Reading mode: Light Dark

Dwelling on going Sigma 150-600mm Sport to Nikon 200-500mm

Go to last post
Kris in CT said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.

--
bmw
Click to expand...
Nikon 200-500 VR: 4.5 TStop; 22MP resolve on 36MP sensor.

Sigma 150-600 C: 6.6 TStop; 10MP resolve on 36MP sensor.

Sigma 150-600 S: ???

Tamron 150-600: 6.6 TStop; 16MP resolve on (Canon) 50MP sensor (can't find Nikon).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, it is said to be as sharp as the 200-400f4 so this comes as no surprise.
Kris in CT said:
Kris in CT said:
Tamron Pro Version: (Not yet released, coming soon).

Interested to know the SPORT and TAMRON pro version

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy
Click to expand...
Where are you finding the Nikon score? Sounds more like the 200-400 F4

--
My sober voyage into bird photography
http://www.tamron-usa.com/enews/archives/2015/jan_rowe.php
https://500px.com/coastalconn
http://www.facebook.com/KristoferRowePhotography
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn
Click to expand...
 
evan47 said:
Kris in CT said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Looks like an innocent mistake to me on Globalguy's part. Nice job to find the correction.

Re BMW comment about fanboyism I agree but I only see one poster displaying that on this thread. Maybe he will get the hint. Everyone else seems pretty darn objective to me. Good job by BMW to call it out though so that it doesn't degrade into worthless defense of one product or another.
 
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Kris in CT said:
Bill Ferris said:
CardBoardBoxProcessor said:
Hello, I have the Sigma. it is great and all but pixel peeping I sort of feel that Nikon is sharper. has anyone else made the shift to the nikon?

I've read it is almost as sharp as a 500mm F/4p. I have the P and it is very sharp for 1980's but no AF makes it semi difficult to use.
Click to expand...
Have you considered renting a 200-500 for a weekend and giving it a test drive? I doubt you'll find it substantially sharper than the Sigma 150-600 Sports. However, the significantly lighter weight should make it much more comfortable to carry around for a day. Also, the 1/3-stop advantage in light-gathering will allow you to shoot at lower ISOs.

The constant f/5.6 aperture is the biggest advantage of the 200-500 in comparison to the Tamron and Sigma 150-600s. I don't care how good the optics are, there's no way I'd trade f/5.6 for f/6.3. If anything, the move I'd make is to add a used 500mm f/4D or G version.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com
Click to expand...
Bill, I'm just curious how much 1/3 stop really means to you? So if a lens was sharper, lighter, faster AF and native at 600mm you wouldn't want it because you would have to bump you ISO up from say 400 to 500?

--
My sober voyage into bird photography
http://www.tamron-usa.com/enews/archives/2015/jan_rowe.php
https://500px.com/coastalconn
http://www.facebook.com/KristoferRowePhotography
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn
Click to expand...
Hi Kris. It's not the ISO 400 to ISO 500 difference that concerns me; It's ISO 1250 to 1600 and higher.

I've done a lot of shooting with the 200-500 and D610 in the last year. For BIF, I'm typically at 1/2000, sometimes faster and rarely slower. In anything less than perfect light, the ISO starts to climb and quickly gets into the 1000s, even at f/5.6.

I love the BIF images the D610/200-500 make at ISOs up to about 800/1000. Higher than that and noise starts to become an issue. If cropping is involved, noise quickly becomes an issue. Over time, I've become much more patient and selective about shots worth taking and making.

I've also settled on ISO 2000 as about where my threshold is for acceptable BIF image quality with this combo. I'll shoot as high as ISO 3200, but vary rarely will anything above ISO 2000 be worth the time to process.

So, on paper, a 1/3-stop difference in aperture, ISO or shutter speed isn't that significant. But for me in practice, a 1/3-stop advantage translates to shooting at ISO 1600 vs ISO 2000; ISO 1250 vs ISO 1600, etc. It means that, instead of being at or over my personal threshold of acceptable IQ, I'm just below or comfortably below that threshold.

As much as I enjoy shooting with the 200-500, the experience has given me a renewed appreciation of the value of being at f/4 or faster when shooting fast action. Perhaps not the near future, but I foresee a 500mm f/4 on my wish list at some point in the future.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com
 
Last edited:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes! Rather that sitting around wringing our hands over what might have been, we're just out shooting, having fun making images.
bmw44 said:
I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
This is the beauty of having multiple, good options from which to choose in the consumer, long telephoto zoom segment. You can choose the additional focal length. I can choose a 1/3-stop advantage in light. Others can go with a lens that's lighter weight, dockable or built to perform in rugged conditions.

In the end, each of us gets a product that addresses individual needs. The lens manufacturers get to whet our appetites for exotics. Everybody wins 😃
 
Bernard Waxman said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Old Greenlander said:
GlobalGuy

you made me curious with your statements. Mr. Thom may have his experiences also but I refer " The Digital Picture" data base in such cases

After reading your post, I spent some time and went for 200-500, Tamron 150-600 and Sigma C and S through all the focal lengths from 200 to 500 mm on FX

200-500 was superior to Sigma S at 300 mm and all other settings showed equal or less image quality than the lenses mentioned

Therefore I have my reservations with the results of Mr. Thom and I would stick with "Digital Picture" that has experience and a data base without parallel

Just my 2 cents

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning
Click to expand...
There are many good gear review sites. No single site can be viewed as authoritative. Different testing methodologies. Different levels of expertise. Sample variation. Regardless, they all contribute to the body of knowledge.

