Still shocked about the Sigma 150-500 and the D7100

[apaflo]

Sorry if I sound defensive. I'm just relating my personal experience regarding the Sigma 50-500mm and wildlife photography. I hope you're very happy with the Tamron. However when the day comes that you see a painted bunting, the most beautiful warbler in North America, at 5 or 6 feet in dim light and your Tamron won't focus I hope you recall our conversations here. I went to the Sigma 50-500mm after missing 3 important shots with Sigma's 150-500mm because the action was too close to focus and I needed a wider lens.

If that is your experience, perhaps your solution does work for your situation. Given that you have at least three camera bodies, my choice would have been to grab a second body equipped with a more appropriate lens. That is because in my world there isn't yet a 10:1 zoom worth mounting. The Sigma 50-500mm isn't even close. Compromising 1000's of shots to be able to use the same lens to shoot "3 important shots" isn't productive.

As for it's close focusing limits, the new Tamron 150-600mm happens to have exactly the same MFD as the Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S. Given the longer focal length, and the Tamron is a 4:1 zoom as opposed to a 5:1, Tamron appears to be providing a lens that will be very useful as a "lightweight" birder/wildlife tool compared to the heavy fixed focal length 500mm and 600mm lenses and with longer reach than the other available zooms.

Of particular interest are the MTF graphs. The 10 lp/mm graph at 600mm is excellent, and indicates it will have above average contrast. The 30 lp/mm graph shows an increasing difference between sagittal and meridional going from the center to the edges of the image. That probably means increasing astigmatism and a less sharp image at the edges than at the center. Overall, it doesn't appear that it will be sharp wide open at maximum focal length compared to the Nikkor 80-400mm. It remains to be seen how it will compare at 400mm and 500mm, especially when stopped down a bit.

Given the low price and the 600mm maximum focal length, I decided to pre-order the Tamron in hopes that it will fill a missing niche that will make it a very useful tool.

 

[grafxman]

I keep seeing people here saying they have no use for a close focus lens for wildlife photography. How would you get a shot such as this one then:

IMG_8338 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That shot was about 4-5 feet away. If the lens had been on the 7D instead of the 6D it would have been at 100mm or less instead of 138mm.

Here's a couple of other close shots at under 9 feet:

IMG_7087 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_9940 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

None of us have the ability to predict the future so we simply don't know when we will need a close focus lens. The simple fact is, as I have personally experienced it, when wildlife of any kind presents itself for photography, you and your gear should be ready and capable of making the shot. I would not have been able to make the above shots and many others without a Sigma 50-500mm lens. As I have stated elsewhere, I bought that lens to replace the excellent Sigma 150-500m which doesn't focus close enough to get those shots. I have encountered wildlife, such as that boar, that I was somewhat concerned that they might try climb through the car window and land on my lap! If you spend enough time in wildlife areas sooner or later you will likely experience the same thing.

 

[LShooter]

They look good to me!

 

[Derrel]

I keep seeing people here saying they have no use for a close focus lens for wildlife photography. How would you get a shot such as this one then:

IMG_8338 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That shot was about 4-5 feet away. If the lens had been on the 7D instead of the 6D it would have been at 100mm or less instead of 138mm.

Here's a couple of other close shots at under 9 feet:

IMG_7087 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_9940 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

None of us have the ability to predict the future so we simply don't know when we will need a close focus lens. The simple fact is, as I have personally experienced it, when wildlife of any kind presents itself for photography, you and your gear should be ready and capable of making the shot. I would not have been able to make the above shots and many others without a Sigma 50-500mm lens. As I have stated elsewhere, I bought that lens to replace the excellent Sigma 150-500m which doesn't focus close enough to get those shots. I have encountered wildlife, such as that boar, that I was somewhat concerned that they might try climb through the car window and land on my lap! If you spend enough time in wildlife areas sooner or later you will likely experience the same thing.

Well...if a lens's MFD is too long, there's always an extension tube. Of course, it's "ideal" if a lens can focus really close, but practical and design considerations often keep wildlife far enough away so that the MFD is **not** an issue. And besides, there's plenty of wildlife that you do not really WANT to be ultra-close to...bears, alligators, crocodiles, big cats, and so on. One of the reason's Canon's extension tubes are so SOLID, and heavy-duty is that they can be used on their 300,400,500,and 600mm lenses to bring the MFD way close, for people who CAN manage to get very close to subjects.

