Nikon 200-500 V Sigma 150-600 C

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
rather than post in either or both of the 2 threads running re those lenses,would welcome comments from anyone who has shot with both
and their appraisal of the 2 lenses as I am having a hard tome deciding which one to buy.
thanks
 
On the long running 200-500 thread, I think there are a few reports from people who have used both so worth having a long trawl through that.
 
I'm not going to go over what i said in the other thread, but in summary the Nikon is easily the best of the 2, but quite some margin IMO

Having said that, folk on that other thread seemed happy that their Sigmas were sharp at 600mm, and mine was never acceptably sharp wide open, the Nikon however is a sharp as a tack wide open at the long end

For me there is no contest that the Nikon is the better lens, i only went for the Sigma at the time as brand new the Sigma was considerably cheaper than the Nikon, but as there are more on the 2nd hand market now, i managed to upgrade from the Sigma to a 2nd hand Nikon for under £200, and there was a much bigger price difference than that when they both came out

One of the big advantages for me as well was the constant aperture, as i tend to shoot in manual mode for wildlife, so not having to worry about the aperture changing as i am zooming in/out is a big plus point

I suppose the only real drawback is the slight added weight of the Nikon, but it also feels substantially better put together
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
I'm not going to go over what i said in the other thread, but in summary the Nikon is easily the best of the 2, but quite some margin IMO

Having said that, folk on that other thread seemed happy that their Sigmas were sharp at 600mm, and mine was never acceptably sharp wide open, the Nikon however is a sharp as a tack wide open at the long end

For me there is no contest that the Nikon is the better lens, i only went for the Sigma at the time as brand new the Sigma was considerably cheaper than the Nikon, but as there are more on the 2nd hand market now, i managed to upgrade from the Sigma to a 2nd hand Nikon for under £200, and there was a much bigger price difference than that when they both came out

One of the big advantages for me as well was the constant aperture, as i tend to shoot in manual mode for wildlife, so not having to worry about the aperture changing as i am zooming in/out is a big plus point

I suppose the only real drawback is the slight added weight of the Nikon, but it also feels substantially better put together
Click to expand...
This really conflicts with tests that I've seen which show that the Nikon is better at the short end but the Siggy and Tamron is better at the long end. However, I've not had the benefit of shooting with them all and I would always go by real world opinions rather than tests.

One thing that I would mention though is that folk always compare the Nikon at 500 to the Tammy and Sigma at 600mm, but I know from my lens (and every other report I've seen from other owners) is that the Tamron is much sharper at 550mm compared to 600mm so it would be inferring to see a comparison between the Nikon vs Tamron and Sigma at 550mm. I'd be very surprised if they weren't all very similar, in which case you have to ask whether the Nikon is worth the extra weight and money? This of course will be purely personal.

I always find this guy's reviews fair and unbiased. Take from it what you will.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c/6

I think one of the biggest issues is QC on the Sigma and Tamron which is probably why your hear such conflicts about their performance, especially compared to competitors.
 
Last edited:
I think you have hit the nail on the head there @snerkler

I think QC is the biggest issue as i had a friend who bought a Tamron 150-600mm and he was never happy with his at the long end either, he ended up trading it in against an L series 400mm f5.6 (Canon shooter)

I seem to recall you are fairly local to me too @snerkler so you are welcome to have a play with my 200-500mm if you ever feel that itch, or just out of curiosity :)
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
I think you have hit the nail on the head there @snerkler

I think QC is the biggest issue as i had a friend who bought a Tamron 150-600mm and he was never happy with his at the long end either, he ended up trading it in against an L series 400mm f5.6 (Canon shooter)

I seem to recall you are fairly local to me too @snerkler so you are welcome to have a play with my 200-500mm if you ever feel that itch, or just out of curiosity :)
Click to expand...
That's very kind thanks, although I'll probably decline just in case I find the Nikon is markedly better ;)

rpsmith79 said:
The problem is, different reviews all seem to come up with a different result, this was one from back when the 200-500mm was fairly new and comes to a different conclusion to the Photography Life review

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/index.shtml
Click to expand...
Exactly why it's always best to try for yourself and make your own mind up (y)
 
snerkler said:
That's very kind thanks, although I'll probably decline just in case I find the Nikon is markedly better ;)

Exactly why it's always best to try for yourself and make your own mind up (y)
Click to expand...

Well the offer is there if ever you are tempted ;)
 
get the 200-500mm fantastic piece of kit constant 5.6 f/stop
i would not buy a third party lens for my nikon bodys
build quality is second to none they can take a few bumps and bangs and still work
your guaranteed it will work with older bodys or future bodys
2nd hand value is good
so really its a no brainer
 
holty said:
get the 200-500mm fantastic piece of kit constant 5.6 f/stop
i would not buy a third party lens for my nikon bodys
build quality is second to none they can take a few bumps and bangs and still work
your guaranteed it will work with older bodys or future bodys
2nd hand value is good
so really its a no brainer
Click to expand...
Do you have a reason for this?
 
That's very kind thanks, although I'll probably decline just in case I find the Nikon is markedly better ;)

your comment says it all :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
holty said:
That's very kind thanks, although I'll probably decline just in case I find the Nikon is markedly better ;)

your comment says it all :LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...
Lol, it was tongue in cheek. There are numerous reviews stating the Tamron is better at the long end. The Sigma 150-600mm sport is better than the lot of them (Nikon included) in terms of IQ, build and whether sealing. Some of the Sigma Art lenses are better than the Nikon and Canon equivalents.

From your response I can only assume that the reason you won't buy third party is that you believe they're inferior to main brand, in which case you're mistaken and potentially missing out on some great glass (y)
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
The problem is, different reviews all seem to come up with a different result, this was one from back when the 200-500mm was fairly new and comes to a different conclusion to the Photography Life review

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/index.shtml
Click to expand...

The thing with his reviews, especially the Bullfinch photo, is that the shutter speed is too low IMO even though it's perched, they still move as you know Rich. He's not doing the lens any justice at his set-up. I would say my D810 and 150-600mm C would have produced a better result than that at 6.8 meters or so.

I have found my 150-600mm C excellent even at 600mm and I was surprised by the performance after previously using two Nikon 300mm f4 AFS lens in the past, with and without the 1.4TCEII. It hasn't needed any adjusting although I have the dock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top