Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma 100-300 VS Sigma 150-500

Go to last post
I

Ilco Trajkovski

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
262
Reaction score
0
Location
Skopje, MK
Given the price difference, arround 120 USD, is 100-300 with TC 1.4 much better than sigma 150-500 @420mm. I planned to buy 150-500, but since I have Sigma 1.4 TC I'm getting second thoughts.
--

D 50, Sigma 10-20 HSM, Nikon 35-70 f2.8 AFD, Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro HSM, Sigma 1.4 TC, Nikon 60mm AFS Macro, SB600 Speedlite.
 
I've only seen others shots with the 150-500 but from what I've seen the 100-300 with TC is much better. However the OS in the 150-500 may make that lens more convenient than carting a tripod around so the final choice is yours based on your needs.
Ilco Trajkovski said:
Given the price difference, arround 120 USD, is 100-300 with TC 1.4
much better than sigma 150-500 @420mm. I planned to buy 150-500, but
since I have Sigma 1.4 TC I'm getting second thoughts.
--
D 50, Sigma 10-20 HSM, Nikon 35-70 f2.8 AFD, Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro
HSM, Sigma 1.4 TC, Nikon 60mm AFS Macro, SB600 Speedlite.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill
 
I haven't shot with the 100-300 with the 1.4 tc since my Sigma SD10 and would have to go rooting for shots in my archives. It would be an apples to oranges comparison anyway since the foveon sensor has better per pixel sharpness right out of the camera due to the nature of the beast.

However, I thinks it's generally accepted that the 100-300 f4.0 is one of Sigma's better pieces of glass and the Sigma 1.4 tc performs well on the lens. The majority of the 150-500 shots I've seen would be hard pressed to beat the 50-500 let alone the 100-300.

However, this is just my opinion FWIW. Take a look at the reviews at Fred Miranda and you'll see that the 100-300 has an average rating of 9.5 based on 80 reviews while after 15 the 150-500 sits at 9.2.
Dave Santora said:
Show me the best shot you can find with the 100-300 with TC (so
effective 420mm), and I bet I have a better looking 150-500 shot at
around 400mm.

Best vs Best lets see it - I've got some files ready. But you get to
prove your statement first :)
--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - finally up, give a look
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site in the works...
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill
 
I know from the samples that 100-300 even with TC is better than 150-500, but in reality is the difference that big? Samples from 150-500 are good but from what I've seel they lack the pop, i presume mostly due to hi iso shooting. Also in wide open teritory, or little stopped down is the difference bigger, because I will use the lens hend held, or monopod. I mean I have big tripod, but I use it mostly for landscapes, macro and IR. Hand holding is not problem for me since I'm big man 6'4' 250 pounds
--

D 50, Sigma 10-20 HSM, Sigma 17-70 Macro, Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro HSM, Nikon 60mm AFS Macro, SB600 Speedlite.
 
I've just ordered a sigma 1.4 TC to go with my sigma 150 macro - this was in mind that the 100-300 will be next on my list . . . good to here the positive comments on the 100-300
 
DaiG, I already have the TC and the 150 and t is killer combo, I hope with 100-300 to complete te telephoto part of the lens line-up
--

D 50, Sigma 10-20 HSM, Nikon 35-70 f2.8 AF-D, Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro HSM, Sigma TC 1.4, Nikon 60mm AFS Macro, SB600 Speedlite.
 
These are great, shot at f8, meaning stopped down less than 1 stop. They are just perfect, exact result I seek from a lens.
--

D 50, Sigma 10-20 HSM, Sigma 17-70 Macro, Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro HSM, Nikon 60mm AFS Macro, SB600 Speedlite.
 
Ilco Trajkovski said:
Given the price difference, arround 120 USD, is 100-300 with TC 1.4
much better than sigma 150-500 @420mm. I planned to buy 150-500, but
since I have Sigma 1.4 TC I'm getting second thoughts.
--
D 50, Sigma 10-20 HSM, Nikon 35-70 f2.8 AFD, Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro
HSM, Sigma 1.4 TC, Nikon 60mm AFS Macro, SB600 Speedlite.
Click to expand...
Ilco,

