Wildlife lens options?

[PaulWog]

I'm eyeing up wildlife lenses. I'm only eyeing things up, because I would have to sell something on Craigslist in order to balance out the budget.

I'm wondering if the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary are the best in the close-to-$1000 range? I really wish there was something like the Canon 400mm f5.6 for Nikon!!!!

I basically would like to get better results than what I got in this thread: My Trip to the Beach Eagles Photography Forum

I realize some of the images could be improved with a halved ISO, and a stop faster aperture. Nevertheless, I'm interested in seeing if any good deals have popped up in the past year or so (since I haven't been keeping track of the lens market lately).

 

[JacaRanda]

I think 150-600 with either Tamron or Sigma are the good deals that have popped up in the past year.

 

[Overread]

I've not used them but the new 150-600mm are getting some very good reviews and certainly are the most you can get for your budget and are very worthwhile considering. Certainly they've really made more affordable wildlife photography a thing now.

 

[DarkShadow]

Another Option to really consider would be the Sigma 150-500. For a Nikon mount B&H has brand New $769.00 and yes you lose 100mm of reach and the latest technology, but it is also around $300.00 less then the newer Sigma or Tamron.

 

[Tailgunner]

I did some Whale watching a while back with an older Nikon 80-400mm and it sucked! So i found a local camera shop and rented a 150-600mm Tamron. It was love at first sight! I absolutely love that lens. If I take up wildlife any more than i do, I'm buying that lens!

 

[John Hunt]

The Tamron 150-600 is my favorite lens.

 

[coastalconn]

I'm wondering if the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary are the best in the close-to-$1000 range? I really wish there was something like the Canon 400mm f5.6 for Nikon!!!!

They actually do, the Nikon 300 F4 AF-S with a 1.4x TC gives you a 420mm F5.6. The 300 F4 bare is actually a bit sharper than the canon 400 F5.6 add a teleconverter and vice versa, but still a very good lens. It is sharper than the 150-600's but less versatile. Used with a 1.4x they are about the same as the tamron/sigma 150-600. I shot the 150-600 for a year and have 1000's of great images from that lens. IMHO it is noticeably sharper at 600mm f8 then wide open. At 400mm stopped down a little is is actually pretty darn sharp.. I'm sure you have seen my images, but here is a direct link to the Tamron images.. Flickr - Photo Sharing

And here are samples from the Nikon 300 F4.. Flickr - Photo Sharing

Sigma 150-500.. Flickr - Photo Sharing

 

[nerwin]

Just saying...

 

[ruifo]

I've been thinking on a 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC to reach a 420mm f/5.6 FX lens, with the option of shooting with the D810 at 1.2x crop mode for a "504mm FoV angle", or at DX mode for a "630mm FoV angle". And the light weight, the small size, the VR, and the fast AF performance of the new 'Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR' is very tempting. I'm waiting to see if the VR issues with the D8x0 will be cleared soon, as well as to see how it will be priced in future rebates and/or refurbished/used as well.

 

[PaulWog]

I'm really thinking about picking up the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary now. If it's not the Sigma, it probably won't be anything. The only other two lenses which interest me are the old Nikkor 300mm AF-ID f4, and the new Nikkor 300mm f4 prime (but I see both of those lenses as just not quite serving the right purpose... amazing if one had a 600mm f4 to go with it though, or if one knew they just wanted exactly 300mm).

Here is where I'm confused: Sigma 150-600mm f 5-6.3 Contemporary Reviews and Comparisons

I read Lenstip's review, where they state that the center sharpness of the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is just slightly worse than that of the Tamron 150-600 (at 600mm). Their review generally states that the two lenses are very comparable. Other reviews indicate that the Sigma and Tamron are extremely similar as well. What I get out of most of the reviews is that the Sigma has slightly better bokeh, and noticeably better colour rendition. I also get the feeling that Sigma has better / quicker / more accurate focusing, but I'm not sure if that's the case.

I'm confused because some other reviews indicate that the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is markedly sharper than the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm.

I'm trying to cut past the BS and figure out if some of these reviews are bogus, or if there is some definite sample variations out there.

It might sound odd, but I'd like to pick a copy up before they get pawed over by prosumers. Lemons get left behind in the store.

 

[Overread]

There is likely some copy variation going on. Critical sharpness is a product of lens and camera calibrations and both are only made within tolerances not exact absolute values. As such it is possible that you can get some variations; although in general most will get within the same ballpark region. Superzooms tend to show this more so because they are much more complex to build and calibrate; although over the last few years they've gotten a lot better (the early history of the Canon 100-400mm was very varied with some loving if they got a "good copy" and others hating it).

