom rings where the prime only needs a focus ring? Or (c) simply that I've owned the 500 for many years and am not used to holding the zooms? I'm inclined to suspect that (c) is the most important factor, but not the only one.
Most likely (B) is getting in there as well.
I find my 300 2.8 IS II and even my 600 F4 IS are easy to hold (the 600 for short times) due to not needing to manipulate a zoom ring. My Canon 200-400 is easy to hold weight wise but sometimes holding it and operating the zoom can be a little awkward.
Can anyone with a Sigma with OS tell me how to know when the OS is working? With my Tamron it is obvious when the VR kicks in as the focus point indicator-stabilises, but nothing shows in the viewfinder, no beeps or motor noise with the Sigma.
And I've been thinking about some sort of stabilisation for hand-holding, and was wondering if one of those belts that game fishos use might help by putting the foot of a monopod in it.
arthurking83
13-08-2017, 6:59pm
Sorry been MIA, too much work, no time to play! :(
Anyhow, the first thing I was going to recommend, is that you don't connect the dock thing via USB3 .. but you've beating me to the punch .. same experience here!
.... Dunno whether to use the dock or do it in-camera. :confused013
Remember the old days, how you used to make fun of my fanboism for the Sigma lens dock thing(and now Tamron doing same .. and hating Nikon for not doing same).
Always use the dock.
If you have PC(or other device) connectivity to the camera and can do realtime live view feed, it's 'more accurate' than doing it by hand, on a tripod, using your finger to AF, in controlled conditions, indoors, and also outdoors unless you use a specific target type .. etc. :p
Anyhow, the reason for my dislike of non connectable lenses, goes way back.
The good old Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D specifically, and less bothersome but similarly afflicted Tamron 28-75/2.8 lenses.
They both gave me grief on various cameras. Less noticeable on the D70s, and more notable on the D300.
The Tamrons problem was the very slight amount of play in the gear/screw slot for the AF drive. It misfocused but only at 75mm, only at f/8 did the DOF mask the misfocus .. but who buys an f/2.8 lens to use at f/8! :p
Easy fix .. so for me the misfocus on the old Tammy may not have been Tamrons fault completely.
But the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D .. royal pain in the posterior for me. So much so that it's the only lens I've ever sold(and probably ever will).
Misfocus was at 200mm and very obvious. Problem was I couldn't over ride it like I could on the Tammy lens.
All the experts say go with the name brand, first party lenses all work, you won't have issues .. etc, etc. .. bs, bs .. I can tell 'ya very differently.
In camera AF adjustment is OK, only in very specific conditions.
1. it's not a zoom, and that obviously means it's a prime lens. and 2. if it's a prime lens, make sure you don't go using a similar model prime lens if you have one already set in AF adjustment memory in the camera. The other one will also be AF adjusted and may not need it!
So there 'ya have it .. why I have a massive preference for connectable lenses .. plus add into the equation Nikon's recent woes with some of their lenses .. and the trouble that some owners would have had to go through to get a lens to work, when it should never have not worked to begin with! Having access to stuff like USB docks that allow lens adjustment ability never hurt anyone!
Anyhow, if you adjust the focus tweak you may require in camera, it'll throw out the focus for all focal lengths and focus distances on that lens.
It's almost a dead cert that you don't need the same adjustment for the entire lens, and the software has been made to cater for this point.
When you get into the Sigma software, and get to the Customisation tab you'll see that it's adjustable for set focal lengths(150, 250, 400, and 600mm) and for each of those focal lengths you have 4 different focus distance settings to allow you to adjust for.
I've tested all settings, and have found no tweaks needed, but I only did it quickly.
I used a picket fence post outdoors at the required shorted distances, and had to use a distant house roof(chimney) for the infinity test.
Unless you have a lens cal type angled confabulation to play with for AF accuracy, I suggest you don't use an angled ruler to do the test with. They're not as accurate as you think they are.
Back to the comment re the ability to connect the camera to a device that allows you to view a remote live view feed.
I used my little tablet using ControlMyNikon software, which allows you to adjust focus in micro minute steps(as long as it's an AFS type lens).
