Cheap reach

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Thanks for the comparison. Is it me or is image #1 the sharpest? That was shot wide open, right? Are all three cars running at similar speeds? Over 100mph, eh? My takeaway is the second and third seem a bit out of focus at 100%, but that may be the speed of vehicle? I'm sure you have these tuned as well as possible? Very helpful thanks.

OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach
1

Tord S Eriksson wrote:

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

This is shot with the latest 70-300FX using a D800 notice the slower shutter speed used to blur motion but still giving relatively sharp shots considering this.

This is shot with a D300

The Tour de Yorkshire with the D500

So I went to a nearby camera shot and grabbed an AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR G for $230 used. I have shot a 104-page book with it and my 24-70, and am glad to have it, but will say the bokeh on the 70-300 isn't up to the same standard as my 24-70 f/2.8 G, and I had thought the length might've given me even a softer look, but I guess the glass just isn't up to the task, given its price.

Technique-wise, I found myself struggling to freeze a golf ball to the point where I could see the dimples, logo, etc. on a moving ball. I have seen some shots at 1/10000th, but have never shot anything at that speed.

Now, I was shooting wide open and with pretty high shutter speeds, but not 1/10000th. Are people bumping up the ISO in broad daylight to shoot that fast?

This one is without a ball, but soft. No real bokeh here. I wish I could see the exif while I'm writing but can't, so am unable to easily determine my settings.

I'm shooting some theatre stuff as well. Here I really want eyes, the actors' eyes. My work is not sharp, and I'm screwing with PS camera shake removal settings, which know is naughty, eh? Like this:

Using monopod, maybe 20-30' away. ISO way up there. Trying that filter is PS which I know is a cheap trick. Beginning to wonder if the one tune is off. I tried stopping down, bumping pn ISO, etc. Actually screwed p and moved quality from RAW to TIFF and blow my card off quick. Nightmare. Happened twice.

I'm seriously considering a used 200-400. I see that thread about the 200-500 vs 200-400. I gotta figure the 200-400 f/4 is better bokeh, sharper wide open. I see a lot on that 80-400 as well. I don't want to blow more coin on cheap glass if it is going to wind up being a waste.

Still, my vote is for the Sigma 100-400 C, the best lens for the money I ever bought. The 80-400G cost nearly four times as much (bought both new), but didn't work for me at all, even after servicing/tuning at Nikon.

I was sniffing at the 100-400, even without the collar as it seems it would be fine. Understand there is some kind of dock required? Needs a lot of tuning? I am such an idiot I worry I'll screw myself up worse! It has been maybe 15+ years since I tried Sigma. Tamaron I tried also, but never liked. It was a super room, cheap (500) so I probably got what I deserved.

Might update my idea of "cheap"... I could drop $2K for a killer long lens/zoom, but that would be my max, and I'd be shining shoes for a few years to pay for it. That's fine.

Hence my sniffing at the 200-400. I don't care about weight as I can use a golf cart. Not hiking like a lot of folks here. In fact, the weight might help me be less shaky.

OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: zoom <===> bokeh , and AF tune

This is the only reason I have mentioned it. I think these used to run over $5K new. Way out of my range. I don't know if that lens is really great, or just the best they had 10-15-20+ years ago, and/or if the newer cheaper zooms are ahead of them, sort of like the AF-P vs AF-S 70-300 redesign, etc.

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

Tord S Eriksson wrote:

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

This is shot with the latest 70-300FX using a D800 notice the slower shutter speed used to blur motion but still giving relatively sharp shots considering this.

This is shot with a D300

The Tour de Yorkshire with the D500

So I went to a nearby camera shot and grabbed an AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR G for $230 used. I have shot a 104-page book with it and my 24-70, and am glad to have it, but will say the bokeh on the 70-300 isn't up to the same standard as my 24-70 f/2.8 G, and I had thought the length might've given me even a softer look, but I guess the glass just isn't up to the task, given its price.

Technique-wise, I found myself struggling to freeze a golf ball to the point where I could see the dimples, logo, etc. on a moving ball. I have seen some shots at 1/10000th, but have never shot anything at that speed.

Now, I was shooting wide open and with pretty high shutter speeds, but not 1/10000th. Are people bumping up the ISO in broad daylight to shoot that fast?

This one is without a ball, but soft. No real bokeh here. I wish I could see the exif while I'm writing but can't, so am unable to easily determine my settings.