If reviews are landing either side chances are it means that they really are very comparable and that its thus very hard to tell them apart which is why some see it one way and others the other way; esp if coupled with minor copy variation.

What you want to look out for is big differences; really noticeable ones because that is either going to mean the review was done on a duff copy (evident if the review differs from others significantly) or that there really is a difference if alll reviews point that way

 

[PaulWog]

There is likely some copy variation going on. Critical sharpness is a product of lens and camera calibrations and both are only made within tolerances not exact absolute values. As such it is possible that you can get some variations; although in general most will get within the same ballpark region. Superzooms tend to show this more so because they are much more complex to build and calibrate; although over the last few years they've gotten a lot better (the early history of the Canon 100-400mm was very varied with some loving if they got a "good copy" and others hating it).

If reviews are landing either side chances are it means that they really are very comparable and that its thus very hard to tell them apart which is why some see it one way and others the other way; esp if coupled with minor copy variation.

What you want to look out for is big differences; really noticeable ones because that is either going to mean the review was done on a duff copy (evident if the review differs from others significantly) or that there really is a difference if alll reviews point that way

Thanks. I guess this leaves me a little confused still. The first review I've linked below is translated, and I don't know how reputable it is. The Tamron performs poorly in comparison to the Sigma. The Tamron samples just look bad when put side by side with the Sigma samples.

Yet, most other reviews echo what lenstip says (second review I've linked below). Buuuut... I'm hearing things going both ways, seeing some softer images, and some really nice images, and some people saying the Sigma is on-par with Tamron, while others saying it's definitely a step up. (I'm rambling out my point, sorry!). Sharpness is definitely my primary concern, but I am pleased to see the generally better colour/contrast from the Sigma (ultimately I would rather have an 8/10 on sharpness and an 8/10 on contrast/colour, than a 9/10 on sharpness and a 7/10 on contrast/colour).

Maybe if I'm lucky they'll have multiple copies that I can check out and compare side-by-side. Orrr... maybe they'll be out of stock, or only order them in on a prepayment basis (local shop). The Canadian exchange rate with the US dollar is just horrendous right now, so I'm not ordering over the border. I'll be buying locally.

Google Traduction

vs.

Sigma C 150-600 mm f 5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com

 

[PaulWog]

I know this is starting to look more like a blog than a thread, but I'm keeping each post on-topic with questions:

Sigma seems to perform just incrementally worse than Tamron at 600mm, at any aperture. The difference is very minimal. Sigma seems to perform just *very very slightly* better than Tamron with colour rendition at 600mm. Sigma performs incrementally better at 500mm and below, compared to Tamron. I also have a Sigma dock already. The Sigma is $200 more expensive in Canadian dollars, compared to Tamron... I'm also just more excited about the Sigma lens.

So... the better buy for me is Sigma?

I held off going to see it in store three days in a row now (today included). I'll probably check it out tomorrow. I know if I step foot into the store and they have it, I'll likely be walking out with it, which is why I'd prefer to make my decision at the computer screen. I still need to figure out how much I'll be shooting wildlife, how willing I will be to walk around with a "bigger" lens, etc...

 

[John Hunt]

I held off going to see it in store three days in a row now (today included). I'll probably check it out tomorrow. I know if I step foot into the store and they have it, I'll likely be walking out with it, which is why I'd prefer to make my decision at the computer screen. I still need to figure out how much I'll be shooting wildlife, how willing I will be to walk around with a "bigger" lens, etc...[/QUOTE]

This is just the opposite of me I have to hold it and shoot it to see how it feels you can't get that from a computer screen and other peoples opinions.

 

[PaulWog]

This is just the opposite of me I have to hold it and shoot it to see how it feels you can't get that from a computer screen and other peoples opinions.

The most important information I can basically gather from reviews & sample images. I just have to decide if I can afford the lens (or if I want it badly enough). I still need to take my 18-35 Art out more often.

I'll definitely handle it before I buy it, but I'll be making my decision before I even hop in the car. I'm still undecided though... if it was significantly sharper than the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, I probably would just go for it based on the price-to-performance... but it's sort-of tying the Tamron at the long end. The exciting stuff is between 150 and 500mm, where it is slightly sharper. The other thing is that my 70-300 VR performs no where close... at 300mm and f8, the lens gets about 5 megapixels of effective resolution. The Sigma should be putting out triple that at 300mm, and double or slightly more (10+ megapixels) at 600mm. Distortion, vignetting, CA's... all of that seems to be good.