Still shocked about the Sigma 150-500 and the D7100

[Braineack]

When you can make a common sparrow look that good...

 

[bc_steve]

lookin good. I found the same thing with the 70-300 VR when I had it. A bit soft wide open, but stopped down to f/8 it was great.

 

[Photo Lady]

just beautiful in every way in every shot

 

[grafxman]

I used the Sigma 150-500mm for quite a while. As you have discovered it's an excellent lens. However every so often I would miss a shot due to the lens's limitations. The two limitations I encountered were that it doesn't focus close enough and 150mm is not wide enough. The straw that broke the camel's was when I wasn't able to get a photograph or video of a gator that stalked, attacked and killed a coot from less than 20 feet away. The lens focuses OK at that distance but it just isn't wide enough. When I couldn't get the gator/coot shot I went home, bit the bullet and bought Sigma's 50-500mm. It's a newer lens, focuses much much closer and is a lot wider. I doubt I'll ever replace it. Going out to photograph wildlife without that lens on a camera would be like walking outside without my glasses, in other words a serious mistake. BTW, it's nice to see someone here appreciates a Sigma super zoom besides me. Those are terrific photos.

 

[matthewo]

Sharpness isn't everything tho.

You need the background to be a good deal farther away to get the nice smooth bookah

Even at the same aperture a 500f4 looks totally different, that and the colors, contrast and strangely even how it deals with highlights and shadows is noticeably different. I guess its to be expected with a lens costing 1/8 the price.

Then the autofocus is just much better on the higher end glass.

Regardless the lens is still nice for the price, but im looking forward to seeing how that tamron 150-600, IMO it could be the new budget super telephoto zoom

 

[coastalconn]

Sharpness isn't everything tho.

You need the background to be a good deal farther away to get the nice smooth bookah

Even at the same aperture a 500f4 looks totally different, that and the colors, contrast and strangely even how it deals with highlights and shadows is noticeably different. I guess its to be expected with a lens costing 1/8 the price.

Then the autofocus is just much better on the higher end glass.

Regardless the lens is still nice for the price, but im looking forward to seeing how that tamron 150-600, IMO it could be the new budget super telephoto zoom

Agree with everything you said... I pre-odered the Tamron yesterday. I can't wait to give it a test run... I'm super excited actually!

 

[18.percent.gary]

I'll definitelty be following your posts CoastalConn regarding the 150-600. I'm tempted to just roll the dice and pre-order myself. I'm gonna wait until the Xmas aftermath is over and evaluate my financial standing LOL.

 

[sgbotsford]

Oh good. It's only 163% better (rounding) instead of 163 TIMES better..

Those bird feathers were crisp enough that I figured I'd bleed if I touched one. Awesome.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'll definitelty be following your posts CoastalConn regarding the 150-600. I'm tempted to just roll the dice and pre-order myself. I'm gonna wait until the Xmas aftermath is over and evaluate my financial standing LOL.

Well my next lens purchase will most likely either be a 150-500mm Sigma or the Tamron 150-600. Fortunately I have some time before I have to decided which is going to be the better option (probably 6 months at least) so like you I'll be following CostalConn's commentary on the newer Tamron closely.

So far the new Sigma lens I did get myself for christmas, the 70-200 mm F 2.8 is impressing me greatly, so I wouldn't have much of a problem pulling the trigger on another sigma lens. But I'll be very interested in seeing some commentary/review on the Tamron.

 

[18.percent.gary]

Exactly, the sigma looks good to me as well... and the Tamron is just (at this point) an unknown. Coastalconn already has my respect from the work he produces and his willingness to share his experience and expertise so I'll be interested to see what his first-hand accounts are.

I have to say... I have the "new" Tamron 70-300 VC and it's a freakin awesome lens all around. I think both Sigma and Tamron are really stepping up to the plate with their latest offerings.

 

[robbins.photo]

Exactly, the sigma looks good to me as well... and the Tamron is just (at this point) an unknown. Coastalconn already has my respect from the work he produces and his willingness to share his experience and expertise so I'll be interested to see what his first-hand accounts are.

I have to say... I have the "new" Tamron 70-300 VC and it's a freakin awesome lens all around. I think both Sigma and Tamron are really stepping up to the plate with their latest offerings.

