Question on wildlife lenses

[CarlosFrazao]

Carlos, i don't think there's a nickel's worth of difference between the Tamron and Sigma offerings as far as image quality. i have the Tamron, and have been very happy with it on my Canon 7DII. some people say the Sigma is better built, but Tamron offers a 6-year warranty which Sigma can't match, so Tamron is obviously satisfied with the build quality of their lenses. i get excellent results at any aperture, though it seems marginally better at f/7.1 or smaller, and it is just a tiny bit sharper if i back off the zoom just a bit, to around 550mm... but that's typical of almost every zoom lens i've ever used, so it's not an issue with the Tammy. given decent light (which is necessary with any lens at 500-600mm), the Tammy is tack sharp and the contrast and color rendition are excellent.

as far as adjusting your camera to the lens, if the Nikons work at all like the Canon "micro-adjust" feature, you can specify at the time whether you want the adjustments to affect all lenses you use, or only one. if you optimize for the 150-600, and specify that lens only, then the adjustments will not affect your other lenses.

Thanks for the reply squirl, at the moment I'm also leaning towards the tamron as it is a little cheaper Aswell and heard that they are pretty nice on the nikons, but has also heard that there where lots of them that where soft and had focusing problems Aswell...

I really have to look into this adjustment thing looks like it's really needed and lenses aren't just plug and play

 

[Derrel]

It's a balancing act...noise is less an issue if the exposure is adequate, and in bright daylight, there's not much noise that will be visible. If a lens is markedly better closed down one stop or 2/3 of a stop, then it's generally a good idea to get the lens to its optimal aperture, especially if that means only moving the ISO level up one EV setting. ALso, shutter speed is a critical factor many times with longer lenses. For example, at 1/400 second, many times slight wind, or slight subject movement, can make an image appear LESS-sharp than the same image if it had been shot at say, 1/800 or 1/1000 second. Same thing on close-in shots...sometimes a bit more depth of field will make the images look better, especially on closer-in shots from say 10,15,20,25 feet. Same with AF fine-tuning.

On your bird shot...look at the branch the bird is on. it looks to me like the plane of sharpest focus is actually below the bird's position. That could be a slight focusing error, and it could be the depth of field is just a bit too shallow to get a super-crisp image unless the focus is 100% dead-on.

Worrying about NOISE is, I find, one of the most irritating issues of the modern era and digital photography. It is counterproductive in almost any bright-light situation. Most people shooting the several longer, new super tele-zooms have noted that f/8 is the best f/stop for all-around performance. Your shot made at f/6.3 at 1/1600 second might have looked a bit better at f/8 at one click higher an ISO setting and 2/3 stop closed down from, 6.3 to f/8 at 1/1000 second...you're right on the borderline though with getting the insect in the air critically sharp.

Again..."balancing act"...no one, simple answer. And BTW...the D7200's sensor can handle **extreme** recovery of under-exposed frames....