I've read this whole thread up to this point and thought I'd add a few points. I have not shot with the 150-500 so I have no personal experience with it. I have to say though that it has piqued my interest. I do have the 100-300 and can say without reservation that it is one of the sharpest lenses I've used. I used to have the Nikkor 300 f/4 and while it also is extremely sharp, I found the single focal length quite limiting. I can also add that the 1.4TC has almost no effect on IQ (unlike the 2xTC which I found unusable). I'm sure you've seen lots of examples but for what it's worth, here are some examples with and without the 1.4 TC (those images with the > 300 FL are shot with the TC). I realize that processed low res web images can look pretty good from almost any lens, but hopefully this gives you some idea of what is possible.

http://lamson.zenfolio.com/p875529624/

While I can really recommend the 100-300 as a medium tele, I can also understand your desire for the extra reach that the 150-500 provides. I also had this kind of lust, but after trying several of the zoom solutions that were out there last year (Sigma 50-500, Nikkor 80-400), I was pretty disappointed with the IQ. One thing people don't realize when they go to FLs over 400mm is that in many cases you are shooting at subjects that are pretty far away. Atomospherics can play havoc with IQ under these conditions. That is why people use big 500-600mm FL primes for long distance shooting. It turns out you need to have a lens with very good optics in order to neutralize the effects of shooting long distances through lots of atmosphere. My budget solution was to get a used Nikkor 500mm f/4 P MF lens (I just couldn't justify $5000+ for one of the AFS primes). While I do miss AF, this lens is extremely sharp. However it is a bit of a beast and requires some effort to hump around. You can see examples here

http://lamson.zenfolio.com/p646394051/

The other issue I am constantly fighting with long lens shooting is stability/shutterspeed. When you shoot at over 400mm stability is critical. That's why the new VR long prime lenses are something to lust after. Since the 150-500 is stabilized, I think this is a big plus for this lens assuming it works well. Coupled with decent IQ could really make this lens a winner. I in no way want to bash the 150-500 since I have not used it nor seen any reputable reviews of it. I would just caution you that you consider the points I made above. While the images offered in this thread of the Red Tail hawk look good, I assume they were taken pretty close up of a captive bird. Shooting wild birds at distance would be more of a test for me, because that is the way I use my long lenses.

Hope this helps,

Geo
--
Some of my best efforts
http://www.lamsonweb.com/Galleries/Photography/
http://lamson.zenfolio.com/
 
stopdown said:
The other issue I am constantly fighting with long lens shooting is
stability/shutterspeed. When you shoot at over 400mm stability is
critical. That's why the new VR long prime lenses are something to
lust after. Since the 150-500 is stabilized, I think this is a big
plus for this lens assuming it works well. Coupled with decent IQ
could really make this lens a winner. I in no way want to bash the
150-500 since I have not used it nor seen any reputable reviews of
it. I would just caution you that you consider the points I made
above. While the images offered in this thread of the Red Tail hawk
look good, I assume they were taken pretty close up of a captive
bird. Shooting wild birds at distance would be more of a test for me,
because that is the way I use my long lenses.
Click to expand...
True it was at the Desert Museum in Tucson, and you can tell from the last shot, it is captive, and was still.

Any bird in the wild is a challenge, more for the photog than the gear.

The OS on the Sigma is only good for 2-3 stops with good technique. I have really had to practice my handholding with it, and can now get to 1/200 at 500mm with the D3 at about 80% keepers handheld. As expected with the D300 at 500mm and 1/200 the keepers fall to around 50%.

Atmosphere is indeed a real problem, so is shooting a dark bird against a bright sky (especially here in Arizona). Basically test some bird shots, meter manually for that and blow out the sky. Unless you get a better beamer for your flash, then you could meter lower and flash light the subject - as long as its still.

--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - finally up, give a look
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site in the works...
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
Stopdown

Great post. Thanks

How can a better f4 prime (500-600mm) neutralize the effects of shooting long distances through lots of atmosphere???

Why are they better than a zoom like the 150-500 in this respect?,

I just want to learn

Thanks
jano
 
Ilco

Don't forget that Dave is using his lens on a D3. And a fullframe cam is much more forgiven to lens sharpness problem than a DX lens like D300.

Dave can shoot quite sharp pictures at 500mm, a DX cam can do that with the 150-500 only until 400-450mm I think.
 
rockjano said:
Stopdown

Great post. Thanks

How can a better f4 prime (500-600mm) neutralize the effects of
shooting long distances through lots of atmosphere???

