Superzoom lens experiences and opinions

firewireguy

firewireguy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
642
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently shoot my kids U9s rugby with a Nikon Z6 and 70-200 2.8 with an FTZ adapter. But as the pitches are bigger now than when they played tag only I'm finding the 200mm reach limiting and I end up doing a lot of cropping. I'm not printing these or publishing them anywhere, but it does consume a lot of time in post processing.

So I'm considering some long lenses, almost certainly second hand.

I obviously rely on decent autofocus speed as the kids are pretty quick. I'm less worried about edge sharpness as it's centre sharpness that matters most and vignetting I consider a solved problem using PhotoLab.

I've had my eye on either:
- Sigma 150-600 DG OS HSM SPORT
- Nikon 200-500

The Sigma is more expensive, but i don't mind if its woth the extra. I don't know much about Tamron or others.

What would you recommend or have experience with shooting outdoor field sports?
 
the widest aperture on the long end on the Sigma may well not be condusive to a decent shutter speed during a late afternoon match in autumn, without cranking up the ISO to levels some find uncomfortable. I find this when shooting schools rugby festivals in late October.
 
andrewc said:
the widest aperture on the long end on the Sigma may well not be condusive to a decent shutter speed during a late afternoon match in autumn, without cranking up the ISO to levels some find uncomfortable. I find this when shooting schools rugby festivals in late October.
Click to expand...
I understand that and so far I've been a fair weather photographer as I have no rain covers and this past winter I've very much wanted my fingers in warm pockets,like a wus . Do you thing the AF and build is better enough than the Nikon to make that a worthwhile trade off?
 
Hi, I have the SIGMA 150-600C. It is good, but big and heavy. I have never taken it out with me somewhere.

I also have a NIKON 4/70-200, which I take out, and crop.

P,S.: You could also keep your lens, and get a higher res Z ... ---
 
Last edited:
I have the Sigma 150-600 DG OS HSM CONTEMPORARY. I like the lens but the aperture range can be limiting. I tried the Sport but it was too heavy for me to hand hold. Optically there is not much, if any difference between the two lenses. Not sure about weather proofing.

I cannot comment about any Nikon lens.
 
Last edited:
The Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 is quite a good performer, AF speed not up with the f/2.8 and f/4 primes but acceptable enough. One minor niggle is the rotation throw to go from 200mm to 500mm takes a good amount of rotation, muscle memory soon fixes it but can be off-putting to start with.

Only ever used OEM lenses so can't comment on 3rd party units.

GC
 
firewireguy said:
I understand that and so far I've been a fair weather photographer as I have no rain covers and this past winter I've very much wanted my fingers in warm pockets,like a wus . Do you thing the AF and build is better enough than the Nikon to make that a worthwhile trade off?
Click to expand...
Can’t comment on those. When I shoot schools rugby tournaments I use a 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400 4.5-5.6 until the light drops then a heavier sigma 120-300 f2.8 for the last hour. That way I can shoot relatively wide and at a suitable shutter speed at sensible ISOs.
 
I think you will find the Sigma 150-600, both the Sport and Contemporary versions, rather tiring to use hand-held - I know I did. You might consider the Sigma 100-400 C; it is both shorter in length and much lighter than its bigger brothers without noticeably compromising on optical quality.
 
Bristolian said:
I think you will find the Sigma 150-600, both the Sport and Contemporary versions, rather tiring to use hand-held - I know I did. You might consider the Sigma 100-400 C; it is both shorter in length and much lighter than its bigger brothers without noticeably compromising on optical quality.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my experience. I find the 100-400mm is a good balance for its focal range and size which is something I can carry around with me whereas the Sigma 150-600mm is too bulky so it ends up with more occasional use.
 
firewireguy said:
What would you recommend or have experience with shooting outdoor field sports?
Click to expand...
I think that one of the obstacles you face is that the bigger the sensor, the physically bigger will be the volume of the lens required to fill that frame at a given distance.

This is why I now use the Micro Four Thirds system for long distance photography. The 100~400mm lens I use covers an area much the same as that covered by 200~800 on a full frame camera, but is half the length, volume and weight of the latter. I accept that it's probably not practical for you to change your system but it may be worth considering alternatives, if only to discard them.
 
I like Andrew changed my Nikon system to Panasonic M43 system due to weight etc. I went back for a second camera as well The G9 and then in addition the G9ii . I like to have a backup camera from past experience.