Much finer adjustment step ability than the camera can actually allow you to play with. That's for the software .. dunno which other software allows you to do the same.
So using the remote software, focus camera as per normal on a tripod, using thumb(AF-On) activated method .. view liveview image and assess the image quality.
Then with ControlMyNikon software, adjust focus forward and backward to see if I could make it more focused.
Like I said, using that method .. my Sport was pretty much spot on as it was.
As for OS. Go into Customisation and look for [Customisation Mode Setting]. Click.
(this may sound convoluted .. and it kind'a is!!)
Now you get to buttons C1 and C2. They both correspond to the lower button on the side of the lens. The other setting for that button is OFF. Note this button.
When you make any adjustments to the C1/C2 operation modes, you then have to use that C1/C2 setting on the lens.
So if you adjust anything in one of the custom modes, then it only works on the lens if you set it to the appropriate custom value. If you have it at OFF, then obviously the custom settings you made using the software isn't applied to the lens.
eg. say you want the dynamic OS mode which has a more aggressive OS viewfinder operation, but you want to leave AF speed as normal, and focus limiter(not AF adjustment!) as normal too.
So go to C1 and you'll see the three adjustment tabs, only use the OS settign tab and set it to dynamic.
C1 will now have a dynamic OS setting, and AF speed and AF limiter are not adjusted(it says so next to the respective button if it's not set) .. use C1 for that personal tweak.
But if you wanted slightly twitchier quicker focus speed, but with a hint of possible inaccuracy, then for C2, you could just adjust the AF speed to fast AF priority, also set OS to dynamic and if you want, set focus limiter to '5m to infinity'.
so now, C2 mode is a birding mode, I can't imagine a bird closer than 5m, but could be at infinity .. so AF is less likely to hunt in low light.
OS is in the 'best mode', and AF speed is as quick as the lens gets for 'ya.
But C1 mode is only for the more aggressive dynamic OS feature, and AF speed will be normal and AF limiter is from MFD to infinity.
**Very important to note** It's not obvious for first timers, but if you tweak anything in this area you MUST hit the [Rewriting] button at the lower edge of the screen. If not, all the settigns you tweaked won't be written to the lens. ;)
Personal opinion: OS works. It is different to other stabilisations in lenses. It's less aggressive, less obvious in the viewfinder. BUT you should see the small sidestep when the OS activates when the camera meter is activated, or AF or whatever.
I'm not seeing a lot of difference in viewfinder between standard OS and dynamic modes, but there is an extremely slight difference in the way it snaps to initiate OS.
I feel there is a difference between fastest AF mode and normal. less so between normal and smooth tho.
I've never found any need to limit AF limiter ability. Lens generally finds focus as accurately as I've seen in any other lens I've used.
You can fool it of course, but then again I've seen the Nikon 70-200/2.8 fooled too!
Focus system is at least 95% workable/usable.
The one and only thing I hate about the lens is the silly lens hood locking bolt thing .. just silly, where a spring loaded tab pull to release, release to lock system would have been much nicer for what feels like a very high quality finish.
Remember the old days, how you used to make fun of my fanboism for the Sigma lens dock thing(and now Tannin doing same .. )
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. I have owned ... er
,,,, OK, I'm back. Took me a while to make a list, and I may have forgotten one or two.
But near as I can count, overt the last dozen years, I have owned 17 SLR lenses and 12 Canon DSLRs. Cross out three of the lenses if you like because one of them is manual focus, and two of them were Tokina rather than Canon. Out of those 12 cameras and 14 Canon auto-focus lenses, used in pretty much every combination. how many have needed adjustment via a dock, or indeed adjustment of any kind?
Precisely zero.
(Tannin reads Arthur's post a little more carefully ....
Remember the old days, how you used to make fun of my fanboism for the Sigma lens dock thing(and now Tamron doing same .. )
Oh. Sorry 'bout that. As you were then. :)
Sorry been MIA, too much work, no time to play! :(
Anyhow, the first thing I was going to recommend, is that you don't connect the dock thing via USB3 .. but you've beating me to the punch .. same experience here!