I'm shooting some theatre stuff as well. Here I really want eyes, the actors' eyes. My work is not sharp, and I'm screwing with PS camera shake removal settings, which know is naughty, eh? Like this:

Using monopod, maybe 20-30' away. ISO way up there. Trying that filter is PS which I know is a cheap trick. Beginning to wonder if the one tune is off. I tried stopping down, bumping pn ISO, etc. Actually screwed p and moved quality from RAW to TIFF and blow my card off quick. Nightmare. Happened twice.

I'm seriously considering a used 200-400. I see that thread about the 200-500 vs 200-400. I gotta figure the 200-400 f/4 is better bokeh, sharper wide open. I see a lot on that 80-400 as well. I don't want to blow more coin on cheap glass if it is going to wind up being a waste.

Still, my vote is for the Sigma 100-400 C, the best lens for the money I ever bought. The 80-400G cost nearly four times as much (bought both new), but didn't work for me at all, even after servicing/tuning at Nikon.

I was sniffing at the 100-400, even without the collar as it seems it would be fine. Understand there is some kind of dock required? Needs a lot of tuning?

To my surprise, absolutely none! Well, I did use the user settings to control the AF speed, that is all I used the dock for, and I very nearly never use any setting but the basic one.

I am such an idiot I worry I'll screw myself up worse! It has been maybe 15+ years since I tried Sigma. Tamaron I tried also, but never liked. It was a super room, cheap (500) so I probably got what I deserved.

I had some less than brilliant experience with Sigma in those days (my Tamrons were OK, though). So I would not buy a Sigma 150-500 again — the 150-600 S is, on the other hand, one of the best of its time (the newer 60-600 S is said to be even better).

Might update my idea of "cheap"... I could drop $2K for a killer long lens/zoom, but that would be my max, and I'd be shining shoes for a few years to pay for it. That's fine.

Hence my sniffing at the 200-400. I don't care about weight as I can use a golf cart. Not hiking like a lot of folks here. In fact, the weight might help me be less shaky.

Then if weight is a minor issue, go look for a used Sigma 150-600 Sports!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

Then if weight is a minor issue, go look for a used Sigma 150-600 Sports!

I actually see one for sale in the NYC area. One thing: I am shooing people playing holes, but also golf course landscapes. I failed to mention that when I cited the dimples. You think the Sigma is good for support and warranty work, etc.? Read mixed reviews on them. Nikon I feel safer with.

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

Then if weight is a minor issue, go look for a used Sigma 150-600 Sports!

I actually see one for sale in the NYC area. One thing: I am shooing people playing holes, but also golf course landscapes. I failed to mention that when I cited the dimples. You think the Sigma is good for support and warranty work, etc.? Read mixed reviews on them. Nikon I feel safer with.

Superb support, as far as I'm concerned. Just had an issue, once, and that was fixed in no time (just half an hour after we'd dropped it off they called and said that it was fixed, as no parts had to be sent in from Japan, to their surprise)!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

The VR/OS/OIS/IS (whatever) in the Sigma is not on par with the 200-500, but the rest is more pro in every way. faster focusing, water/dust resistant, rugged.

A replacement tripod foot is recommended unless you use a monopod or handheld.

It is too low to use as a handle to carry it around with, and a tiny bit too short as well, unless you use heavier cameras, like the D5.

I just added a long rail to the original foot, which made it easier to balance and gave room for my hand to carry it around. Very kludgey, but works real well!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

I Tord S Eriksson wrote:

olindacat wrote:

Then if weight is a minor issue, go look for a used Sigma 150-600 Sports!

I actually see one for sale in the NYC area. One thing: I am shooing people playing holes, but also golf course landscapes. I failed to mention that when I cited the dimples. You think the Sigma is good for support and warranty work, etc.? Read mixed reviews on them. Nikon I feel safer with.

Superb support, as far as I'm concerned. Just had an issue, once, and that was fixed in no time (just half an hour after we'd dropped it off they called and said that it was fixed, as no parts had to be sent in from Japan, to their surprise)!

Nice to know. Hmm. Not cheap. 1200. Puts me 60% of the way to the 200-400 f/4. I read that lens not always sharp open at 400. Build great, heavy and oblong. Will see each in person thanks for the great help all!

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

I Tord S Eriksson wrote:

olindacat wrote:

Then if weight is a minor issue, go look for a used Sigma 150-600 Sports!

