Wildlife lens options?

[PaulWog]

Called in to the two camera store chains in my area. One doesn't have any in stock and doesn't know when they'll arrive (they have some on order). The other has one Canon mount in stock, and the Nikons are on order to come in. I was told by both stores that whatever stock they'll have coming in will sell out basically immediately, and that there's a big back-order problem with Sigma right now.

Should I just start asking people with the Tamron 150-600 how they like that lens, to determine if I'll like the Sigma 150-600?

 

[ruifo]

Have you seen these?

Sigma 150-600 F 5-6 3 Sport VS Tamron 150-600 F 5-6.3 ... Third Party Lens Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

 

[JacaRanda]

I know its your money but sounds like paralysis by analysis at this point. I have the Tamron and 100 of shots. Some on Flickr.

 

[PaulWog]

Thanks for the comparison video & thread, not exactly of the contemporary but still provides some more insight. I didn't actually get to see either, so that was helpful.

I know its your money but sounds like paralysis by analysis at this point. I have the Tamron and 100 of shots. Some on Flickr.

Those are some nice photos. It's definitely not a paralysis by analysis though It's more of a paralysis by guilt-to-wallet-thickness ratio. I can sell my 70-300 VR for $340-$360, but that still leaves me $1000 out of pocket. I'm trying to really be responsible moving forward with this, since if it disappoints me, or if I don't use it enough, it won't be a cheap mistake.

I am fishing for more information, of which I don't think there is any... so I guess you're right.

 

[coastalconn]

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.

Huh?

 

[Derrel]

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.

Huh?

Pretty sure that Paul is referring to the fairly new DxO Mark methodology's ratings of "perceptual megapixels", explained a bit here on their site. Looking for new photo gear DxOMark s Perceptual Megapixel can help you - DxOMark

As the DxO Mark people state, "P-Mpix is the unit of a sharpness measurement. The number of P-Mpix of a camera/lens combination is equal to the pixel count of a sensor that would give the same sharpness if tested with a perfect theoretical optics, as the camera/lens combination under test.

Forexample, if a camera with a sensor of 24Mpix when used with a given lens has a P-Mpix of 18MPix, it means that somewhere in the optical system 6Mpix are lost, in the sense that as an observer you will not perceive the additional sharpness that these 6Mpix should have added to the photos if everything was perfect.

In other words it indicates the ability of the lens and other optical components of a camera to utilize, from a visual perspective, the number of pixels of the camera sensor. P-MPix expresses the result using a figure that can easily be compared to the camera sensor’s MPix figure to show the quality of the lens."

 

[coastalconn]

Oh I forgot people still looked at that sight. Are they still normalizing everything to 8 MP cameras? I didn't think they had tested the Sigma 150-600 yet. I like lenscore.org They have nice hocus pocus numbers also...

Anyways, I haven't shot the Sigma 150-600 yet, but I would recommend that since your body doesn't allow fine tune, so you can use the USB dock to customize the Sigma to the D5200

 

[PaulWog]

Oh I forgot people still looked at that sight. Are they still normalizing everything to 8 MP cameras? I didn't think they had tested the Sigma 150-600 yet. I like lenscore.org They have nice hocus pocus numbers also...

Anyways, I haven't shot the Sigma 150-600 yet, but I would recommend that since your body doesn't allow fine tune, so you can use the USB dock to customize the Sigma to the D5200

I can't really say whether or not their numbers are accurate, but I do like the site as a resource. They've done the 150-600 Tamron, but not the 150-600 Sigma C.

I'm pretty sure I'll be picking up the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. My bank account and full frame can hold off for 2 more years (I grad from a 4 year arts program in a week and then in Sept 2016 I grad from another program and can finally work for a living wage).

/blog over, questions over,

 

[Derrel]

Oh I forgot people still looked at that sight. Are they still normalizing everything to 8 MP cameras?>SNIP> I like lenscore.org They have nice hocus pocus numbers also...

The system is not normalized, it's based on EACH camera model's ACTUAL sensor MP count as the baseline, and LACK of quality of the lens brings down the score, and drags down the Perceptual MP data score. Therefore, the scores and the Perceptual MP ratings for the D800e results will be higher than the Nikon D300s numbers.

The world's best lenses are at the top of the scale, and the scores are tied directly to the camera the lens is tested on and reported for. No need to spread erroneous information. There is already plenty of mis-information and dis-information on the web.


It works this way: the higher the sensor MP count, the higher the possible score and higher the possible P-Mpix count. Let's take the 85mm 1.8 AF-D Nikkor.