Remember the old days, how you used to make fun of my fanboism for the Sigma lens dock thing(and now Tamron doing same .. and hating Nikon for not doing same).
Always use the dock.
If you have PC(or other device) connectivity to the camera and can do realtime live view feed, it's 'more accurate' than doing it by hand, on a tripod, using your finger to AF, in controlled conditions, indoors, and also outdoors unless you use a specific target type .. etc. :p
When you get into the Sigma software, and get to the Customisation tab you'll see that it's adjustable for set focal lengths(150, 250, 400, and 600mm) and for each of those focal lengths you have 4 different focus distance settings to allow you to adjust for.
Back to the comment re the ability to connect the camera to a device that allows you to view a remote live view feed.
I used my little tablet using ControlMyNikon software, which allows you to adjust focus in micro minute steps(as long as it's an AFS type lens).
Much finer adjustment step ability than the camera can actually allow you to play with. That's for the software .. dunno which other software allows you to do the same.
So using the remote software, focus camera as per normal on a tripod, using thumb(AF-On) activated method .. view liveview image and assess the image quality.
Then with ControlMyNikon software, adjust focus forward and backward to see if I could make it more focused.
Like I said, using that method .. my Sport was pretty much spot on as it was.
As for OS. Go into Customisation and look for [Customisation Mode Setting]. Click.
(this may sound convoluted .. and it kind'a is!!)
Now you get to buttons C1 and C2. They both correspond to the lower button on the side of the lens. The other setting for that button is OFF. Note this button.
When you make any adjustments to the C1/C2 operation modes, you then have to use that C1/C2 setting on the lens.
So if you adjust anything in one of the custom modes, then it only works on the lens if you set it to the appropriate custom value. If you have it at OFF, then obviously the custom settings you made using the software isn't applied to the lens.
eg. say you want the dynamic OS mode which has a more aggressive OS viewfinder operation, but you want to leave AF speed as normal, and focus limiter(not AF adjustment!) as normal too.
So go to C1 and you'll see the three adjustment tabs, only use the OS settign tab and set it to dynamic.
C1 will now have a dynamic OS setting, and AF speed and AF limiter are not adjusted(it says so next to the respective button if it's not set) .. use C1 for that personal tweak.
But if you wanted slightly twitchier quicker focus speed, but with a hint of possible inaccuracy, then for C2, you could just adjust the AF speed to fast AF priority, also set OS to dynamic and if you want, set focus limiter to '5m to infinity'.
so now, C2 mode is a birding mode, I can't imagine a bird closer than 5m, but could be at infinity .. so AF is less likely to hunt in low light.
OS is in the 'best mode', and AF speed is as quick as the lens gets for 'ya.
But C1 mode is only for the more aggressive dynamic OS feature, and AF speed will be normal and AF limiter is from MFD to infinity.
**Very important to note** It's not obvious for first timers, but if you tweak anything in this area you MUST hit the [Rewriting] button at the lower edge of the screen. If not, all the settigns you tweaked won't be written to the lens. ;)
Personal opinion: OS works. It is different to other stabilisations in lenses. It's less aggressive, less obvious in the viewfinder. BUT you should see the small sidestep when the OS activates when the camera meter is activated, or AF or whatever.
I'm not seeing a lot of difference in viewfinder between standard OS and dynamic modes, but there is an extremely slight difference in the way it snaps to initiate OS.
I feel there is a difference between fastest AF mode and normal. less so between normal and smooth tho.
I've never found any need to limit AF limiter ability. Lens generally finds focus as accurately as I've seen in any other lens I've used.
You can fool it of course, but then again I've seen the Nikon 70-200/2.8 fooled too!
Focus system is at least 95% workable/usable.
The one and only thing I hate about the lens is the silly lens hood locking bolt thing .. just silly, where a spring loaded tab pull to release, release to lock system would have been much nicer for what feels like a very high quality finish.
Thank you Uncle Arthur, once again, for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply.
As said above, somewhere, the lens was front focusing, so I did the in-camera micro adjustment, and the results from about 100 shots were, to say the least, somewhat underwhelming. OK, it was late afternoon and I was chasing the light, but the below post pretty much sums up what I got. Oh, and on the odd occasion I did notice the OS kick-in.
