Fboss wrote:
Does the Sigma cropped at 600mm give about the same sharpness as the 200-600 at 600mm ? The idea of using a great tele for BIF that only weights 3 lbs is tempting.
I have not performed the direct comparison, but would guess that the sharpness would be comparable, if not better.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I just scrolled up and back in this thread.
Am I the only one who took the Sigma bait?
Sure looks like so.
I read about Laslo keeping the A1+200600 and adding a Z8+600PF. I think that is a very clever approach.We still have a 200-600. The wife is using it on the A7IVa. I need a 200-600ii that is a pound lighter! Don't laugh, Sony could do it if they really wanted to.
I don’t think I was clever, but thank you. I purchased the Z8 and 600pf about a month before th Sigma was announced a there was no other alternative in the Sony mount. I Sigma would have been available sooner, I just would have bought it and along with me existing 200-600 there would have been no temptation to Al’s buy the Nikon. With that said, I’m also pleased with Nikon and will shoot it along with Sony. The Megadap converter works well with Nikon by the way.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
I don’t think I was clever, but thank you. I purchased the Z8 and 600pf about a month before th Sigma was announced a there was no other alternative in the Sony mount. I Sigma would have been available sooner, I just would have bought it and along with me existing 200-600 there would have been no temptation to Al’s buy the Nikon. With that said, I’m also pleased with Nikon and will shoot it along with Sony. The Megadap converter works well with Nikon by the way.
Laslo we still have a 200-600 here. Wife is still capable of carrying it so it will be here for a while.
I still think the 200-600 is the best overall wildlife zoom ever made (to date). Ours accepts a 1.4
easily with good output. But you know my story, weight, and now I'm shooting 500mm (or 750 in cropper mode)
I'm slowly building a collection that I can compare with what I got with the 200-600mm.
No surprise that with the 200-600 95% were at 600, the remainder with the 1.4 attached.
One (me) would think that the 'zoom advantage' would have given many more keepers. Not the case for me.
I guess this justifies the 500mm for me only because of the size and weight advantage/grab and go.
I feel the same way about the OMs M1ii I added recently. With the Oly 300/4 I can still grab and go and actually
covers some ground (3-5 mile walks) without utter distress.
Using pro-capture I'm getting images that would require a lot of luck with the Sony kit I have so I'm really having
fun with the OMs kit. My heart keeps looking at the Oly 150-400, but my mind reminds me that it weighs as much
as the 200-600 (well they are close in weight).
If better, slightly so, my comparison.
But speed of acquisition (me getting on the bird) with the lighter
500 is way way better....well as it should be...and being able to do it
for a long time without fatigue.
I think most of us know just how good the 200-600 is; that we can compare
the Sig500 says a lot.
Quick question: Are you saying that the Sigma 500 focuses faster than the 200-600, or just that b/c it is lighter you are able to move it quicker to acquire the subject? Curious if it has better AF than the 200-600. Thanks!
I've never done a slo-mo video.
Recently I put out 8000 dichondra repens seeds.
Next day a ton of American Goldfinch arrived for the feat/at least
40 of them.
So thought I'd try my hand at slow-mo with the A1 and Sigma.
Lot's to learn and a tripod would have been nice.
Tried to embed video but looks like Fred has that blocked.
Here's the Flickr link; I'd watch it only if you are bored out of your mind https://www.flickr.com/photos/medicineman4040/53707887483/in/dateposted/
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Laslo we still have a 200-600 here. Wife is still capable of carrying it so it will be here for a while.
I still think the 200-600 is the best overall wildlife zoom ever made (to date). Ours accepts a 1.4
easily with good output. But you know my story, weight, and now I'm shooting 500mm (or 750 in cropper mode)
I'm slowly building a collection that I can compare with what I got with the 200-600mm.
No surprise that with the 200-600 95% were at 600, the remainder with the 1.4 attached.
One (me) would think that the 'zoom advantage' would have given many more keepers. Not the case for me.
I guess this justifies the 500mm for me only because of the size and weight advantage/grab and go.
I feel the same way about the OMs M1ii I added recently. With the Oly 300/4 I can still grab and go and actually
covers some ground (3-5 mile walks) without utter distress.
Using pro-capture I'm getting images that would require a lot of luck with the Sony kit I have so I'm really having
fun with the OMs kit. My heart keeps looking at the Oly 150-400, but my mind reminds me that it weighs as much
as the 200-600 (well they are close in weight).
I also like my 200-600. After thinking about what I had (Z8 and 600 and A1 and 200-600) I had a hard time justifying the Sigma. That may change in a year or less 🤪.
While not the intended use case, I've been shooting lots of spring flowers and trees with this lens. Below are some samples along with a bird or two. 16mm extension tubes are needed to get close!
Thank you! I am use the Meike tubes. I was in Japan recently and went to all the major camera stores asking about Sony-compatible extension tubes and none of the stores had any, which was weird. So when I returned to the US I found these on Amazon. It would be nice if they had internal flocking or weather sealing (I would pay for that), but at least they work fine.
I've been planting berry trees to attract birds; winterberry, hawthorn, etc.
Yesterday I noticed right beside the house a cherry tree
We've only been here 6 months/new heat pump/new roof/deck replacement,wood stove installation,etc.=all diverting
my attention from the obvious.
So I sat on the deck and watched. I did have a camera in hand.
I just checked my Winterberry plants, put in the ground 2 months ago, and they are doing great.
We also planted Hawthorn and will plant Chokeberry this fall.....all hoping to keep the Waxwings here
year 'round.
By the time either Mtn.Ash or Hawthorn are 'large' I'll be long gone
But thanks for the recommendation. We have plenty of room to 'sculpt'/plant.
Studying cherry trees currently.
And a Catbird from yesterday evening-
ILCE-1500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/500s800 ISO0.0 EV
Congratulations on your new 500.
Post a pic of your rig when you get her 'dressed'.
Are you like me and hoping Sigma gives a 300mm much
like the Nikkor 300PF?
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Congratulations on your new 500.
Post a pic of your rig when you get her 'dressed'.
Are you like me and hoping Sigma gives a 300mm much
like the Nikkor 300PF?
I never tried the 300 PF actually. It seems like a great lens though and I would maybe consider taking a look at one if Sigma came out with it. I had a brief foray into Pentax with their DA 300 lens and loved using that for close up's (mostly with the 1.4 TC). I did use a 500 PF for a couple years and loved it. That's what inspired me to pick up this Sigma lens over the 200-600. Something about the small, light setup makes it really a joy to use in the field.
I'm a little salty about the lack of TC support. For me it's not as much about reach, but more about closeup ability. The 500 PF with TC was excellent for dragonflies but native the MFD isn't great for that.
I just reprocessed an image via the D500+500PF and I noticed I'd taken it at 700mm; yep I'd put the 1.4TC on
it. The results (to my eye) were very good.
So that makes me a bit salty too over Sony's attitude about TC use with this Sigma.
It is def. sharp enough to accept a 1.4, maybe even a 2.0.
Oh well, let Sony upset people if that's what they want.....I know two really good photographers headed to Nikon land
because of this and the A1 firmware update fiasco.
I'm too old for switching games and will do the best I can with what is here now.
Mogul, Mtn Ash ordered. Should be in the ground within the week.
Just barely made the hardiness zone cut off for it.....may not thrive as it would
in much colder environments but will give them a go. We can hit -4F but summers
can hit 90F and high humidity.
