Panamoz and my new toy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dinsdale
  • Start date Start date
Dinsdale said:
I can see your logic but to me buying anything other than a Nikon lens would be like putting re-treads on a Jaguar. You just don't do it!
Click to expand...

From all the images I've seen and the things I've read, the Sigma has better IQ than the Nikon. Of course it's not a constant aperture.

Looking forward to seeing some images from this lens! Let's see if I can be proven wrong about the IQ!
 
htid said:
From all the images I've seen and the things I've read, the Sigma has better IQ than the Nikon. Of course it's not a constant aperture.

Looking forward to seeing some images from this lens! Let's see if I can be proven wrong about the IQ!
Click to expand...

Not sure you have read this latest test from Camera Labs (same as Richard posted) when the Nikon and two Sigmas and Tamron 150-600mm lenses are compared. It seems the Nikon comes out on top and the only report where I can find a comparison between the lenses. What reports/tests have you seen for comparing?

I'm keeping an eye on all these lenses as it will be my next purchase after shoulder and elbow surgery. I'm swaying towards the Nikon at the moment if I go the zoom route.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/verdict.shtml
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Not sure you have read this latest test from Camera Labs (same as Richard posted) when the Nikon and two Sigmas and Tamron 150-600mm lenses are compared. It seems the Nikon comes out on top and the only report where I can find a comparison between the lenses. What reports/tests have you seen for comparing?

I'm keeping an eye on all these lenses as it will be my next purchase after shoulder and elbow surgery. I'm swaying towards the Nikon at the moment if I go the zoom route.

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

I'm just basing it on the many images I've looked at over the last week or so. I haven't seen any image from the Nikon that has looked better than the Sigma S (the C images I've seen have looked less sharp to me than the S ones). Have a look at the S thread (page 2 here as there are some good sharp images starting this page) https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dg-os-hsm-sports-owners-thread.577088/page-2

Not seen anything that sharp from the Nikon tbh, and that's with 100mm more reach. I know you can put the 1.4tc on the Nikon and get 700mm but that's at f8 and will degrade the quality even more.
 
Is your version of the 200-500 one of the ones with the 'Auto-Focus' update?

Cheers

Simon
 
OldCarlos said:
If you're nearly filling the frame with an image of a bird, F7.1 - F8 is probably ideal.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that actually. I rarely filling the frame with my current setup but then I'm not at 700mm! It's more to do with the light needed though, that's what I was thinking. Think I'm going to go with the Sigma 150-600 Sport after lots of reading, just seems better IQ than the Nikon from what I've seen.
 
if its the light needed for the AF before the lens stops down that concerns you , then its worth noting that the sigma is f6.3 at the long end (at least the 150-500 is , i assume the 150-600 is too but don't know for certain)
 
htid said:
I hadn't thought of that actually. I rarely filling the frame with my current setup but then I'm not at 700mm! It's more to do with the light needed though, that's what I was thinking. Think I'm going to go with the Sigma 150-600 Sport after lots of reading, just seems better IQ than the Nikon from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

big soft moose said:
if its the light needed for the AF before the lens stops down that concerns you , then its worth noting that the sigma is f6.3 at the long end (at least the 150-500 is , i assume the 150-600 is too but don't know for certain)
Click to expand...

This is a selective quote of the lens comparison test you yourself linked to Chris .... it is a case of 'horses for courses' but that Sigma is a heavy unit! And, as Moose has said AF light is a big factor (it was for me)

Compared to Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM "Sports"

The Sigma "Sports" is an even larger and heavier lens than the Nikon. But that comes with a very solid build with lots of metal parts. Add the metal lens-hood that weighs almost 300g alone and the Nikon suddenly seems "light-weight". Price-wise both lenses are on a par. The performance of the Sigma "Sports" is good and in some cases comes close to the performance of the Nikon. The Sigma offers a 4x zoom-range starting 25% wider and reaching 20% longer than the Nikon which might be the deciding factor for you. The Nikon has the benefit of a constant f5.6 aperture and can use a 1.4x teleconverter and still manage to auto-focus on many modern Nikon bodies. But other than that I wouldn't give the Sigma much grief over its f5.0-6.3 aperture. The Sigma is also compatible with Sigma's USB dock for fine-tuning or firmware updates, and if you change bodies, you can pay to have the mount swapped for your new system. So the Sigma "Sports" has a lot going for it. Personally I'd still prefer the Nikon over the Sigma "Sports" because I love its image quality and am simply put off by the sheer weight of the Sigma
Click to expand...
 
OldCarlos said:
If you're nearly filling the frame with an image of a bird, F7.1 - F8 is probably ideal.
Click to expand...

I can't see that!

It's just a reduction in light, not an increase in Depth of Field :( If anything it has a severe, detrimental effect on AF function. Not many cameras can guarantee AF success with an aperture smaller than f5.6
 
OldCarlos said:
If you're nearly filling the frame with an image of a bird, F7.1 - F8 is probably ideal.
Click to expand...

chuckles said:
I can't see that!