I notice there is a huge jump in price for these recently and the lenses. £1591.49 for the G9ii and £1371.78 for the 100-400mm lens, I decided to go for the 100-300mm lens @£499 instead.

going P/x reduces those costs which is what I did. do I regret leaving Nikon? no but it was a very hard decision to make One thing that is different between the G9 and G9ii is photostacking.
In the G9 it requires several photos to be shot of the same target and than stacks them together.
In the G9ii all it needs it one shutter release and it automatically does 37 (takes) a vast improvement. which is why i would recomment the G9ii every time
G9ii stacking example

View attachment 449499


aaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not really too bothered by the weight to be honest. I'm sure it's annoying to an extent, but it's not one of my concerns and I'm not switching systems. I'd rather have a lens that focusses fast with good sharpness and if there's a significant difference between AF performance or sharpness then that'll swing it. At the moment I'm not sure there's much reason to pick anything other than the Nikon 200-500with it's constant aperture and AFAIK decent AF.
 
I have a Sigma 60-600mm which means for long sports work, including group shots of the teams afterwards, it's ideal and a one=lens solution. It is remarkably heavy though and at my age, I don't carry it around for too long. Combine that with a large sensor and there's not much you can't photograph at great distances.
 
Just so you are aware m43 lenses are double in mm to FF lens 100-300mm in FF terms is 200- 600mm or 100-400mm is equal to 200-800mm.

the 100-300 mm lens weight in at 1.3lb (589.67grams). I know which I would rather carry all day
Nikon 180-600mm = 4lb 11.5oz ( 2,140 g) nearly 5 times heavier
 
Last edited:
firewireguy said:
I'm not really too bothered by the weight to be honest. I'm sure it's annoying to an extent, but it's not one of my concerns and I'm not switching systems. I'd rather have a lens that focusses fast with good sharpness and if there's a significant difference between AF performance or sharpness then that'll swing it. At the moment I'm not sure there's much reason to pick anything other than the Nikon 200-500with it's constant aperture and AFAIK decent AF.
Click to expand...
Meant to add in my earlier post that the 200-500mm f/5.6 isn't that heavy and can be handheld quite easily (y)
 
but what about price wise?
Nikon AF-s 160-400mm f4 rd vr tc1.4 lens £10.099

Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm in FF )f4-6.3 Leica DG Vario-Elmar ASPH Power OIS II Lens £1371.78 and the addition of dual image stablisation.

So you getting better image stablisation (in camera and in lens)-more mm - less cost - lighter. This is why I left Nikon having been a Nikon owner with the D70s-D200-D300-D800-D810.
 
Last edited:
Have you thought about the Nikon 180-600 Z mount lens, it is a great lens, much better than a Sigma 150-600,
 
gcgraphs said:
Meant to add in my earlier post that the 200-500mm f/5.6 isn't that heavy and can be handheld quite easily (y)
Click to expand...
That's good to know. I have my dumbbells next to me that I need to use some more anyway.
Nikon f1.8 said:
Have you thought about the Nikon 180-600 Z mount lens, it is a great lens, much better than a Sigma 150-600,
Click to expand...
I have, but unfortunately it's out of budget.
 
GetBusyLiving said:
I have a Sigma 60-600mm which means for long sports work, including group shots of the teams afterwards, it's ideal and a one=lens solution. It is remarkably heavy though and at my age, I don't carry it around for too long. Combine that with a large sensor and there's not much you can't photograph at great distances.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up, I'll have a look in to that one. Is the AF up to much?
 
I have owned most of the lenses mentioned above and the Sigma Sport is heavy for hand holding so you would need a monopod at least.

I would consider the Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens and a 1.4 TC to go with it for your needs. You could buy the lens and TC for about the price of the Sigma 150-600mm Sport.

I would also have mentioned the 500mm f4 or PF f5.6 lens but it's possibly going to be out of your budget if the Z 180-600mm is too rich for you at present.

The primes are really sharp lenses and better than the zooms mentioned above and very quick AF.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
I have owned most of the lenses mentioned above and the Sigma Sport is heavy for hand holding so you would need a monopod at least.

I would consider the Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens and a 1.4 TC to go with it for your needs. You could buy the lens and TC for about the price of the Sigma 150-600mm Sport.

I would also have mentioned the 500mm f4 PF f5.6 lens but it's possibly going to be out of your budget if the Z 180-600mm is too rich for you at present.

