David83 wrote:
I had the 200-600 and the only reason I would go back to it would be if I truly needed 30FPS with the zoom, or needed the size and weight savings. The Sigma is truly that good, but it is huge! I also have the 600GM and 300GM along side the 300-600. While I feel the 300Gm may be the best lens ever made in terms of image quality and AF speed, its limited in its use, for me at least. I will carry it attached to a 2x TC slung on my shoulder and have the 600 w /1.4 on another A1 body while out shooting ospreys and eagles. But when i want to camp out in one spot, in the hide or wading the river, I've been taking the Sigma for the zoom.
I cannot find any difference in IQ between the Sigma and the 600GM. Only difference is color rendering which I've shown earlier in this thread.
Im going to pick up the viltrox 2x and see how that goes. ...Show more →
Can't tell for certain in my browser, but these seem to have that pop of sharper, faster glass vs. the photos that you posted taken with the 400-800 (that were also good, but remind me of my 200-600). I'm chasing something more than I am getting with the 200-600, something akin to how I feel about pics taken with the 50-150GM, and am wondering if the Sigma 300-600 will provide that on the long end. I mean, I should maybe not overthink it and get the 400GM, but I feel like the versatility of a zoom will serve me, even with the tradeoffs.
isyoox703 wrote:
Can't tell for certain in my browser, but these seem to have that pop of sharper, faster glass vs. the photos that you posted taken with the 400-800 (that were also good, but remind me of my 200-600). I'm chasing something more than I am getting with the 200-600, something akin to how I feel about pics taken with the 50-150GM, and am wondering if the Sigma 300-600 will provide that on the long end. I mean, I should maybe not overthink it and get the 400GM, but I feel like the versatility of a zoom will serve me, even with the tradeoffs....Show more →
Thanks, it does have that extra little. The 400-800 is impressive and I would have been completely happy with it had I not had a chance to use the 300-600. A friend of a friend let me use the 300-600 briefly while he had it to compare to the 600 4. Like seemingly everybody, I was concerned. by the weight, the lack of teleconverter support and the 15fps limitation. I use a tripod 90% of the time and using the Sigma on the tripod the weight is inconsequential, the Viltrox 2x works well (and hoping for a Viltrox 1.4x) and really not noticing the missing FPS. For the price compared to even used Sony 400's or 600's, it is a great lens. I continue to be impressed with how quickly it acquires focus on BIF.
I read from older reviews that, the lens can not lock on focus if you try to track and zoom at the same time. Is this still the case? Imagine you are trying to track a subject coming towards your camera while you zoom out.
Thanks for the notes. I keep waffling between thinking this lens will scratch the itch and thinking I need the 400GM. I will also be shooting on a tripod so weight doesn’t bother me, and when the alternative is a prime, not being able to track focus while zooming isn’t as much of a concern, either. All this to take better pics of my kids playing sports is probably overkill but it brings me satisfaction…
kenwood wrote:
I read from older reviews that, the lens can not lock on focus if you try to track and zoom at the same time. Is this still the case? Imagine you are trying to track a subject coming towards your camera while you zoom out.
it does not AF while zooming, I've not had an issue with this as of yet. I use back button focus so just release and zoom then reacquire.
isyoox703 wrote:
Thanks for the notes. I keep waffling between thinking this lens will scratch the itch and thinking I need the 400GM. I will also be shooting on a tripod so weight doesn’t bother me, and when the alternative is a prime, not being able to track focus while zooming isn’t as much of a concern, either. All this to take better pics of my kids playing sports is probably overkill but it brings me satisfaction…
It's the same for me. My thinking is that I'd appreciate the 2.8 at 400 much more than f/4 and they'd be equal at ~600 anyways, so just go with the 400mm.
I have both lenes. I prefer the 400 f2. Much easier to handle and better low light. Paired with a high res camera it cannot be beat. If zoom is important than the 300-600 has a slight advantage.
As a hobbyist, spending half as much on the Sigma vs. the 400GM is not insignificant. I have other really expensive things to take care of (like the 4 kids I am trying to photograph)...
Has anyone tested to see whether or not this lens is a true 600mm at 600? Or is it a bit short like other zooms when compared to primes at the same focal length?
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
Has anyone tested to see whether or not this lens is a true 600mm at 600? Or is it a bit short like other zooms when compared to primes at the same focal length?
Well, the shad run is in full swing so the Ospreys are abundant here on the river. I finally took the Sigma down by itself to run it through a true test and it did not disappoint. Unfortunately, most of the action was on the other side of the river so I had very few good opportunities. I really love the way this lens renders. Ive been shooting the 600Gm mostly and have some threads over in the wildlife and nature forum.
Here's some from tonight. I took about 2200 images and only about 10 were missed focus.
David83 wrote:
Well, the shad run is in full swing so the Ospreys are abundant here on the river. I finally took the Sigma down by itself to run it through a true test and it did not disappoint. Unfortunately, most of the action was on the other side of the river so I had very few good opportunities. I really love the way this lens renders. Ive been shooting the 600Gm mostly and have some threads over in the wildlife and nature forum.
Here's some from tonight. I took about 2200 images and only about 10 were missed focus.
At this point, maybe my 300-600 is defective? I'm missing a decent amount of shots from every burst, soft focus. Or is there some hidden setting I don't know about? Maybe I should send it in to Sigma for a repair or checkup or something.
ASC_1900 wrote:
At this point, maybe my 300-600 is defective? I'm missing a decent amount of shots from every burst, soft focus. Or is there some hidden setting I don't know about? Maybe I should send it in to Sigma for a repair or checkup or something.