I actually see one for sale in the NYC area. One thing: I am shooing people playing holes, but also golf course landscapes. I failed to mention that when I cited the dimples. You think the Sigma is good for support and warranty work, etc.? Read mixed reviews on them. Nikon I feel safer with.

Superb support, as far as I'm concerned. Just had an issue, once, and that was fixed in no time (just half an hour after we'd dropped it off they called and said that it was fixed, as no parts had to be sent in from Japan, to their surprise)!

Nice to know. Hmm. Not cheap. 1200. Puts me 60% of the way to the 200-400 f/4. I read that lens not always sharp open at 400. Build great, heavy and oblong. Will see each in person thanks for the great help all!

Up to 550mm absolutely spot on, and sharp. Slightly softer the last 50mm, perhaps.

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 3,991
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Thanks for the comparison. Is it me or is image #1 the sharpest? That was shot wide open, right? Are all three cars running at similar speeds? Over 100mph, eh? My takeaway is the second and third seem a bit out of focus at 100%, but that may be the speed of vehicle? I'm sure you have these tuned as well as possible? Very helpful thanks.

I think you will find that No1 is the least sharp despite being shot at 1/2500 sec when the other 2 are shot at a much slower speed, 1/320sec and 1/400sec, I shoot at slower speeds to give the impression of motion and the images are not always sharp due to the panning movement changing focus from front to rear as a car turns.

This is shot at a much higher shutter speed.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Olympus E-PL8 Olympus E-M1 II +10 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

cosmicnode wrote:

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Thanks for the comparison. Is it me or is image #1 the sharpest? That was shot wide open, right? Are all three cars running at similar speeds? Over 100mph, eh? My takeaway is the second and third seem a bit out of focus at 100%, but that may be the speed of vehicle? I'm sure you have these tuned as well as possible? Very helpful thanks.

I think you will find that No1 is the least sharp despite being shot at 1/2500 sec when the other 2 are shot at a much slower speed, 1/320sec and 1/400sec, I shoot at slower speeds to give the impression of motion and the images are not always sharp due to the panning movement changing focus from front to rear as a car turns.

This is shot at a much higher shutter speed.

Just love them!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

cosmicnode wrote:

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Thanks for the comparison. Is it me or is image #1 the sharpest? That was shot wide open, right? Are all three cars running at similar speeds? Over 100mph, eh? My takeaway is the second and third seem a bit out of focus at 100%, but that may be the speed of vehicle? I'm sure you have these tuned as well as possible? Very helpful thanks.

I think you will find that No1 is the least sharp despite being shot at 1/2500 sec when the other 2 are shot at a much slower speed, 1/320sec and 1/400sec, I shoot at slower speeds to give the impression of motion and the images are not always sharp due to the panning movement changing focus from front to rear as a car turns.

This is shot at a much higher shutter speed.

All killer shots! I was just using the loupe, which I've never seen on this site. I see a lot of 200-500 threads in this section, so am learning more about it. I'm guessing you like the 200-500 the best? Did you change out your hood or collar? Any zoom or QC issues?

cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 3,991
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Thanks for the comparison. Is it me or is image #1 the sharpest? That was shot wide open, right? Are all three cars running at similar speeds? Over 100mph, eh? My takeaway is the second and third seem a bit out of focus at 100%, but that may be the speed of vehicle? I'm sure you have these tuned as well as possible? Very helpful thanks.

I think you will find that No1 is the least sharp despite being shot at 1/2500 sec when the other 2 are shot at a much slower speed, 1/320sec and 1/400sec, I shoot at slower speeds to give the impression of motion and the images are not always sharp due to the panning movement changing focus from front to rear as a car turns.

This is shot at a much higher shutter speed.

All killer shots! I was just using the loupe, which I've never seen on this site. I see a lot of 200-500 threads in this section, so am learning more about it. I'm guessing you like the 200-500 the best? Did you change out your hood or collar? Any zoom or QC issues?

I have a IShoot collar for the arca swiss foot and I am getting a metal lens hood. Never had a problem in the 3 years I have owned it , It works as it did when new.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Olympus E-PL8 Olympus E-M1 II +10 more
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Mike, did you ever consider the newer 80-400, or is it weak on the long end? I have not bought anything since I screwed up and got the older 70-300, after being warned! (Needed something faster than even eBay could deliver, unfortunately.) The 300FL on the AF-P (that is the one you own, right?), are you using this on any DX bodies? Just curious if the IQ/sharpness is great on the long end?