To make an informed decision on equipment, it's necessary to form a consensus based on available data points -- the more, the better -- both quantitative and subjective (including users' opinions here).

In fact, I am quite content with 'anonymous' user reviews (particularly where there are dozens or hundreds of user reviews); although it's sometimes necessary to figure out if a negative rating is due to user error, if 99% of people feel a product is good, it probably is. (and there will invariably be some defective units... but hopefully not many. Again, a large sample helps uncover that possibility.)

Anyway, that's how I look at it. YMMV
 
Last edited:
CardBoardBoxProcessor said:
I've often dwelled on the D version but they are old and I worry about it needing repairs. Also lacking VR.
Click to expand...
Unless a D version is available for far less than one of the newer tele-zooms (or unless you REALLY need f/4), why buy a lens with less-advanced coatings, an older optical configuration, more weight, more bulk and no stabilization? How are those going to help you get "the shot"?

Some of the more recently designed lenses seem to perform really well wide open whereas the older designs seemed to need a touch of stopping-down to obtain optimal contrast and sharpness. As a result, the f-stop advantage becomes a moot point except for perhaps a few scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Bill Ferris said:
Kris in CT said:
Bill Ferris said:
CardBoardBoxProcessor said:
Hello, I have the Sigma. it is great and all but pixel peeping I sort of feel that Nikon is sharper. has anyone else made the shift to the nikon?

I've read it is almost as sharp as a 500mm F/4p. I have the P and it is very sharp for 1980's but no AF makes it semi difficult to use.
Click to expand...
Have you considered renting a 200-500 for a weekend and giving it a test drive? I doubt you'll find it substantially sharper than the Sigma 150-600 Sports. However, the significantly lighter weight should make it much more comfortable to carry around for a day. Also, the 1/3-stop advantage in light-gathering will allow you to shoot at lower ISOs.

The constant f/5.6 aperture is the biggest advantage of the 200-500 in comparison to the Tamron and Sigma 150-600s. I don't care how good the optics are, there's no way I'd trade f/5.6 for f/6.3. If anything, the move I'd make is to add a used 500mm f/4D or G version.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have the Sigma 150-600 C and the Nikon 200-500.

I find the Sigma slightly sharper!

I was testing low light results vs Sigma 300mm 2.8 here, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58320600 but they may not be helpful as they are high ISO

I do find the the VR on the Nikon noticeably better than the Sigma.

The small differences in image quality between the lenses will not make a good photo bad, or a bad photo good.

Good luck with your decision.

Graham
 
I had the Sigma 150-600mm C which I found an excellent lens with one major irritation the zoom ring was the reverse of the the standard Nikon direction used in all my other zoom nikkor lenses. I found myself constantly trying to zoom the opposite way to that intended. Drove me round the twist, (pun intended).

I sold it and bought the 200-500 Nikkor. Although I never had both lenses at the same time I'm not convinced that the Sigma had significantly more reach at 600mm.

The Nikon 200-500mm is heavier, somewhere between the Sigma C and S versions, and of wider girth. It's quite a lump to carry around - whilst the Sigma C was (perhaps) more manageable . Of course you have f5.6 all the way through the range and it is a Nikon so that's the compensation.
 
CardBoardBoxProcessor said:
Definitely waiting to see what they've improved
Click to expand...
I have heard that they have improved the quality of the packaging and have included a voucher qualifying it for free postage back to tamron for the inevitable tamron problems.
 
evan47 said:
CardBoardBoxProcessor said:
Definitely waiting to see what they've improved
Click to expand...
I have heard that they have improved the quality of the packaging and have included a voucher qualifying it for free postage back to tamron for the inevitable tamron problems.
Click to expand...
Ok, we get it, you were unhappy with your 2 copies of the Tamron 150-600. Others weren't disgruntled at all. I have tons of great images with it. You are not really contributing to the conversation at hand..
 
Old Greenlander said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
evan47 said:
Old Greenlander said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
GlobalGuyUSA said:
Bernard Waxman said:
Again, I see people trying to justify their decision on lenses. Noting that there is sample variation among lenses, I would guess that there is no practical difference in image quality between an average Nikon 200-500 and the average Sigma 150-600 Sport. Each lens has its pros and cons. I ended up purchasing a Sigma Sport and have to say that I am very pleased with it. Maybe I would have been even happier with the Nikon, I don't know.

I don't mind the extra weight of the Sigma because I mostly use a monopod or tripod with it. And I do like that is is quite a bit more rugged than the Nikon. As far as that 1/3 of a stop goes, I cannot believe that some people claim it more significant than 600mm over 500mm. Neither is all that significant. Well I guess (1/3 stop) 26% is a lot more than 20%. By the way, when I checked my Sigma at 600mm it turns out to actually be about 580mm. I would not be surprised if the Nikon is just shy of 500mm. I also wonder if the actual T-stop difference between the two lenses might not be less than 1/3 stop since the Sigma has a front element that is somewhat large. Of course that is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
  • Question Question
Sigma 500mm F5.6 vs 150-600mm F5-6.3
Replies
9
Views
4K
jjbinx
J
faunagraphy
  • Question Question
Fuji 150-600mm vs Sigma/OM 150-600mm
Replies
6
Views
3K
sherman_levine
sherman_levine
AGK_Photos
Fuji XH2/H2S + 500mm F5.6 or Nikon Z8 + 180-600mm
Replies
14
Views
62K
Superscroll
S
P
Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 Nikon F mount. Advice on an affordable nikon telelens
Replies
10
Views
2K
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson
J
Sony 200-600mm or Sigma 500mm f5.6?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
7K
dcstep
D

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