bought a Sigma 100-400

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

z2122 wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

z2122 wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

z2122 wrote:

.. I understand that the Nikon 100-400 is a very good lens, but for occasional use it is too expensive. So I bought a used Sigma 100-400 for only 600 ,- As far as I have seen the Sigma is sharper @400 than the Nikon 80-400 G.

Do I need the Sigma dock? Are there any problems when the Sigma 100-400 is on a Z6?

I would get a dock regardless. I always did with the Tamrons I had when using the Z's, just in case in the future, if a firmware update (for the lens) came out. You might as well get a dock IMO.

I too was in the same boat (can't really justify the Z 100-400, so I've been looking at alternatives -- haven't made up my mind yet...)

I compared the Tamron and the Sigma 100-400 and found the Sigma is better. 2 years ago I had the Sigma, but sold it to buy the 300pf. At the end I missed the flexibility of the 100-400. IQ wise the Sigma was very close to the 300 pf and compareable to my 70-200 f4.

Do you have other lenses that you consider?

I'm leaning towards the 200-500 F-mount despite it being heavy. It's a proven lens and for the money, a good deal I guess at $1400 USD. I had thought about the Tamron 100-400 again, because literally that would be $800 versus the Z for $2700. I mean the Sigma is probably sharper than the TAmron, but I think (from my tests about 2 years ago) the Tamron would focus faster, so that I found to be a trade-off. Honestly, looking for a suitable 100-400 has been a 2 year process, and is still ongoing honestly. Part of me says to just wait and get the Z next year some time....

the 200-500 is a very good option and you can use it with the 1.4 TC. In the past I had the 150-600 from Tamron and at the end it was too big for me to take it for traveling.

When I tested the 150-600 it wasn't bad, but it felt worse in handling compared to the 200-500 despite the 200-500 being heavier (from a spec's standpoint). In the end, after looking at some comparisons, I sort of ruled out the 150-600 for IQ reasons (and some of the bokeh on Tamron lenses isn't quite as nice as the bokeh found on Nikon lenses). And really when I did compare the 150-600 to the Nikon, I felt the NIkon held up a bit better in most regards despite costing a bit more.

But if someone is on a budget, the Tamrons certainly do offer good quality for the money for a casual wildlife shooter (which is basically what I am).I may shoot wildlife about a handful of times per year, although that may change in the future (this is part of the reason I haven't really pulled the trigger on anything, I keep putting it off since it's something i do maybe 1/10 of the time).

yes, that were also reasons why I sold the Tamron 150-600 and bought a good 100-400.

beside the weight, IQ at 600mm  and bokeh was not convincing...