My definition of 'cheap' has clearly been all over the map here, I know.

The 200-500 seems to be the value solution for only long reach, as well as the Siggy sport. The 80-400 or 70-300FL removes the need to get a 70-200FL solution, so compliments the existing 24-70 in the bag. I will sell the older 70-300 and either get the P version, or step up to the newer 80-400, but am still trying to read through all of the threads here on it.

You have obviously tried just about everything! Thanks a lot for your input and help.

OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: zoom <===> bokeh , and AF tune

Bernard Delley wrote:

DX!

Bernard: do you mean the added reach over and above the 400 with the DX? Is it really sharp at its native 400FL on FX?  Have you ever tried the 70-300 AF-P? Is yours the G version, or the original? Thanks for the input.

cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 3,991
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Mike, did you ever consider the newer 80-400, or is it weak on the long end? I have not bought anything since I screwed up and got the older 70-300, after being warned! (Needed something faster than even eBay could deliver, unfortunately.) The 300FL on the AF-P (that is the one you own, right?), are you using this on any DX bodies? Just curious if the IQ/sharpness is great on the long end?

I chose the 200-500 over the 80-400 purely for the long end, and the 200-500 I have is a very sharp lens. I use the 70-300 on my D500 again it's sharp

here is a shot taken at 300mm on the D500 DX, view at 100% and look at the writing on the front of the Honda, also you will see it's shot at 1/125 sec which is also a indication on how effective the VR is.

I sold my 70-200 F2.8 after using this 70-300 P FX It's also considerably lighter.

My definition of 'cheap' has clearly been all over the map here, I know.

The 200-500 seems to be the value solution for only long reach, as well as the Siggy sport. The 80-400 or 70-300FL removes the need to get a 70-200FL solution, so compliments the existing 24-70 in the bag. I will sell the older 70-300 and either get the P version, or step up to the newer 80-400, but am still trying to read through all of the threads here on it.

Unless you need the 400 reach the newest 70-300 is a superb choice.

Look at how sharp it is on a D500 at 175mm Remember these are hand held at slow shutter speeds

You have obviously tried just about everything! Thanks a lot for your input and help.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Olympus E-PL8 Olympus E-M1 II +10 more
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

cosmicnode wrote:

here is a shot taken at 300mm on the D500 DX, view at 100% and look at the writing on the front of the Honda, also you will see it's shot at 1/125 sec which is also a indication on how effective the VR is.

This shot below is veery helpful, and ya I can read the domain name on the bottom of the mirror easily, and discern the "D" in the smallest Dunlop graphic/icon. Pretty killer.

I sold my 70-200 F2.8 after using this 70-300 P FX It's also considerably lighter.

Well, I've read others saying they were mating their 80-400s with the 24-70s, but not the 70-300P. So, very informative.

Look at how sharp it is on a D500 at 175mm Remember these are hand held at slow shutter speeds

I'm going to look at maybe getting both. The 400+mm reach is very helpful if I can shoot from afar and then crop in on their eyes, faces, and get some animals like hawks (BIF), rabbits, whatever. Also, most golfers (myself included) go to pieces when a marshall or beverage cart girl drives up, let alone some dude with a camera. If I can be farther away it helps, but even then, I'm pretty much right there on them or I can't get their eyes as well.

Thanks for telling me to look more closely. I'm appreciative of your patience. I should know better but can never stop learning

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

3 photo's, 3 lenses, 200-400, 70-300 and 200-500. the 200-400 is now sold. too big and heavy. with only the advantage of the faster aperture.

Mike, did you ever consider the newer 80-400, or is it weak on the long end? I have not bought anything since I screwed up and got the older 70-300, after being warned! (Needed something faster than even eBay could deliver, unfortunately.) The 300FL on the AF-P (that is the one you own, right?), are you using this on any DX bodies? Just curious if the IQ/sharpness is great on the long end?

My definition of 'cheap' has clearly been all over the map here, I know.

The 200-500 seems to be the value solution for only long reach, as well as the Siggy sport. The 80-400 or 70-300FL removes the need to get a 70-200FL solution, so compliments the existing 24-70 in the bag. I will sell the older 70-300 and either get the P version, or step up to the newer 80-400, but am still trying to read through all of the threads here on it.