131895
Most shots were OOF, most likely due to my set-up and technique, but also probably due to the lens not being set-up correctly.
It will probably take a day or so for my tired old brain to suss out all the salient bits in your post, but it is obvious that the dock is the way to go. And yes, I gave you a rev-up about your 'dock love', but I'll admit that it was one of the reasons that I went for the Sport, along with Brad Hill and TDP.
Thanks again for informative reply. :th3:
PS: I have no doubt that when I get it sorted, the lens will be a weapon.
PPS: @ Tony :action5: , docks rule, OK. :lol2:
arthurking83
13-08-2017, 9:41pm
:D
While I haven't got as many AF lenses as you have had over the years, I still have enough to have 'similar' experiences.
But, some can slip through the net. ie. count yourself lucky!
But in all seriousness, there will be in any system of mechanically connected parts, some inherent tolerances that need to be taken into account.
They have too, otherwise they would all be bespoke items that can only perfectly fit selected companion parts with zero tolerance between those parts.
It's this built in tolerance that allows the ability for those parts to become interchangeable. Tolerance = inaccuracy. Inaccuracy = errors. Errors(in focusing terms) = misfocus.
It's commonly claimed, and written by many professionals and other well known photography personalities that they have multiple copies of lens A and one has 5 microns of backfocus and another has 4 microns of front focus.
Look hard enough and under the right circumstances and you'll find it too.
But .. more to the point .. Nikon have of recent times displayed why accessories like lens connecting devices can play a significant part in building more honest relationships with the customers!
200-500/5.6 and before that, the 300/4 PF lens both had to have firmware updates for some lenses from early batches.
Now as a customer, I've just spent $2k on a lens, I may have driven an hour to locate a reliable/reputable retailer, or may have spent upwards of $50-100 for insured freight to get this lens into my eager hands.
Then to find out that it needs to go back to Nikon to get a firmware update.
As far as I remember, Nikon never compensated anyone for their freight costs to get their lenses to the repair facility, only the cost of getting it back to the customer.
Otherwise it'd have been another hour wasted getting to Mr Reliable/Reputable retailer in the big smoke, having parking hassles, cost of fuel, burden of having to deal with big smoke .. etc.
All this having just spent $2K to get the so called reputable, first party, known to not cause issues, big brand, gear!
And on the other hand, the less reputable manufacturers allow this exact same firmware update to be done from the comfort of your own PC connected environment... be that in your own warm cosy study, or in the polluted big smoke, sipping on a latte at the cafe using their wifi, right next door to the reputable/reliable retailer.
ps. I tried to count haow many lenses I have, to compare your figures, and I kind'a lost count .. actually lost interest, which lead to loss of train of thought, which lead to loss of the last number I had to remember when I pointed to another lens .. so I dunno about 10-12 AF lenses, on 3 bodies.
D70s not very obvious to take notice of focus errors due to it's low resolution sensor .. but the 80-200/2.8 was noticeable. Less so the Tammy(28-75mm).
More obvious on the D300 tho.
I think I did try to look for it on the D800(with the Tammy 28-75), but I never really cared much about if it was there or not.
The larger camera body of the D800E made the lens nicer to use for some reason. D300 is a large-ish body, but the slightly larger D800 body type just made it the 28-75mm nicer somehow.
Nikon 80-200 was long gone by the time the D800 came along, and if I still had it, I'd have scrutinised it at 10x magnification.
I reckon, if I look hard enough I may be able to find a reason to set the Sigma with a -1(out of 20) in one of selected focusing slots.
basketballfreak6
14-08-2017, 4:19pm
hey Kev congrats on getting the lens! a few tips from me...
i find it much easier to use the lens as a push/pull lens, actually feels surprisingly intuitive that way, i actually find it hard to use it as a standard twist zoom i think due to the fact that the zoom ring is a bit stiff but probably more due to the fact that there is a lot of glass to move, so my hand is pretty much sitting on the lens hood, feels very comfortable for me using it that way
in terms of OS you can change OS behaviour using the dock and program can set it so you can see the OS working via viewfinder (pretty sure)
i took it out yesterday myself for the first time in a long time and is still impressed at its performance, it's up there with my best lenses accuracy wise (and i own canon's 24-70II and 70-200II) everything just hits and also how sharp it is...i can happily do some pretty heavy cropping
hey Kev congrats on getting the lens! a few tips from me...