 

[grafxman]

I keep seeing people here saying they have no use for a close focus lens for wildlife photography. How would you get a shot such as this one then:

IMG_8338 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That shot was about 4-5 feet away. If the lens had been on the 7D instead of the 6D it would have been at 100mm or less instead of 138mm.

Here's a couple of other close shots at under 9 feet:

IMG_7087 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_9940 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

None of us have the ability to predict the future so we simply don't know when we will need a close focus lens. The simple fact is, as I have personally experienced it, when wildlife of any kind presents itself for photography, you and your gear should be ready and capable of making the shot. I would not have been able to make the above shots and many others without a Sigma 50-500mm lens. As I have stated elsewhere, I bought that lens to replace the excellent Sigma 150-500m which doesn't focus close enough to get those shots. I have encountered wildlife, such as that boar, that I was somewhat concerned that they might try climb through the car window and land on my lap! If you spend enough time in wildlife areas sooner or later you will likely experience the same thing.

Well...if a lens's MFD is too long, there's always an extension tube. Of course, it's "ideal" if a lens can focus really close, but practical and design considerations often keep wildlife far enough away so that the MFD is **not** an issue. And besides, there's plenty of wildlife that you do not really WANT to be ultra-close to...bears, alligators, crocodiles, big cats, and so on. One of the reason's Canon's extension tubes are so SOLID, and heavy-duty is that they can be used on their 300,400,500,and 600mm lenses to bring the MFD way close, for people who CAN manage to get very close to subjects.

Sorry Derrel, I think you're missing the point I'm attempting to make here. I didn't manage to get close to any of those critters. They all came walking up to me or walked past me while I was sitting in my car. I would not have had any time at all to install an extension tube. When things like this happen and if you spend a lot of time outdoors they will happen, you need to be able to immediately take the shot. If I had stayed with my Sigma 150-500mm or some other lens that wouldn't focus under 9 feet, I wouldn't have got any of those shots.

 

[apaflo]

Sorry Derrel, I think you're missing the point I'm attempting to make here. I didn't manage to get close to any of those critters. They all came walking up to me or walked past me while I was sitting in my car. I would not have had any time at all to install an extension tube. When things like this happen and if you spend a lot of time outdoors they will happen, you need to be able to immediately take the shot. If I had stayed with my Sigma 150-500mm or some other lens that wouldn't focus under 9 feet, I wouldn't have got any of those shots.

The Sigma 150-500mm is not a particularly good lens, and perhaps a Sigma 50-500mm is better... but the 500-500mm is a 10x zoom and it, as can be seen clearly from MTF charts, does not compare to truely good lenses either.

Given that you have multiple camera bodies a much better solution when riding in a car is to have two bodies, each with a different lens, ready for use. I'd rather have a 500mm fixed focal length lens on one camera and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the other, or some such combination.

Your lens selection includes not just that example, but two other zooms that are 10x or more! Perhaps you shoot primarily for web display, in which case that might be good enough. For those who intend to produce large prints a different set of lenses is necessary.

I spend a great deal of time outdoors in a wildlife area (I've seen polar bears, seals, snow owls, foxes, caribou, whales and what not from my front porch!). But like most who do wildlife photography, my needs aren't geared for photography from a car. I do that too but just as often I'm traveling on Arctic tundra with a 4-wheel ATV. That means two things are necessary, in order of priority, a long focal length and high quality build. At lower priorities, I often carry two cameras and might have a 105mm macro lens for closeup work... but I never have a need for long lenses to focus close.

 

[grafxman]

Sorry Derrel, I think you're missing the point I'm attempting to make here. I didn't manage to get close to any of those critters. They all came walking up to me or walked past me while I was sitting in my car. I would not have had any time at all to install an extension tube. When things like this happen and if you spend a lot of time outdoors they will happen, you need to be able to immediately take the shot. If I had stayed with my Sigma 150-500mm or some other lens that wouldn't focus under 9 feet, I wouldn't have got any of those shots.

The Sigma 150-500mm is not a particularly good lens, and perhaps a Sigma 50-500mm is better... but the 500-500mm is a 10x zoom and it, as can be seen clearly from MTF charts, does not compare to truely good lenses either.

Given that you have multiple camera bodies a much better solution when riding in a car is to have two bodies, each with a different lens, ready for use. I'd rather have a 500mm fixed focal length lens on one camera and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the other, or some such combination.

Your lens selection includes not just that example, but two other zooms that are 10x or more! Perhaps you shoot primarily for web display, in which case that might be good enough. For those who intend to produce large prints a different set of lenses is necessary.

