Depends which Sigma you're comparing. The Sigma sport is the best of the bunch, but very heavy. The Sigma C is comparable to the Tamron, although you can use it with the Sigma dock which would sway me towards the Sigma.
Just shows how it can differ. Every review I read said that the Sigma C was on par with the Tamron (although some say the tamron edged centre sharpness at the long end) with the Sigma Sport being better than both. I've personally not seen a review that says that the Sigma S is not better than the other two. But this is the problem with the internet, so many differing opinions and reviews out there, and very few actual 'controlled' tests such as DXO to compare them too. This is the only 'real' test than I can find, which shows that the S is sharper. However, is it £500 and worth the extra 1kg sharper? I don't think so personally.
(I made a thread for it in Motorsport sharing).Correct - I tested the Sport and the Contemp' at the same time when I was deciding which to buy and optically I couldn't see a difference. The copy (of the C) I was actually sent was just as good, so there doesnt seem to be copy variation. I also found the S very heavy, the C is a kilo lighter which is worth considering for long shoots.
I took mine to the British GP this year and it didn't miss a beat
If you read much about the Tamron you'll see a lot of users complaining of 500mm + softness and AF freezing issues.
I can't praise the Sigma C enough!
There's little to choose between FX and DX these days tbh. Yes FX is a bit better but you'd really be looking for something in particular such as the angle of view/shallow DOF that FF offers, and/or the cleanliness of really high ISO files to warrant dumping all of your DX stuff. As always though YMMV
Why the Sport and not the Contemporary? I can't see that makes sense for what you need it for. With the AF set to speed priority (via the dock) its AF is just as quick as the Sport.
.. thanks .. keep the advice coming
If you read reviews and test charts like this then it would appear that the Sport is significantly better at the long end, but not as good at the short end. My main concern with lenses such as this is the long end though, and again according to this review the Tamron is better at the long end than the Sigma C too.thanks for the advice .. I was looking at the reviews of the Sigma lens and even though most said that the contemporary should be the same quality, there were a few who said that the glass was very slightly inferior and more in line with the Tamron .. hence me going for the sport ..
the filter was from a video review of the lens .. if you think the rubber will protect it (like my Nikon 600mm), then that will save me money
Its not rubber, its very tough poly carbonatethanks for the advice .. I was looking at the reviews of the Sigma lens and even though most said that the contemporary should be the same quality, there were a few who said that the glass was very slightly inferior and more in line with the Tamron .. hence me going for the sport ..
the filter was from a video review of the lens .. if you think the rubber will protect it (like my Nikon 600mm), then that will save me money
I didn't find that at all, though my testing was hand held as thats how I planned to use it. In fact, I found the C to be better at the long end with far more keepers. That might be due to its more practical weight allowing me better control over movement but in the real world, the C was better in use than the Sport (the way I shoot anyway). If I used it to death like a pro, than I might choose the S for the better build (though the C is still built like a tank) but otherwise for Jo Bloggs, the C makes far more sense.
And therein lies the problems with reading reviews and charts, they don't tell you what it's like in the real world
. As you mention the weight could really be an issue, especially for BIF etc.
Indeed. And as I couldn't find a difference optically it was simply down to the amount of keepers, then costAnd therein lies the problems with reading reviews and charts, they don't tell you what it's right in the real world
There was a clear winner! That's how it was for my style of shooting at least. Looking at charts there is a very small improvement with the S in the corners wide open but you seriously cannot see this away from a black and white chart, which is why I find charts with some lenses pointless. In fact I tried to replicate it real world but couldn't?
The subject is very clear, if it wasn't no one would buy it, lol! My most recent stuff with the C is in this post;
...and I doubt with the Sport you'll see a £500 difference in the images
A lot of the differences that might be discernible from specs and bench shots of test targets are about pointless... much like the "sharpness" gained by not having an AA filter or having a ton of tiny pixels on the sensor. The things we do are enough to negate any difference; longer distances, moving subjects, unsecured/locked lens, smaller apertures, etc, etc. Any one of those things is enough, not to mention when combined. And none of those minor differences matter as much as the things that are largely outside of our control; subject lighting, contrast, distance...
This ^. I can guarantee I run out of talent quicker than I can reach the top abilities of most of my lenses, lol!
I would skip the Manfrotto stuff... If you stick with it and eventually get a tripod/gimbal/other head the Manfrotto stuff won't be compatible (maybe not even with other Manfrotto heads). Monopods like the Neotec are cool, but they don't adjust down very far (for sitting/kneeling), and the longer collapsed length and heavier weight makes them more of a PITA to carry along. I find ball heads about pointless on a Monopod, and more problematic than beneficial.
Seems to me like maybe you are chasing gear... IMO, that's definitely the wrong move. IMO your best choice is to *just* get the lens... which one doesn't matter much. Personally I'd go for the weather sealing as I am hard on my gear and I have ruined lenses due to weather/environment. But for most I don't think the weight/expense is really needed.
It will make the 600/4 lens an 840/5.6. It will transmit less light and have less DOF (~1 stop). But the reduction in IQ will largely be offset by the increased magnification/resolution (for any equivalent crop/display size).
In that case, yes 840/8 and only one reliable AF point on the D7100.
DSC_0235 by gpn63, on Flickr
Why not try out the Sigma C and S and see which you prefer?
The shot below was taken with a 600 f/4 and a 1.4x Nikkor teleconverter. As you can see, it was taken at f/5.6 (4 x 1.4 = 1 stop, as expected from a 1.4x teleconverter.) The Nikon 1AW I had it on has a 2.7x (IIRC) crop factor as well. The Baby Fuji was about 30' away. Oh, and the camera/lens wasn't on a tripod! If I could justify it, I would love the lens and telecon but I can't, so I'll stick with the Fuji 100-400 and 2x telecon as the long lens (1200mm EFL will have to be enough - the shot I've posted is at an EFL [according to Flickr and who am I to argue with their figure!] of 2295mm...) From memory, AF wasn't massively fast but the 1AW isn't exactly the body this lens is aimed at. Image is quite noisy too - again, the body's fault - 6400 is pushing its ISO ceiling.