The primes are really sharp lenses and better than the zooms mentioned above and very quick AF.
Click to expand...
Ooh, that's an interesting proposition. I hadn't really considered a prime before. I had always thought the difference between 200 and 300 was very small (for no reason other than ignorance). But it seems it's a big enough jump and the TC adds extra flexibility. Hmmm......
 
firewireguy said:
Ooh, that's an interesting proposition. I hadn't really considered a prime before. I had always thought the difference between 200 and 300 was very small (for no reason other than ignorance). But it seems it's a big enough jump and the TC adds extra flexibility. Hmmm......
Click to expand...
I ran the 300mm f/4 PF (Phase Fresnel) for a few years with and without the TC 14E III, it performed well enough but I just found myself reaching for the 300mm f/2.8 more often so off-loaded it.

There is a well publicised issue with the VR at shutter speeds around 1/100 to 1/160th which was an issue to me as I shoot a fair bit of propeller driven and rotary wing aviation in that range.

GC
 
firewireguy said:
Ooh, that's an interesting proposition. I hadn't really considered a prime before. I had always thought the difference between 200 and 300 was very small (for no reason other than ignorance). But it seems it's a big enough jump and the TC adds extra flexibility. Hmmm......
Click to expand...
I mentioned the primes as an alternative to the zooms. Having owned the above mentioned lenses myself, and for me the weight benefit of the PF primes is excellent along with sharpness and I found they took 1.4 TC very well. Wex have a good selection of used copies and have a excellent return policy if you wanted to try one to see if it's suitable for your use....https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-lens-1565985/

I have the Z mount 400mm f4.5, 1.4TC, 70-200mm f2.8 and 180-600mm lenses and if the budget could stretch or you wait a bit longer I would recommend the 400m f4.5 lens as it's native to Z mount and it takes the 1.4TC well. But at a guess it would be at least double the cost of the Sigma Sport.
 
gcgraphs said:
I ran the 300mm f/4 PF (Phase Fresnel) for a few years with and without the TC 14E III, it performed well enough but I just found myself reaching for the 300mm f/2.8 more often so off-loaded it.

There is a well publicised issue with the VR at shutter speeds around 1/100 to 1/160th which was an issue to me as I shoot a fair bit of propeller driven and rotary wing aviation in that range.

GC
Click to expand...
I didn't mention the f2.8 Primes as I guessed they would be around the £2k mark for a 300mm VRii version. I never had a problem with my 300mm PF or the AFS version before it. Although it's very rare I photograph planes or choppers. Bird/Wildlife is my main Genre of photography, along with a bit of travel in this country.
 
Last edited:
Nikon 80-400 G f4-5/6 VR? Better AF than 200-500/f5.6, I've used mine successfully on my Z8.
 
I've used most of the options available in one form or another... the only super zooms that have been particularly good are the Sigma 60-600 and the Nikon Z180-600. IMO they compare very well to a prime with TC in very good light, in lower light the prime w/ TC is generally a bit better; but not enough to make me switch until the light gets rather dim... and then I tend to just drop down to the bare lens and crop.

You basically end up in a circle of equivalence where every choice gives a very similar result... i.e. you can crop with FL (longer lens/zoom/TC), or crop in post, and end up with nearly identical results in every sense. The disadvantage zooms have is that no focal length is optimized... similarly, no lens + TC is optimized either (except the 800/5.6 with serial number matched 1.4x, or the newer lenses w/ integrated TCs).

Everything is a tradeoff. But one thing to keep in mind is that the newer Z lenses are (mostly) completely new lens designs which are able to take advantage of the new wider lens mount. And in general, these new designs are sharper/better than comparable lenses of earlier design. Also note that Z lenses tend to integrate better with the Z bodies, which can make a big difference... E.g. one of the main reasons I went from the Sigma 60-600 to the Z180-600 is the ability to assign focus recall to a function button.
 
I have a Nikon 80 -400 gen1
the first VR lens ever.

It is very compact compared to some others. and cheap.

There are mixed reviews on this lens regarding the focus speed and I agree with the first setting which I would consider only for static subjects and even then is hit and miss. The second setting is very good, on my version.

Yesterday I took snaps of go carts at 60mph coming round a corner approx 80-100 yards away on 3d matrix Af and it kept up well until buffer was full. most were usable.

I have found that you need plenty of light for it to perform well, I mean plenty. Minimum shutter 1200 and f8. preferably 2000 f8 i let the iso rise a bit on D750 and its OK.
 
Thank you to all for your suggestions and help.

After the suggestion came from left field, I was thinking that it might be a very good and more practical solution, so I've gone and won an ebay for a Nikon 300mm f/4 PF.
Looks like new and comes with a nice padded case, which I don't know, but may fit the 70-200 too. I'll look at adding a TC down the road.
I like the idea that I could probably fit it in my small Crumpler bag with the camera and another small lens and have a nice 2 lens combo. The f/4 was also appealing.
I'll report back when I get a chance to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top