I spend a great deal of time outdoors in a wildlife area (I've seen polar bears, seals, snow owls, foxes, caribou, whales and what not from my front porch!). But like most who do wildlife photography, my needs aren't geared for photography from a car. I do that too but just as often I'm traveling on Arctic tundra with a 4-wheel ATV. That means two things are necessary, in order of priority, a long focal length and high quality build. At lower priorities, I often carry two cameras and might have a 105mm macro lens for closeup work... but I never have a need for long lenses to focus close.

Clearly your needs and environment are radically different from mine and probably most folks. I live in FL which has abundant wildlife of all kinds. Much of it is close but then again, some of it is quite far away. My most recent photo expedition I shot wildlife at 1600mm with the SigMonster and a doubler. The Sigma 50-500mm was on one camera and the SigMonster was on another camera. Speaking of build quality I've read in many places that the SigMonster is second to none in build quality. BTW, I have a Canon printer, Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II, that produces 11" X 19" inch prints using pigmented inks. I've been happy with the results however everything I shoot does go to flickr.

 

[apaflo]

Clearly your needs and environment are radically different from mine and probably most folks. I live in FL which has abundant wildlife of all kinds. Much of it is close but then again, some of it is quite far away. My most recent photo expedition I shot wildlife at 1600mm with the SigMonster and a doubler. The Sigma 50-500mm was on one camera and the SigMonster was on another camera. Speaking of build quality I've read in many places that the SigMonster is second to none in build quality. BTW, I have a Canon printer, Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II, that produces 11" X 19" inch prints using pigmented inks. I've been happy with the results however everything I shoot does go to flickr.

I doubt my needs vary that much from the norm. Most wildlife photography is not done from a car window. I'm past the age where I can hoof it for hours, but that is not an uncommon method for many. The most commonly expressed need is for a longer lens.

And indeed your use of the SigMonster demonstrates exactly that. Sigma is often criticized for poor quality control, but their build quality seems to be high enough. Of course this discussion of an $8000 lens that can't focus closer than 18 feet is immaterial to the previous comments anyway. It isn't an alternative to the Sigma 150-500mm, while the Sigma 50-500mm and the new Tarmon 150-600mm certainly are, along with the Canon and Nikon 400mm zooms.

Okay on the print size, as that is essentially what I was refering to. 11x19 is not a "large format" print. 16x20 prints are, but at 20x24 and larger it really becomes significant. I put images on the Internet for entertainment, but I sell large prints and shoot with that in mind.

 

[robbins.photo]

So would now be a good time to jump in with a "If you like your current lens, you can keep your current lens" comment?

eh, probably not.. lol

 

[runnah]

Is the OP still shocked or has it worn off?

 

[matthewo]

any sample photos from the 300-800 with the 2x.

I don't think I would even use a $17,000 Nikon 800mm with a 2x, for anything but maybe a moon shot.

 

[grafxman]

any sample photos from the 300-800 with the 2x.

I don't think I would even use a $17,000 Nikon 800mm with a 2x, for anything but maybe a moon shot.

Here's a few. Some are high ISO photos. In retrospect I should have used the 6D instead of the 7D. I shot a lot of video at 1600mm. Just search my photostream for 1600mm.

IMG_1131 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1366 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Here's the same shot at 500mm:

IMG_8321 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1159 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1372 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Note that the EXIF info says 800mm not 1600mm. That's because I taped the 3 pins so I could get autofocus with the view screen. It was very windy during the 2 weeks I was out. The air at Dinner Island Ranch was full of dust and the air at Merritt Island was full of moisture.

 

[JacaRanda]

Doggonit you will take and enjoy taking close up photos of wildlife because that is the definition of true wildlife photography. Now get out there and find those insects.

 

[coastalconn]

Is the OP still shocked or has it worn off?

LOL, this thread has changed quite a bit, but I still say the Sigma is very god for the money..

Now onto the more important things. The Tamron 150-600 is looking like it has a pretty zippy AF motor. The 7d does looks like it starts to struggle a bit at 600mm. I'm not as familiar with Canon, but I'm guessing the outer focus point they use isn't a cross type? These seem like much better tests than the "lens cap tests"
7D



and some sample raw shots.. Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD ? Raw samples | CamAhoy!

Hopefully it will only be a few weeks until I have one in my hands, B&H lists January 17th, Adorama doesn't list a date yet..

 

[coastalconn]

Looks quite zippy on the 5dm3