i find it much easier to use the lens as a push/pull lens, actually feels surprisingly intuitive that way, i actually find it hard to use it as a standard twist zoom i think due to the fact that the zoom ring is a bit stiff but probably more due to the fact that there is a lot of glass to move, so my hand is pretty much sitting on the lens hood, feels very comfortable for me using it that way
in terms of OS you can change OS behaviour using the dock and program can set it so you can see the OS working via viewfinder (pretty sure)
i took it out yesterday myself for the first time in a long time and is still impressed at its performance, it's up there with my best lenses accuracy wise (and i own canon's 24-70II and 70-200II) everything just hits and also how sharp it is...i can happily do some pretty heavy cropping
Cheers Tony,
I've been working on the auto-focus fine tuning, all sixteen options, as my lens was front focusing on the D7200 to the extent that small birds were all OOF and I thought I had got a dud. Feeling better now and I am starting too see some results.
While working on the auto-focus tuning this Pee Wee dropped in.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4441/35766130763_fe1c58c3f8_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/WuwLAX)Pee Wee with Sigma 150-600 Sport (https://flic.kr/p/WuwLAX) by @Cage (https://www.flickr.com/photos/cage2/), on Flickr
Pic is nothing special but I was pleased with the detail in the black plumage on the breast. This lens seems like a good match for the D7200.
This was shot off a tripod with the OS enabled, and I'm now seeing the OS kick in, probably because it can now find a focus point. The lens was front-focusing maybe about 45mm, so it was missing focus on small birds completely.
I've set the in-camera micro-focus back to zero and am working my way through the various focal lengths with the dock.
So Artie, I wont stir you for your 'dock :love: ' anymore because the bloody thing works, and works well.
arthurking83
16-08-2017, 8:31am
.....
So Artie, I wont stir you for your 'dock :love: ' anymore because the bloody thing works, and works well.
:th3:
So, I'm going to sell mine, and stir you about it! :p
ps. for focus testing, best way I found was to use batteries. (if I find the pics, I'll post them).
Basically, get about 5 batteries(AA or AAA) line them up across so that there is about 1 battery width space between each. Then arrange them fore/aft in a V pattern too.
Space them so that the back edge of one of the leading batteries is on the same plane as the front surface of the further back battery.
The reason I use 5 batteries is that I focus on the middle one and have four batteries either side not only watchign for back(or front) focusing accuracy, but also tilted film plane issues(ie. I didn't line the camera up well enough) and or lens build issues with respect to focus plane tilting.
O O
O O
O
_
CAMERA
O's are the batteries, _ is the camera.
That setup is for testing backfocus, if testing for front focus the V shape of the batteries lineup is reversed.
If your lens is backfocusing, and you always focus using the centre point on the central subject, then the rear batteries will come into focus better.
Note that one may be, and the other may not be. All this usually means is that the camera(film plane) isn't square to the V shape of the batteries.
I used AAs as they're bigger and then you can move further back and still maintain the focus point area within that single centre battery.
It's important to have that focus area box only covering the that one battery and nothing else or any other battery.
To explain why using the angled ruler for focus accuracy testing is going to max out the available space on the AP server! ;)
If this is vitally important to you, a lens cal type focus accuracy testing thingy is probably a good thing to have, otherwise make your own up.
There's nothing wrong with the angled ruler itself, just that tryign to focus on it is a random guess at best(due to the way that the focus box is designed).
So with a couple of pieces of some solid material(eg. ply, very strong cardboard, masonite, or whatever) .. you'd have the ruler only as the measuring device but the subject target HAS to be square on to the camera/lens.
I occasionally have random thoughts on on cobbling up a home made focus testing doodad with some random materials I have here and there, but the battery test targets have worked well in the past, and currently have no lens focus issues.
Although my testing of my Sport was very quick and crude(not using the batteries).
