Sigma 150-600 C or the Sigma 500

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

mercphoto

I've never shot wildlife but I used to shoot a lot of motorsports. When I shot with a 300/2.8 I never wished I had a zoom. When I used my 70-200/2.8 it was almost always at full zoom. I would suggest looking at your focal length selection and ask yourself do you really need a zoom? If not, big primes are often smaller, lighter, and much sharper than big zooms.

pathfinder

What Bill said!

What are you wanting to shoot with your lens? And what kind of lighting do you plan to use it under?

The zoom is handy if you have plenty of light - maybe afternoon football games say, but for wildlife frequently the light is low and getting lower. The faster prime will be much better as the sun gets below the horizon.

puzzledpaul

As above, and originally put the following (by mistake) in your other thread (FS)



A big question for several reasons.

First, I've never owned - or used -any of the above kit,so I have no idea about the IQ differences between the lenses or the capabilities of the bodies ... other than than the usual factors of FX v DX and zooms v primes.

I'd have thought it depends - to a great extent - what your main photographic interests are, and whether you 'need' the flexibility offered by a zoom(or not) ?

One suggestion often made is to review the focal lengths used on the zoom, of your favourite pics to get some idea of which part of the zoom range you're typically using.

From a personal standpoint -as someone with a very narrow subject / interest range, having 'sort of' equivalent lenses for Canon (500 f4 +100-400 zoom) my standard 'go to' lens is the 500.
The zoom typically gets an outing if am going out and about with mrs pp on some sort of 'social jaunt' and I want something better than a P nS or cam phone with me.

I accept that I miss all manner of shots using the 500 because of its greater mfd and not being able to frame /compose pics when subjects get too close - but I miss shots anyway for all manner of reasons (mainly pilot error) ... so a few more don't matter - but I prefer using the 500 because I don't have to think about re-composing thro' zooming (because I can't), I invariably shoot wide open - and get annoyed with not being able to get rid of the 5.6 that shows in the viewfinder at the top end of the zoom (especially in low light) ... and prefer the results on the rare occasions I end up with a pic that's vaguely close to what I'm after.

On a side issue, the support gear I've made for low level shooting over water is geared for the 500, so it needs tweaking if I use the zoom ...and thus again I gravitate to the setup which I find easier to use - a vicious circle for the zoom, but since I prefer (close to) water level shots, it's an easy decision to make.

Having said all of this,a fellow w/life snapper who also visits the same locale as myself uses a similar body (20Mp,1.6crop) ...but prefers the flexibility / portability of the 100 - 400 and gets decent results (we both have pics in a 2016 calendar for a local wildlife group)

I accept/acknowledge the above is associated with a very particular use ... but there you go - it is as it is

pp

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

puzzledpaul

Well, I note that a lot of exif data associated with w/life and FF / Fx users often includes a teleconverter of some sort in the mix, even when 500 or 600 primes are being used, in an effort to flll the frame to an equivalent degree as using a crop body and no TC.

Whilst the results of the FX + TC + prime can be excellent - especially if using the latest gear - the ££ outlay is also significant.

The standard comment re 'It's not the gear, but the user' will get aired, but imo it's total bs - since the gear used, in w/life makes one heck of a lot of difference, depending on what sort of shot you're after.

pp

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.