On the 12MP D700: Score is 23, Sharpness is 10 P-Mpix; T-Stop is 1.8; Distortion is 0.1%. Vignetting is -1.5 EV, Chromatic Aberration is 4um

On the 16MP D4: Score is 27, Sharpness is 13 P-Mpix; T-Stop is 1.8; Distortion is 0.1%;Vignetting is -1.5 EV, Chromatic Aberration is 4um

On the 24MP D610: Score is 30, Sharpness is 17 P-Mpix; T-Stop is 1.9 ;Distortion is 0.1EV;Vignetting is -1.5EV, Chromatic Aberration is 4um

On the 36MP D810: Score is 34, Sharpness is 22 P-Mpix; T-Stop is 1.9; Distortion is 0.1 EV, Vignetting is -1.5 EV, Chromatic Aberration is 4um

See how this works? There is NO "normalizing" down to a given MP count. Lenses are tested and reported on each, individual camera model. And grouped by type of lens. Here is the D610 Best Lenses for Nikon D610, short telephotos and standard lengths. The BEST 24,28,35,50,85,100,300,400 lenses as of fall, 2013 are listed here: Best prime lenses for the Nikon D610 - DxOMark

 

[coastalconn]

I do understand the concept the thing I question is the results of the p-mpix.. I must have been thinking about the actual dxomark score for ISO performance..
Anyways here is what I question, take for example on a D7100

These lenses all have about 9 Mpix according to dxomark
600 f4 (9.7)
500 f4 (9)
80-400 (8.6)
70-300 (8.5)
sigma 70-300 (8.9)
Nikon 55-200 (9)

So according to dxomark there is almost no difference in resolving power between a $9300 lens and a $200 lens? What am I missing in the scoring system?

 

[Derrel]

I do understand the concept the thing I question is the results

Well, Kris, I thought I'd spend some time looking into this issue. Here is just a tiny bit of what I found out. And this is the kernel of the comparison: the D7100 sensor you listed is not a good match for the supertelephotos. The high-end lenses need a better/bigger sensor to show what they are capable of. There's NOT much advantage shooting the highest-end telephoto glass on the D7100's sensor.

And we seem to be overlooking a sort of UN-stated point: the Perceptual Megapixel scores go up and up and up as the ACTUAL images get "better". Meaning, as the sensors get newer and newer, and have better and better technology, or as the sensors grow larger, the perceived quality of the images increases, over time, using the same lens. And I KNOW this myself from having shot the Nikon D1, D1h, D2x,D40,D70,and D3x, over 14 years in time; I can take an old lens I have had since the D1 days, like my 300/2.8 AFs Mark II, and SEE the picture quality from that lens grow and grow by leaps and bounds from the D1's 2.7 megapixel sensor images, to the D2x, and then the D3x. Heck, the jump from D1 at 2.7MP to the D7- at 6 MP was a BIG leap, very obvious.

Here's what I did: I took a lens I have owned for a long time, the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR-G, aka the first version, and looked at its DxO mark scores on a bunch of cameras. See if you can spot the generational improvements over the years.

70-200/2.8 VR:

on D40x 10MP DX: Score 11, P-Mpix 6
on D90 12MP DX: Score 15, P-Mpix 7
on D300s 12 MP DX:Score 14, P-Mpix 8
on D3200 24 MP DX: Score 18, P-Mpix 10
on D3300 24 MP DX: Score 20: P-Mpix 11
On D700 12 MP FX: Score 18, P-Mpix 9
On D3s 12 MP FX: Score 19, P-Mpix 9
On D3s 12 MP FX: Score 20, P-Mpix 9
On D4 16 MP FX: Score 22, P-Mpix 11
On Df 16 MP FX: Score 23, P-Mpix 12
On D7100 24 MP DX:Score 19, P-Mpix 11
On D3x 24 MP FX: Score 22, P-Mpix 13
On D600 24 MP FX: Score 25, P-Mpix 15
On D610 24 MP FX: Score 25, P-Mpix 15
On D800 36 MP FX: Score 25, P-Mpix 15
On D800e 36 MP FX: Score 28, P-Mpix 20
On D810 36 MP FX: Score 27, P-Mpix 20

The DxO P-Mpix ranking is an index of how "sharp" a given lens appears to be when used on a specific sensor. That's what it is measuring: how the images from specific lenses appear to the human eye, when used on specific sensors, of different sizes, designs, and ages/capabilities. The sensor you listed, the D7100's is obviously not all that well-suited to make the very most of the lenses you picked to evaluate. It's pretty clear: the 36MP capture size yields images that have more perceived "sharpness" than do the images coming off of 12 to 16 or even 24 MP sensors. The advantage of 24MP on newest FX is 4 Megapixels versus the 24 MP of the D7100's DX sensor--with the 70-200 VR lens, 15MP versus 11 MP.

But the REAL leap comes when moving to the 36 Megapixel sensor size.

The P-Mpix rating is not a lens evaluation. It is a SENSOR + LENS PAIR evaluation.

In a general sense, better perceived "sharpness" comes from the newer, larger FX sensors, in Sony's second generation Exmor architecture. And it seems that this old 70-200 design appears to work a little bit better on the D800e than on the D800; as we know, the D800 has a fairly normal bluring AA filter, the D800e has the weird "AA-cancelling" filter system. Again, the DxO numbers ar

Here's part of DxO Mark's explanation: "Looking at combinations of cameras and lenses rather than just the lens resolution makes it clear that there are times when there will not be a significant advantage in sourcing the finest lenses. The Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM A is an excellent lens but used on the Canon EOS 5D performs only slightly better than the cheaper Samyang 35mm f1.4 AS UMC, but when the camera sensor no longer the limiting factor in the combination you see the quality benefit only with the better lens.