I was very nervous myself pulling the trigger on the Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 OS, but I ran across a deal on Ebay that I just could not pass up and I had to give it a try. Got it in today and holy smoke it is an impressive lens. I was not expecting the IQ to be anywhere near that good. If I had a "complaint" it would be that the focus ring is very close to the zoom ring and it's going to take some getting used to with my big bear paws.

But other than that the quality is a lot more than I expected, and the darn thing focuses like greased lightning even in really, really crappy lighting.. lol. So I won't have a problem pulling the trigger on another Sigma, that's for certain. I'm also looking at replacing my 18-55 Kit lens and one of the possible replacements on my list is the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC.

 

[grafxman]

Many folks here seem to be gaga over this Tamron 150-600mm lens. I just checked the specs on that thing and it will not focus any closer than 8.86 feet. The Sigma 50-500mm, which I'm gaga over, focuses to 1.64 feet. If you're going to be a wildlife photographer I believe that should include ALL wildlife including insects and other critters up close. You won't be getting many good close ups of butterflies and other small wildlife from nearly nine feet away. After you've photographed your first 2,000 to 3,000 birds you will likely get somewhat bored and start looking around for other pretty things to photograph, at least I did. You will have very limited success with a lens that doesn't focus close unless you like to take distant shots then do a lot of cropping and editing. Having 500mm available that focuses to under 2 feet is about like carrying a super zoom and a macro lens at the same time. Part of the reason my Sigma 150-500mm got replaced was because it doesn't focus any closer than 7.22 feet. Hopefully that new Tamron focuses better in dim light than the Tamron I own. It refuses to focus anywhere except bright light. That's another issue I never have with Sigma lenses.

 

[robbins.photo]

Many folks here seem to be gaga over this Tamron 150-600mm lens. I just checked the specs on that thing and it will not focus any closer than 8.86 feet. The Sigma 50-500mm, which I'm gaga over, focuses to 1.64 feet. If you're going to be a wildlife photographer I believe that should include ALL wildlife including insects and other critters up close. You won't be getting many good close ups of butterflies and other small wildlife from nearly nine feet away. After you've photographed your first 2,000 to 3,000 birds you will likely get somewhat bored and start looking around for other pretty things to photograph, at least I did. You will have very limited success with a lens that doesn't focus close unless you like to take distant shots then do a lot of cropping and editing. Having 500mm available that focuses to under 2 feet is about like carrying a super zoom and a macro lens at the same time. Part of the reason my Sigma 150-500mm got replaced was because it doesn't focus any closer than 7.22 feet. Hopefully that new Tamron focuses better in dim light than the Tamron I own. It refuses to focus anywhere except bright light. That's another issue I never have with Sigma lenses.

Well if the Sigma 50-500 is working for you great! To be honest I don't really like taking pictures of insects. Just really not my cup of tea, and while I'd like to be able to take up close critter pictures on occasion there are other lenses in my bag for that. Not that you don't make some valid points here, you do - but not everyone has the same requirements or uses lenses in quite the same way. I've got plenty of time before I buy my next lens, I'll almost certainly be upgrading my camera body first so most likely at least several months down the road before I start looking for something in the 500 mm plus range, so for me I'm just waiting on more information and hands on reviews before I decide which direction will work best for me personally.

 

[matthewo]

The sigma 50-500 has a variable mfd starting at 1meter (3.3 feet) at 50mm and ending at 3 meters At 500mm

It would be one hell of a macro lens if it focused to 1.63 feet at 500mm lol

Anyways there is no lenses out there at any price range that will do all great. Low min focusing distance and super telephotos dont go together great, for top quality wildlife or bug macro work a sigma 150 or tamron 180 is nice

 

[coastalconn]

The sigma 50-500 has a variable mfd starting at 1meter (3.3 feet) at 50mm and ending at 3 meters At 500mm

It would be one hell of a macro lens if it focused to 1.63 feet at 500mm lol

Anyways there is no lenses out there at any price range that will do all great. Low min focusing distance and super telephotos dont go together great, for top quality wildlife or bug macro work a sigma 150 or tamron 180 is nice

I was thinking along the same lines. The Tamron at 600mm reproduces 1:5 which means on a crop sensor the entire image is 5" wide which is good enough for me. I don't do the bug thing much anymore either. I bet at 600mm and 9 feet mfd, the DOF will be quite thin... Probably will be quite nice for wildflowers and stuff