Why are they better than a zoom like the 150-500 in this respect?,

I just want to learn

Thanks
jano
Click to expand...
Jano,

Didn't mean to make it sound like magic here. I don't think anyone will argue that the $1000 Sigma150-500 optics are comparable to a $6000 500mm prime. The real question out at these focal lengths is just how good the optics have to be for you to accomplish your shooting goals. At long distances where the atmospherics can cause degradation in IQ it becomes more of a problem when the IQ of the lens being used is only good and not excellent. I guess what I'm saying is the degradation starts to become additive. So if your lens has excellent optics, it lessens the total IQ degradation from the lens + atmospherics. I'm not saying that a $6000 prime will let you shoot through fog LOL, but when the air is "thick" and has some perturbations, it will definitely help.

Just to go little further with this. Another reason the primes are so expensive is that their optics optimize shooting wide open at relatively low apertures. My Nikkor 500 has a big hunk of glass out in front and the lens is very sharp wide open at f/4. When you are shooting wildlife at distance you still want to be able to use a shutter speed that will freeze the action, even in less than optimum light. Yes this is becoming less of a problem with newer cameras that can shoot at high ISO like the D3/700, but if you're using a D300 to get that extra pixel density in reach then it's always great to be able to shoot at faster speeds. Stabilization is great when shooting static subjects, but you still need action freezing shutter speeds when shooting wildlife. My experience with every tele zoom I've used is that they are always softer when shot wide open. That means to get optimum performance from the 150-500 will probably mean stopping down to f/8. That's a 2 stop difference between using a prime at f/4 or shooting at 1/1000sec vs 1/250sec.

I guess my point is that there are alot of things to consider when purchasing a long lens. You really have to think about what you are going to be using it for and what tradeoffs you can accept and still get the performance you need. Of course if you have the bucks it certainly becomes much easier in the long lens market.

Geo

--
Some of my best efforts
http://www.lamsonweb.com/Galleries/Photography/
http://lamson.zenfolio.com/
 
rockjano said:
Don't forget that Dave is using his lens on a D3. And a fullframe cam
is much more forgiven to lens sharpness problem than a DX lens like
D300.

Dave can shoot quite sharp pictures at 500mm, a DX cam can do that
with the 150-500 only until 400-450mm I think.
Click to expand...
Now you're out of the sweet spot of the lens with the D3, and using the entire glass (well, at least a square of it). So the edges may suffer, but most things shot at 500mm are in the center, with the edges in the bokeh/background.

I have found that the 150-500 is only good up until 450mm wide open (f6.3) on the D300. It needs to be at f11 at 500mm on the D300 to be decently sharp/contrasty, where as its pretty darn good at f8 on the D3 at 500mm. This can cause SS issues, as at f11 you either need higher ISOs (only really usable to 1250 on the D300 IMO - I'm picky on noise), or lower SS to properly expose.

The 100-300 is 150-450 effective on the D300, almost the same as the 150-500 on the D3, and the 100-300 is at f4, where as the 150-500 is between f5 - f6.3. So that 1.5 better high ISO of the D3 is wasted in aperture light loss. Its a wash really.

However, the 150-500 can be popped on to the D300 (for 750mm effective) in good light and at f11 & 500mm you can get a shot like this. Which you can never do with the 100-300.

D300, 500mm, iso800, f11, 1/1250, handheld, RAW of course - LR & CS3, very hazy (rainy) day too!



--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - finally up, give a look
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site in the works...
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
Thanks a lot Geo.

Well, a dedicated nature/bird photographer definitely need something like an 500mm prime. A hobbyist like me who just occasionally need it probably served well with the 150-500.

What you write about the long distant shoots is very true, this is probably why a less than stellar optic like this Sigma is better used in shorter ranges.

The question which is the best value in its price range. This or the Bigma or Tamron 200-500. The 135-400 and 170-500 Sigma lenses are inferior as far as I know.

Thanks
jano
 
Here are some tests I done yesterday.

My old 600mm Nikkor MF on a tripod and my new 150-500mm HANDHELD (@450mm).

Here are the photos:
Sigma @450mm handheld !



Nikkor 600mm with tripod



Here are the crops (no downsizing):





I am quite happy with the results, I concur with the comments of posters above. I am confident of using any focal length up to 450mm with the Sigma.

--



http://www.hondurasart.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2180
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top