We have the Sigma 150-600 "sport" version ($2000). In my opinion it is good option. I also have a Nikon 600 f/4 and 200-400 f/4. I think the Sigma stacks up quite well on build, focus speed and image quality. Considering its price and its useful zoom range I consider it to be a viable. It is my wife's "go to" lens for wildlife photography using a D4 body. She can handle it (size & weight) and it is sure cheaper than a Nikon 600mm.
I did use the Sigma dock to optimize the focus speed. It can be adjusted over a range - balancing focus speed to how long the lens "waits" before refocusing. I reset ours from its "as delivered" default to fastest focus.
Walt Custer
My wife loves hers. Shoots it on D4 and D800E. It is a improvement in sharpness vs her prior Sigma 50-500. We just did a bird shoot (loons, snipes & song birds) in Kamloops, BC, Canada. Her new Sigma 150-600 sport was very competitive with my Nikon 600 f/4 and 80-400G.
Seems like a good lens.
Walt Custer
Yup,
I find it very useful. I have been a subscriber for a number of years.
Walt Custer
As I believe others have mentioned, this lens must be considered it its proper perspective. It is a nimble, portable, fast focusing lens that is not too heavy. It is well built and moderately priced with a decent zoom range. I like it for walking around to get hand held candid wildlife shots. It is my "go to" lens for that purpose. Mounted on my D4s it allows rapid response to fast changing nature scenarios
Admittedly image quality and magnification don't match my Nikon 600mm f/4 on a tripod however it certainly has its place.
Different strokes for different folks . . . but I am very happy with the 80-400.
My wife recently got the Sigma 150-600 Sport version. We are headed to Kamloops, BC, Canada to chase loons. It will be interesting to see how the Sigma 150-600 stacks up to both Nikon lenses.
Walt
It (latest version) is my "go to" lenses for handheld wildlife photography. I use it on a D4s. It is not to heavy, focuses fast and is reasonably sharp especially if you stop it down a bit.
The only issue I have had is when shooting under very dusty conditions it has become hard to zoom, necessitating an expensive trip to Nikon for cleaning.
Walt
I do have the NIK collection installed in LR & PS.
I find that I use it less with LR than I did with NX2 as I have learned to do much with LR.
Thanks. This is the type of response I was seeking.
We live in California so a trip to Madagascar is LONG WAY. I want to spend a few weeks - not just some 7 day trip where the first and last days are just "arrival & departure."
We have been to Africa 4 times, India, Brazil's Pantanal, Costa Rica, various USA locations and SE Asia.
I think (hope) Madagascar might be interesting and different.
Walt
Agreed
I just described my personal work flow and efforts to avoid a huge LR catalog.
With NX2 I only archived the NEF file (with no added sidecar file). Archiving LR edited files seems a bit more complex (but is not a big issue).
Walt
Yup, but I eventually off load my images to external drives.
I do keep the original folders with the attached LR edits but I just move them without LR's involvement. I have a lot of photos (7 Tb) so a LR catalog of all of them is big. with many catalog sub files. I use Retrospect as a backup program and it took for ever to back up the catalog as it saw it file as changed (since LR updates the catalog).
I abandoned the 7 Tb of photos, full catalog and only let LR catalog what I am actively working on.
If you don't upgrade camera bodies or operating systems then NX2 is fine - with no further $$ or learning needed.
I do find that LR's editing tools (compared to NX2) give more natural looking pictures, especially if heavy editing is needed (exposure, highlights, shadows, clarity, individual colors).
I also REALLY like LR's noise reduction. When I shoot at very high ISO I appreciate this feature very much.
As I wrote I used nothing but NX2 for about 10 years but I am now happy I switched. The one thing I miss is having to also save as TIF (or some other non-RAW format) where with NX2 I only saved the edited (but recoverable) RAW file.
Walt
Walt
I happily used NX2 for 10 years but when it was replaced with a "free" but impotent NXD I switched "cold turkey" to LR.
I too was put off by the cataloging in LR but now I just don't use that feature. I cull & rate my pictures with Photomechanic and then link to LR for editing from Photomechanic via "edit with."
I was a BIG fan of NX2 with its color & selection control points but I now find LR to be a better (resulting image quality) editor. An of course it supports the newer cameras and operating systems. It also supports NIK and other plugins.
After editing in LR I save as TIF, but of course keep the original RAW file.
It was a painful change at first but now I would never go back. If the cataloging puts you off, just use LR as an editor.
Walt Custer
Has anyone been to Madagascar for a wildlife photo safari? Any recommendations?
Walt
Will do but probably not to late next week as we are traveling. It will be my wife's lens to be used on a Nikon D4.
Ordered 11/14/2014 from B&H; shipped today to arrive Monday!
Walt Custer
I have historically been an early adopter and am reasonably computer literate. I started with MS-DOS 2.0, Windows 1 (packaged with a scanner I purchased), then Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, etc. There were a few problems along the way. In particular Windows ME was prone to crashing.
I find Windows 7 64-bit Pro to be stable and I have seen little impetus to migrate to 8/8.1. When Windows 10 is released I will certainly try it. I own a data-centric business with multiple Windows notebooks that run and are dependent upon much 3d party software. I will be cautious in adoption of Win 10 for our critical work.
Walt