With my 80-200/2.8 at 200mm and about 4-5m distance I found that I focused on the front battery, and the lens focused on the second row batteries. Setting a 5-10 value in camera forward fixed that up perfectly.
Only problem was it totally stuffed all other focal lengths, and .. it stuffed 200mm beyond about 20-ish or so meters.
If the camera allowed varying adjustment values based on focal length for zooms, and focus distances for all lens types, then it'd be as good as the tweaking ability of the Sigma(and I assume Tamron) docks + software.
BUT NOTE!! if you do adjust for your D7500, that doesn't mean it will be the same for another camera, even if it's another D7500!
Cheers Arthur.
I've been using the battery method for years but I use them in a straight line at 45° to the camera, a battery width apart.
However I've gone high tech and downloaded and printed a test chart from the internet.
131942
Strangely enough, or not, the increments backward or forward of the focus point on the test chart pretty much correspond to the increments of adjustment on the Optimiser Pro. Go figure. :confused013
If you look at my post in 'Birds' I think you'll agree that I'm making some progress.
PS: I was pondering on the possibility of using the dock on a different camera and wondered that if you used a different focal length to those already set, the program would just set that adjustment as per usual, but all your other pre-sets would probably be out for that camera.. :confused013
PPS: If Sigma are really, really smart they will do the software for various cameras and allow your lens to recognise which camera it is on and adjust as necessary.
arthurking83
16-08-2017, 3:25pm
Warning!! long post may ensue from this point onwards! :p
....
However I've gone high tech and downloaded and printed a test chart from the internet.
....
That test chart is OK to use, except for one thing.
The black bar where you focus at is known to cause focusing anomalies.
That is, you can't be 100% sure that the camera is actually focusing at the correct point on the line, even tho it should focus on the wording that describes to focus along that line.
If you have the image of that printout in electronic form as an easy to edit image file, what I'd reckon you should do with it is to replace the thick black line with the wording and add a series of lines using the + = and \ / symbols instead.
Those symbols give the focusing system a better chance of focusing exactly the same way every time(apparently).
Ideally what you'd want is a small cutout in the centre of that focus line and slot in another target to focus on, making sure that the slotted in target is at 45° to the plane of the ruler and on the same plane as the camera/lens combo.
That focus test target was originally designed for testing focus change due to aperture adjustment .. ie. focus shift. But in those tests you were so much measuring AF accuracy, just measuring how focus changed when only the aperture is stopped down.
Overall, nothing wrong in a general sense in using a similar layout to measure focus accuracy, as long as you fully understand the tech implications behind what can go wrong.
But a small cutout, print something like a Siemens Star on a bit of paper, stick that to a bit of cardboard that gets slotted into the cutout and you have saved yourself a couple of hundred bucks on a lenscal!
Good 'onya, just when I thought I had it sussed you throw a spanner in the works. :lol2:
I looked at the Siemens Stars, briefly, because the moire was making my eyes roll around like poker machine reels. :eek: Dunno' whether all that moire would help or hinder focus. :confused013
I don't really understand what the problem is with the chart that I'm using (and no further explanation required ;) ) because if the focus point wanders off along the horizontal plane that shouldn't be a problem because I'm looking for variance on the vertical plane, and if it mis-focuses on the vertical plane it would be such a small deviance that it should not cause much of an issue for my usage.
Anyhow, I've found this Siemens Star Chart with a less moire inducing centre.
131945
What do you think?
arthurking83
16-08-2017, 5:47pm
....
I don't really understand what the problem is with the chart that I'm using (and no further explanation required ;) ) because if the focus point wanders off along the horizontal plane that shouldn't be a problem because I'm looking for variance on the vertical plane, and if it mis-focuses on the vertical plane it would be such a small deviance that it should not cause much of an issue for my usage.
....
That's the little eye straining tacker!
Apparently they are 100% hit rate on AF systems.
I had to look up one of my old reply on how AF systems are set up, but it's an old thread(not mine) and I can't locate it.
Think of the focus point as this [+] some are double cross points [#].
In theory they're supposed to be lined up exactly like that, but what I've read is that in practice they almost never are.