Perceptual MPix thus lets photographers take manufacturers’ announcements about resolution with a pinch of salt, and answers an essential question when changing equipment: is it better to buy a new camera or a new lens?"
**********
Bottom line Kris: with the D7100 as the sensor, there really is not that much of an advantage with the high-priced super-teles you looked at. Seems like the D7100 smaller actual capture size is not capable of exploiting the highest-priced Nikon super-teles on your list. I in fact, compared the P-MPIX as scores of the 600/4 and 500/4 and the D800 and D8003 and D810, and it takes those much bigger captures to really make a LOT of difference...the D7100 is indeed, the limiting factor to perceived sharpness, even with high-dollar lenses. This is the key takeaway, and DxO mark states it plain as day:there are times when there will not be a significant advantage in sourcing the finest lenses.

 

[sm4him]

. I can sell my 70-300 VR for $340-$360, but that still leaves me $1000 out of pocket. I'm trying to really be responsible moving forward with this, since if it disappoints me, or if I don't use it enough, it won't be a cheap mistake.

Just to muddy the waters back up a bit: I'm not clear on why you dropped the Sigma 150-500 from consideration. To be fair, that might be because I took a little nap during some of the longer, technospeak-filled posts…

Anyway--yeah, it's a bit older and has 100mm less reach. But on a budget, it's hard to beat for a sort of "starter" wildlife" lens.

One of our members--AstroNikon--has one for sale for a great price, here.
You sell your 70-300 for, say, $350, that only leaves you paying an additional $325 for the Sigma 150-500. Use it for a while (it's STILL what I use, though I've thought several times about switching to the Tammy for the extra bit of reach)--by then, you'll know if you're going to use it enough to warrant buying something else more expensive.

AND, since lenses don't really typically lose much value, if you do decide to "upgrade" anytime soon, you should be able to sell that Sigma and get all or nearly all of the cost back for use on the next lens.

EDIT: I swear my math skills are better than. I'm very tired. If you sell your existing lens for $350, that would actually leave you paying an additional $275 for AstroNikon's Sigma. Even better!

 

[PaulWog]

AND, since lenses don't really typically lose much value, if you do decide to "upgrade" anytime soon, you should be able to sell that Sigma and get all or nearly all of the cost back for use on the next lens.

Thanks for the input. If the Sigma 150-500 offered the performance I'm looking for, I would definitely consider it. Heck, it's smaller, and it looks nice. But it produces the same "look" as the 70-300 VR. To me (based on viewing hundreds of images on flickr - shutter speed, focal length, ISO, camera body, etc, all taken into consideration), the shots I've seen with the 150-500 at 500mm look just like the 70-300 VR at 300mm. That's not bad, but it's not the step forward that I would like. To put it into one sentence: I would never be satisfied with the any settings on the sharpness slider in Lightroom.

I will visit the camera store today, if I've got time For the Sigma 150-600 C.

 

[sm4him]

To each his own. I use mine at 500 all the time and like to think I've produced a decent shot or two from it. ;-)

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>> it's not the step forward that I would like. To put it into one sentence: I would never be satisfied with the any settings on the sharpness slider in Lightroom. I will visit the camera store today, if I've got time For the Sigma 150-600 C.

Last night, in doing some online research for this post, I found a May 27 published Sigma 150-500 piece showing the industrial plastics vs metal use in the two Sigma 150-600 models, the differently sized front elements, different optical designs, and different diaphragm placement in the Sport and the Contemporary versions. I did find a good review of the heavy, expensive Sigma "Sport" version, and the images and crops looked pretty good...but it's a 6-pound lens...and the illustrations made me think the weight is mostly in the barrel material on the Sport, not so much the optics...it didn't look like the Contemporary is an obviously cheapened lens, just made with a slightly different design and more industrial plastics in the barrel to shave that 2 pounds of weight off versus the Sport model,and slightly simpler optical design.

Tamron vs Sigma 150-600 comparative images (can't tell jack squat at this image size...different cameras, but SAME exact times and subjects, Sigma Sport and Tamron 150-600 lenses on safari)

The FIRST, older Lenstip article compared the Tamron with the Sigma Sport: it is very clear the Sigma is the better lens...with much heavier weight and double the price. The Sigma Sport is the best zoom of its type. Period. At $2k and 6 pounds, that makes sense.

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

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

The Sigma Contemporary is a little bit better optically than the Tamron on APS-C, the Sigma is better at the edges of full-frame, but the Tamron is better in the center by a small amount. The two lenses are however VERY CLOSE, overall...Lenstip calls it a draw...better bokeh for the Sigma...Tamron's stabilization is apparently better than the Sigma Contemporary...

What *I" would like to see is if the Sigma has that warmer color rendering Sigma has been known for, and if the Tamron is cooler, or closer to neutral, than the Sigma.