200-500 = lighter, smaller, fixed f5.6. 150-600 = bigger, heavier, weather sealed.
Had both, sold the 150-600 as it didn't measure up to the 200-500 IMHO though I know others will disagree. People talk about dust when in Africa but on 3 safaris I never had a problem and changed lenses frequently. YMMV
Several threads on this already if you want to do a search.
200-500:
Cheaper
Sharper (particularly at the edges which won't matter as much for the D7000)
Much better stabilization
F5.6 constant
Lighter
Smaller
Basic sealing (front & rear gaskets)
Sharpest wide open
150-600:
Faster AF
Bigger
Heavier
More expensive
50mm more on the wide end
100mm more on the tele end
Completely weather sealed
Slower (F6.3)
After much research I went with the 200-500 and do not regret my decision. Also I think the F5.6 constant is a big plus, especially given it's performance a F5.6. The VR is also incredible - I suspect the best on any Nikon lens at the moment.
With sharpness, I've heard various arguments for both lenses. I don't think you can go wrong with either.
AF might be a factor - the Sigma has faster AF, and can be further improved if you tune it with the Sigma dock. If you were using it with a D500 or D5, the 200-500 would probably be closer, but with a D800 and D7000 I think you'll find the 150-600 to have better AF speed. Accuracy I'm not sure of. With that said, I'm using the 200-500 on a D610, and for most subjects it's perfectly fine. Just not fast enough for small birds in flight or other extremely fast subjects.
With a trip to Kruger, the extra focal range of the Sigma will be handy, and if you're shooting from a jeep and using a sandbag or something for support the weight shouldn't be an issue. But the size and weight could be an issue for the airlines - make sure that you'll be able to take it on all the planes. A big lens, a camera, and all your personal items can quickly add up. Of course, if you need an extra lens to supplement the 200-500 because of it's smaller focal range, that would also affect the weight. So just consider all those variables and figure out what the travel limitations are.
If weight isn't an issue and you aren't bringing a 70-200, I'd go for the 150-600 for that extra 50mm on the wide end. If you are bringing a 70-200, either one would work - the extra focal range of the 150-600 would still be nice, but the portability of the 200-500 might be appreciated on a long trip too, especially with two bodies and and 70-200.
I suggest reading Brad Hill's blog. He chose the Sigma 150-600 Sport over the Nikon 200-500 for several reasons including (and my thoughts after owning both echo his observations)...
-The Sigma needing to be stopped down LESS than the Nikon to reach maximum sharpness (in his opinion, this negates the 1/3 stop advantage of the Nikon wide open)
-Much faster AF
-Weather sealing
-USB dock with the ability to make fine tune adjustments and firmware updates
I don't think you can go wrong with either one, but if weight is an issue, the Nikon is probably your best bet. If weight is not an issue, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Sigma for the better performance.
AvianScott wrote:
I suggest reading Brad Hill's blog. He chose the Sigma 150-600 Sport over the Nikon 200-500 for several reasons including (and my thoughts after owning both echo his observations)...
-The Sigma needing to be stopped down LESS than the Nikon to reach maximum sharpness (in his opinion, this negates the 1/3 stop advantage of the Nikon wide open)
-Much faster AF
-Weather sealing
-USB dock with the ability to make fine tune adjustments and firmware updates
I don't think you can go wrong with either one, but if weight is an issue, the Nikon is probably your best bet. If weight is not an issue, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Sigma for the better performance....Show more →
There is some sample variation with the 200-500. I went through three copies, but with the one I have now, stopping down makes little to no difference in sharpness. My 200-500 is tack sharp wide open, very nearly the same sharpness at 300mm as the 300 PF. Just an observation
You shouldn't have to really fine tune any lens in my opinion - if you need to fine tune it, I would just exchange it for a new one, especially with how many combinations these super zooms have. You're paying for one that works perfectly (within the tolerances of the AF system) out of the box at all combinations of focal length and subject distance barring any issues with your camera body. Also fine tuning 16 combinations on the Sigma 150-600, and checking all other combinations again each time you make an adjustment is not something to take lightly and not something everyone wants to do.
The 200-500 is sharpest wide open at F5.6, which is a big reason why I chose it over the Sigma. A good copy of the 200-500 is so sharp and the bokeh is so good I would challenge anyone to reliably tell the difference between it and much more expensive lenses under identical scenarios. I don't see any difference in sharpness at all between F5.6 and F8, if anything it's slightly worse at F8.
I also think with ALL of these super zooms there is above average sample variation, so anyone who has only tested one copy of each could sway one way or the other when scrutinizing sharpness.
You may not have to fine tune a lens, but imo, to get the very maximum out of them it helps. Even within factory tolerance.
I'm not sure what you mean fine tuning 16 combinations - checking when you make an adjustment. What kind of adjustment? It is a pta, I will give you that.
There is sample variation in the Sigma too - I got a really really bad one. Waiting for the replacement now.