So the cross points may be lined up either a bit left/right or vertically higher/lower relative to the square, and all you see is the square.
So, lets say you have some lens to camera tolerance issue, which varies for each camera lens combo, AND you're focus cross points are wayyyy off in terms of where they're supposed to be in the focus square.
So while you're trying to line up the focus square on the thick black line, the + and or # focus system is scrambling to locate something definite to differentiate contrast on, it may well be way off the point that you've aimed at too, and the camera-lens tolerance is also pushing the boundaries of acceptable focus acquisition times. And all this has to be done in micro seconds or else consumer A is going to complain on every forum that Lens X is crap and Camera Y can't focus!
If you understand how the focus system works too it helps to visualise the process as a whole.
there are vertical | focus lines, that look, and adjust, for horizontal - contrasting areas.
That is, a straight vertical | type focus point type will struggle to focus on a verticallly oriented contrasting areas. But it easily locates and differentiates a horizontal contrast area.
The opposite is true of horizontal focus types, but you don't get them in AF systems on their own.
What you get is a stack of + and double + types(those # types) and then for the periphery AF types are all vertical | types.
An easy way to test this is to find a background with no contrasting elements at all. Something smooth and monotone all across. The camera will struggle to focus on it as there really is nothing of interest to focus on. But being 'a thing', you can focus on it as long as it's within focus distance range.
So to test the AF point types, get a hair, as in hair off your head, or something so minute and infintessimal that the focus system will struggle to see it. A hair is good, making sure it's dead straight, no curves.
Place it horizontal first on the background, and no matter which AF point type you use, the AF system will see something against the background of nothing(above).
The place it vertically, and the central + and or # type af points will still see the hair courtesy of the horizontal - component in the + and # pattern, but the vertical | type AF points at the periphery struggle to see this | pattern. They will be hit and miss, as I remember mostly miss.
If you move the camera left to right it can sense the differences at some points.
I remember the chap that had some the info on this topic used a hair to determine the location of the | lines within the [] af boxes on his D70s wayyy back when. They were way out there in terms of where you think they should be .. almost certainly not central to the AF square.
diagonal \ and / type lines usually work well as well as the hash symbol#. It gives the AF internals a chance to see something without any issues.
Back in the day, did you ever use an old SLR with a split prism type screen? If so do you remember the way the split prism used to work? The aerial image used to be divided into two halves and then would come together as you focused.
They were mostly horizontally split, so vertically oriented scenes would be easy to differentiate. But a horizontally oriented contrast scene would be hard to see come together using the same setup.
Hope that makes sense.
So the only problem with THAT particular focus chart is just that thick line focus area. You don't know if the camera has decided that the top black/white demarcation line is the focus point, or the lower one, or the lettering.
This is why I said, I'd remove that thick black line and replace it with those symbols.
ps. I used to have that file I think as a jpg, do you still have the file on your PC? I lost mine, but have a few other focus test types. If you have the file, can you somehow get a copy to me, or post the link to the site that you can download it from .. I wanna have a go at editing it.
You can find it here ....https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54034945
arthurking83
16-08-2017, 7:07pm
:th3:
just edited it and removed the black line added a brick patterned line in place of it.
- - - Updated - - -
Had to find it eventually.
This is the thread I was referring too about the diagrams to show you how misaligned the focus spots can be
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?130477-Nikon-D7000-Back-Focusing-Issue&highlight=focus+problem
The revamped test chart with Uncle Arthur's suggested focal point (I think). Seems to work OK as I'm getting pretty close to being happy with the auto-focus.
132012
I've now checked auto-focus at 3m, minor adjustment, 6m, big adjustment, 10m and infinity with no adjustment. Hoping to get out tomorrow to test it all out in the wild.
Mark L
22-08-2017, 10:10pm
Use f/8 and just go and take photos of birds.:confused013
Use f/8 and just go and take photos of birds.:confused013
I dunno how your lens was when new but out of the box mine was front focusing about 80mm at 6 metres, enough to totally miss focus on a small bird.
It's a pain in the arse but I reckon the hassles in setting it up properly will be well worth it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.