It's just a reduction in light, not an increase in Depth of Field :( If anything it has a severe, detrimental effect on AF function. Not many cameras can guarantee AF success with an aperture smaller than f5.6
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are both talking about Teleconverters from slightly different point of views. A 1.4 TC is going to degrade the IQ on a f5.6 lens even if f8 would be the aperture you would select for enough DoF. Most modern nikon cameras can AF at f8 (centre AF point only) but it won't be as good as without a Teleconverter. It would be far more interesting to see a comparison of 500mm f5.6 or f8 cropped to the equivalent view of 700mm f8. I would bet there isn't much difference other than one stop of light and file size. I personally would take a stop of light over a little extra focal length when you have the ability to crop.

I still think Teleconverters are seen as this holy grail accessory by many. They were originally designed for use with f2.8 and maybe f4 prime lens. I think nikons current insistence on their use with f5.6 zooms is more a marketing ploy to sell Teleconverters to the masses. On f2.8 primes/zooms there are barely any IQ differences. On f4 primes/zooms you can see more differences but they are generally ok. On f5.6 lens you most likely get better results by cropping and most of us don't need these huge 16 or 24mp files anyway if we are not printing big.
 
Last edited:
I was only ever happy with results when using a teleconvertor with a 2.8 lens - most of my stuff is low light though.
 
Being new to Nikon, I just looked the lens up. One word comes to mind... crikey!
 
chuckles said:
This is a selective quote of the lens comparison test you yourself linked to Chris .... it is a case of 'horses for courses' but that Sigma is a heavy unit! And, as Moose has said AF light is a big factor (it was for me)
Click to expand...

You're right that I said that and tbh the f6.3 of the Sigma really does concern me (as well as the weight), but as I say, the IQ just seems higher than the Nikon on the shots I've seen. Obviously the Sigma has been around a long longer so there are lots more images available (and lots of sharp bird photos). Maybe I'll still see some really impressive Nikon shots before I buy a lens - but the issue for me is still that compared to my 300f4 with 1.4tc @420mm, I'd only gain 80mm for £1179 and it doesn't seem worth it.
 
htid said:
but the issue for me is still that compared to my 300f4 with 1.4tc @420mm, I'd only gain 80mm for £1179 and it doesn't seem worth it.
Click to expand...

It all depends if having a zoom is useful to you. If you are always at 420mm and never want a wider shot then keep the 300 f4 and 1.4 TC as 80mm isn't that much compared the ability to have an extra stop of light if ever needed.

Last year I swapped a 300 f2.8 to a 200-400 f4 as I always seemed to use the Teleconverter at 420mm f4 and I thought the zoom would give flexibility of not needing to swap Teleconverters on and off in the field. Since I have had a love hate relationship with the 200-400 where I love the images it gives and flexibility of the zoom but hate the weight. Part of this has also been because I've used the 70-200 f2.8 a lot more (has the advantage of lightweight, f2.8 and great IQ) so doesn't help much. I've recently been thinking if the 200-500 f5.6 would be the middle ground with weight and flexibility but the only thing stopping me is losing the stop of light which at times could be quite important to me.
 
rob-nikon said:
It all depends if having a zoom is useful to you. If you are always at 420mm and never want a wider shot then keep the 300 f4 and 1.4 TC as 80mm isn't that much compared the ability to have an extra stop of light if ever needed.

Last year I swapped a 300 f2.8 to a 200-400 f4 as I always seemed to use the Teleconverter at 420mm f4 and I thought the zoom would give flexibility of not needing to swap Teleconverters on and off in the field. Since I have had a love hate relationship with the 200-400 where I love the images it gives and flexibility of the zoom but hate the weight. Part of this has also been because I've used the 70-200 f2.8 a lot more (has the advantage of lightweight, f2.8 and great IQ) so doesn't help much. I've recently been thinking if the 200-500 f5.6 would be the middle ground with weight and flexibility but the only thing stopping me is losing the stop of light which at times could be quite important to me.
Click to expand...

Just thinking about it, I'm on a DX sensor so it's technically an extra 80mm + 1.5 = 120mm. So the options are:
Current setup - 630 @ f5.6
Nikon 200-500 - 750mm @ f5.6 (with option of 1.4tc - 1125 @ f8)
Sigma 150-600 S - 900 @ f6.3

So what's more important, extra 1/3 stop of light or 150mm reach? Questions questions!

Sorry for derailing this thread Dinsdale!!!
 
htid said:
So what's more important, extra 1/3 stop of light or 150mm reach? Questions questions!
Click to expand...

And I'm still waiting for the light to do 'your shot' ---- oh, and a bird!
 
I really really wanted a f2.8 600mm lens but couldn't afford one. So I bought a camera with better ISO performance ;)
 
I bought one last week, must say i am over the moon with mine, i first ordered off of amazon at the lower price then cancelled, sourcing another one first, only cancelled because i wanted to get one to take it on holiday, find it easy to use hand held but for ease i bought a monopod,
If anyone wants to check out some low light use check out my flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top