I agree re. the testing - anyone testing just one lens, who knows what they have.
I like the ability of the Sigma to do that much tuning. More reports than not say it is the sharpest of the super zooms. I like the weather sealing. Supposedly it has the faster AF - I did find the 200-500 a bit sluggish. It is apparently quicker on the D500 though. Also, the push/pull zoom of the Sigma is really nice, especially as compared to the 200-500 which I have heard to do a lot of zooming you have to move your hand once.
Waiting to see if all of this lives up to reality, if a sharp copy of the Sigma arrives for me.
On those bodies the 200-500 will be limited to shooting static or slow-moving animals. But it turns into a decent action performer on a D500 or D5. Don't waste your time with third-party lenses.
While I generally prefer Nikon lenses, not all third party lenses are a waste. Sigma has come out with some decent ones lately - their art series for example.
I'd prefer a Nikon prime, but at the moment, my wallet doesn't agree.
There is some sample variation with the 200-500. I went through three copies,
Too bad Nikon doesn't have a dock to adjust the lens and fine tune it. Then you wouldn't have to go thru all the hassle of buying an returning lenses to find a sharp copy. This is just one area where the Sigma lens excels. Another is the robust build of the Sigma compared the the plastic of the Nikon. If one of them accidentally fell to the ground, I'll bet the Sigma would survive.
TAM63 wrote:
You may not have to fine tune a lens, but imo, to get the very maximum out of them it helps. Even within factory tolerance.
I'm not sure what you mean fine tuning 16 combinations - checking when you make an adjustment. What kind of adjustment? It is a pta, I will give you that.
There is sample variation in the Sigma too - I got a really really bad one. Waiting for the replacement now.
I agree re. the testing - anyone testing just one lens, who knows what they have.
I like the ability of the Sigma to do that much tuning. More reports than not say it is the sharpest of the super zooms. I like the weather sealing. Supposedly it has the faster AF - I did find the 200-500 a bit sluggish. It is apparently quicker on the D500 though. Also, the push/pull zoom of the Sigma is really nice, especially as compared to the 200-500 which I have heard to do a lot of zooming you have to move your hand once.
Waiting to see if all of this lives up to reality, if a sharp copy of the Sigma arrives for me. ...Show more →
I respectfully disagree about AFFT, at least in the notion that it is required to get the maximum out of a lens. Every single lens I own is made obviously worse by AFFT adjustments (i.e. PDAF no longer matches CDAF at all tested combinations of subject distance and focal length when an AFFT value is entered). Entering any AFFT value quite often makes the lens worse elsewhere, even if you manage a tiny improvement at one specific combination. Nikon's literature specifically cautions this as well. The tolerance of the modern AF systems is likely around 1 or 2 points of AFFT, so there will always be minute variations when you defocus and re-focus on a subject any number of times, and I think some people go nuts over AFFT values at such a fine level. The lens itself will also have a certain tolerance within its own moving parts.
To my knowledge, the Sigma dock requires you to run the lens through 16 different combinations of subject distance and focal length (4 distance points and 4 focal length points) when doing the 'tune' on the 150-600. One could even argue on a lens with that much zoom range, 16 isn't enough if you need to correct an issue. Due to the nature of AFFT, if you want to do a very thorough job, you should also check that other combinations have not been disrupted after you change something, and it can get extremely tedious and time consuming when you could have just exchanged it and got a 'proper' copy. It's a great accessory, no doubt, but I would *much* rather not have to use it at all, and I think in the future it could be vastly improved by automating the process.
Most people just buy one copy of a lens and are happy with it, because not only are most lenses not defective, but they have nothing else to compare it to - which is totally reasonable. In my experience it is far, far, less time consuming and much less stressful to simply exchange a lens that isn't perfect out of the box for what you should have got in the first place.
Christian H wrote:
On those bodies the 200-500 will be limited to shooting static or slow-moving animals. But it turns into a decent action performer on a D500 or D5. Don't waste your time with third-party lenses.
Christian
While not one of the bodies in question, the 200-500 has no problems with action or even with BIF on my D810 and I imagine the D800 wouldn't be too different other than the 4 FPS limitation. The D5/D500 have some pretty incredible AF though, and I don't doubt they make the 200-500 shine even more (as many members here have shown as well). It's not the fastest focusing lens in the world, but it isn't slow and it's fast enough for the large majority of subjects. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's only useful for slow or stationary subjects on a body like the D800. No matter what lens you buy, it's not going to perform it's best on a legacy body, and will probably be at it's best on a D5/D500.
Robert E wrote: There is some sample variation with the 200-500. I went through three copies,
Too bad Nikon doesn't have a dock to adjust the lens and fine tune it. Then you wouldn't have to go thru all the hassle of buying an returning lenses to find a sharp copy. This is just one area where the Sigma lens excels. Another is the robust build of the Sigma compared the the plastic of the Nikon. If one of them accidentally fell to the ground, I'll bet the Sigma would survive.