You have obviously tried just about everything! Thanks a lot for your input and help.

I had the newer 80-400G for quite a while, but at times it went nuts, sounding like a heavy machine gun trying in vain to find focus. Sent it to Nikon and they did not find anything the matter with it, and it came back exactly the same.

No other lens I've owned have behaved like that.

Might be a little soft in the long end, as many zooms are, but for me exchanging it for a 70-200/4.0G and a Sigma 150/600 S was a gigantic step up in image quality!

In many ways, the new Sigma 60-600 S seems to have hit all the right buttons, compared to those two.

It is lighter than the 150-600 S, it is cheaper than the two lenses mentioned above (together), it can be used for close-ups, it is really sharp in the long end, and it is more modern in many ways (less front-heavy than the 150/600 S), better OS, better AF, and so on.

As a used 150-600 S and the 70-200/4.0G, will not fetch that much I will have to wait till there are used 60-600 S on the market, before I switch gear yet again!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Olympus, 1 Ricoh, and a handful of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 415
Re: Cheap reach

Tord S Eriksson wrote:

I had the newer 80-400G for quite a while, but at times it went nuts, sounding like a heavy machine gun trying in vain to find focus. Sent it to Nikon and they did not find anything the matter with it, and it came back exactly the same.

No other lens I've owned have behaved like that.

Hi Tord!

Thanks for ringing in about the 80-400, and the Siggys. By the way, your horse fly shot is amazing!

I was reading about the Sigma 60-600 S, and saw the clip here at B&H. Results looked good, but wow that thing really sticks out far when zoomed! It is built well, eh?

I noticed you have tried a lot of different things. Well done!

Those bumble bee and little birds, one in, the others OOF are killer.

Looked at the 150-600 Ss on eBay. Not too high. These are part of their ART line aren't they?

Might be a little soft in the long end, as many zooms are, but for me exchanging it for a 70-200/4.0G and a Sigma 150/600 S was a gigantic step up in image quality!

In many ways, the new Sigma 60-600 S seems to have hit all the right buttons, compared to those two.

It is lighter than the 150-600 S, it is cheaper than the two lenses mentioned above (together), it can be used for close-ups, it is really sharp in the long end, and it is more modern in many ways (less front-heavy than the 150/600 S), better OS, better AF, and so on.

As a used 150-600 S and the 70-200/4.0G, will not fetch that much I will have to wait till there are used 60-600 S on the market, before I switch gear yet again!

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,812
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

Tord S Eriksson wrote:

I had the newer 80-400G for quite a while, but at times it went nuts, sounding like a heavy machine gun trying in vain to find focus. Sent it to Nikon and they did not find anything the matter with it, and it came back exactly the same.

No other lens I've owned have behaved like that.

Hi Tord!

Thanks for ringing in about the 80-400, and the Siggys. By the way, your horse fly shot is amazing!

I was reading about the Sigma 60-600 S, and saw the clip here at B&H. Results looked good, but wow that thing really sticks out far when zoomed! It is built well, eh?

I noticed you have tried a lot of different things. Well done!

Those bumble bee and little birds, one in, the others OOF are killer.

Looked at the 150-600 Ss on eBay. Not too high. These are part of their ART line aren't they?

It predates the Art line by quite a bit and is rightly called Sports, referring to its sharpness, ruggedness, and amazingly fast focus (a little over one-second focusing speed from infinity and back via minimum focusing distance.

Not that many lenses in that group: the above, the 120-300, and the 60-600.

Someone here in the forums has his 150-600 S in his truck, on the floor, under a piece of canvas, and he sends it off for cleaning, once in a while, with never a single issue. Says a lot about that lens.

Might be a little soft in the long end, as many zooms are, but for me exchanging it for a 70-200/4.0G and a Sigma 150/600 S was a gigantic step up in image quality!

In many ways, the new Sigma 60-600 S seems to have hit all the right buttons, compared to those two.

It is lighter than the 150-600 S, it is cheaper than the two lenses mentioned above (together), it can be used for close-ups, it is really sharp in the long end, and it is more modern in many ways (less front-heavy than the 150/600 S), better OS, better AF, and so on.

As a used 150-600 S and the 70-200/4.0G, will not fetch that much I will have to wait till there are used 60-600 S on the market, before I switch gear yet again!

All the best,

Tord

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Olympus, 1 Ricoh, and a handful of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads