morris wrote:
Two beauties Geoff. I see these are with the Nikon 200-500mm. Did you trade in your Sigma 150-600 C? Which do you like better?
Morris
Thanks Morris. I only had my Sigma C for Canon mount. I owned it for about 5 months and then sold it because I liked using the Canon 100-400II (+/-TC) better and thought it a bit redundant.
So I never compared it directly to the Nikon 200-500 and never used it on a Nikon body. My biggest frustration with the Sigma was the OS that wouldn't produce a stable VF image even after I customized it with the dock. It was decent but not what I was used to with my Canon lenses. The Nikon 200-500 produces a rock solid VF image so I know if the Sigma was the same on Nikon as Canon I would prefer the Nikon 200-500 over it. IQ is pretty similar. I can't compare AF as it is probably different on Nikon vs Canon bodies.
I love the 200-500 and so far it is the only Nikon lens I own. I have used the 300/2.8 for a short while but never used any other Nikon lenses.
kdacharya wrote:
I would be in heaven just to shoot is bird, to get it in Flight is amazing
Thanks KD. I had the yellow-shafted variety in the Yukon for 9 years and never got a great flight shot. There are so many more of them down on the island that I've been able to get a lot more chances with them. They are a very skittish bird so usually you get butt in flight shots
---------------------------------------------
surfnron wrote:
Good shootin' Geoff ~ Ron
Thanks Ron
---------------------------------------------
pinball wrote:
Sweet set
Thanks
---------------------------------------------
Tom In Arizona wrote:
Hi Geoff...
Two really beautiful photographs. Nicely composed, exposed and processed.
Thanks
Tom
Thanks Tom
---------------------------------------------
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks Morris. I only had my Sigma C for Canon mount. I owned it for about 5 months and then sold it because I liked using the Canon 100-400II (+/-TC) better and thought it a bit redundant.
So I never compared it directly to the Nikon 200-500 and never used it on a Nikon body. My biggest frustration with the Sigma was the OS that wouldn't produce a stable VF image even after I customized it with the dock. It was decent but not what I was used to with my Canon lenses. The Nikon 200-500 produces a rock solid VF image so I know if the Sigma was the same on Nikon as Canon I would prefer the Nikon 200-500 over it. IQ is pretty similar. I can't compare AF as it is probably different on Nikon vs Canon bodies.
I love the 200-500 and so far it is the only Nikon lens I own. I have used the 300/2.8 for a short while but never used any other Nikon lenses....Show more →
I did not notice any viewfinder shake when I tried the 150-600 C on my D300s about a year ago. I wonder if others have experienced the same.
louie champan wrote:
Killer shots with such nice creamy backgrounds, super work Geoff. I got to say you sure can make that combo D500 & 200-500mm sing for you.
Thanks Louie. I've been doing a lot of shooting with the Nikon combo and it is fast becoming my most used gear.
morris wrote:
I did not notice any viewfinder shake when I tried the 150-600 C on my D300s about a year ago. I wonder if others have experienced the same.
There has been discussion on this and other forums about the VF stability. I've read about it on both Nikon and Canon. For some people it doesn't even bother them or they don't even notice it. For others it is more noticeable and/or problematic. It is nothing like a jumpy VF like old IS/VR systems but just a bit of minor movement to the image.
With the Sigma dock you can change the OS mode to what Sigma says maximizes VF stability but may sacrifice the actual maximum effectiveness of the OS. This mode helped but didn't get it to native Canon/Nikon IS/VR levels of VF stability.
I have read that on some newer Sigma lenses like the 500/4 that the stable OS setting does now create a rock solid VF image.