Some people (at least based on what I have read on forums) have gone through bad copies of the 150-600, and used the dock only to waste an enormous amount of time before realizing they simply got a bad copy. It's not a guaranteed solution, but it's nice to have as an option. Even in this thread you have mentions of bad Sigma copies. Dock or no dock I would be exchanging it if it wasn't perfect out of the box, personally. Another huge disadvantage of the "band aid" dock/AFFT solution is it only works for one lens/body combination, and a lot of people have more than one body (or regularly buy new bodies). That is a heck of a lot of hassle compared to just getting a lens that works as it should from the get-go. People with multiple bodies tend to just forego the dock and use normal AFFT, at which point you're back at square one and should have probably exchanged the lens.
Also I would put my money on a lighter, plastic lens surviving a fall better than a metal one, but I don't think either lens would like it Plastic tends to have some "give" where the metal might crack or dent (obviously both have their limits). Nikon has switched to carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic (similar to materials used in F1 cars) for more structural parts even on their pro bodies for exactly this reason.
The build quality of the Sigma is excellent, but with it comes a significant size and weight disadvantage as well, so while it can certainly be a selling point, it isn't an automatic advantage for everyone.
I have had 2 of the 200-500's. The thought the first was sharp and OK, but the second is absolutely better. I bought this lens on a special deal and was not really shopping for another, but I am real pleased I bought it. Sharp fully open.
Makes a person consider this; buy one, send it straight away to Nikon and complain of sharpness issue. It will come back smack on the money, (or buy refurbish directly form Nikon).
CanadaMark wrote:
While not one of the bodies in question, the 200-500 has no problems with action or even with BIF on my D810 and I imagine the D800 wouldn't be too different other than the 4 FPS limitation. The D5/D500 have some pretty incredible AF though, and I don't doubt they make the 200-500 shine even more (as many members here have shown as well). It's not the fastest focusing lens in the world, but it isn't slow and it's fast enough for the large majority of subjects. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's only useful for slow or stationary subjects on a body like the D800. No matter what lens you buy, it's not going to perform it's best on a legacy body, and will probably be at it's best on a D5/D500....Show more →
The AF speed and accuracy difference is light night and day :-)
CanadaMark wrote:
I respectfully disagree about AFFT, at least in the notion that it is required to get the maximum out of a lens. Every single lens I own is made obviously worse by AFFT adjustments (i.e. PDAF no longer matches CDAF at all tested combinations of subject distance and focal length when an AFFT value is entered). Entering any AFFT value quite often makes the lens worse elsewhere, even if you manage a tiny improvement at one specific combination. Nikon's literature specifically cautions this as well. The tolerance of the modern AF systems is likely around 1 or 2 points of AFFT, so there will always be minute variations when you defocus and re-focus on a subject any number of times, and I think some people go nuts over AFFT values at such a fine level. The lens itself will also have a certain tolerance within its own moving parts.
To my knowledge, the Sigma dock requires you to run the lens through 16 different combinations of subject distance and focal length (4 distance points and 4 focal length points) when doing the 'tune' on the 150-600. One could even argue on a lens with that much zoom range, 16 isn't enough if you need to correct an issue. Due to the nature of AFFT, if you want to do a very thorough job, you should also check that other combinations have not been disrupted after you change something, and it can get extremely tedious and time consuming when you could have just exchanged it and got a 'proper' copy. It's a great accessory, no doubt, but I would *much* rather not have to use it at all, and I think in the future it could be vastly improved by automating the process.
Most people just buy one copy of a lens and are happy with it, because not only are most lenses not defective, but they have nothing else to compare it to - which is totally reasonable. In my experience it is far, far, less time consuming and much less stressful to simply exchange a lens that isn't perfect out of the box for what you should have got in the first place....Show more →
I guess we will have to agree to disagree re. fine tuning. Nikon put it into the bodies for a reason. I have a few lenses that didn't seem to need any, and a few that did. If I was way at the outside edges of the range, then I would not be pleased.
The dock and multiple fine tuning values with the Sigma are not intended to "correct an issue" - they are intended to optimize the lens under a variety of conditions. Changing one value does not disrupt any others, so you would not have to recheck or anything like that. Nikon tried to automate the process (one focal length only though) with the D5/D500, but reports say it does not work terribly well.
Depending upon how one is shooting, fine tuning might not be necessary. But any time you don't have a lot of depth of field, it gets more critical, and fine tuning may not be 'necessary' but might still improve results. I guess it might also depend upon how picky you are.
Christian H wrote:
The AF speed and accuracy difference is light night and day :-)
That's what I heard. On my D810, AF on the 200-500 didn't seem real fast. I'm used to a prime though, or lenses like the 70-200 f/s.8. We'll see how fast I think the Sigma focuses. Haha since my first copy basically didn't, I didn't get a feel for that yet.
