Sigma 150-600 Sport vs Nikon 200-500 (Page 2): Your images are very nice. In my personal opinion, it's all subjective. I prefer images of white birds with more feather definition, and...

Mary White Loc: Port St Lucie, Florida

Your images are very nice. In my personal opinion, it's all subjective. I prefer images of white birds with more feather definition, and less post processing.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

billnikon wrote:

No contest yet. I put in 3 photo's, now you put in two more. Then I will post 20 more excellent ones. You'll loose this contest and every contest against the Nikon 200-500. Come on man, where are your other two. How about one in flight.

Actually the Angry photographer has said several times that the Nikon 200-500 should be a much more expensive lens at about what $1200 new - a steal! I have the Tammy 150-600 G2 and am very happy with it. (Don't ask the Angry Photographer about Sigma, ANY Sigma ) .... but anyway generally the 200-500 is better optically than either the Sigma or Tammy by a hair (of course comparing at 500mm w/o TC). I believe that both the Tammy and Sigma are better constructed lens however with moisture sealing and fluorine coatings, and more secure hoods. I was thinking of getting the Nikon 200/500 this summer for a euphoric high - in the Angry Photographer's words - sex, silk and sugar, the tits, the cat's ass....just to do my own comps.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

As a practical matter, is 600mm that much of an enlargement over 500mm?

billbarcus Loc: IPNW

Here we go again ... same 'old-hat' question re the Sport vs the Nikon, and using a TC for extra reach, no less.

As for the TC, billnikon said it right - a TC doesn't add anything to a lens. And, if anyone thinks they need 600mm, then they need to get closer!

I shoot the Nikon 200-500mm every day. It gives me superb IQ.

Attached is an eagle shot taken handheld out of the window of my pickup ... if anyone needs better IQ than this .............. ???

IMHO the Sigma is a Third-World throw-a-way that after the warranty is up Sigma won't give you the time of day, and neither will any other repair shop. I don't get it!!!

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

rcrowdy86 wrote:

Hi All,

I am sure there are other posts about these lenses but none answer my particular question (as far as I can see!).

I have heard the Nikon is better (optically) however, obviously the Sigmas gets to 600mm. I wondered which was sharper, the Nikon with a teleconverter (to get the extra reach) or the Sigma at 600mm?

Any ideas?

Many thanks to any replies!

You make want to look at this review - which compares the 200-500 to other lenses, and even compares the Nikkor with a TC to other 600mm zooms - I think it will be an eye opener"

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

I had already come to the conclusions in the article before I became aware of the article. I purchased my Sigma Sport in 2016, used, for $1100. If I were to do it over again, I might buy the Tamron G2 - just as sharp, similar build quality, lower in cost, and nearly 2 lbs lighter.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Gene51 wrote:

You make want to look at this review - which compa... (show quote)

Reviews vs Real World are more conclusive. So far the real world is winning showing the 200-500 to be superior in every way. Where is your proof otherwise. I have posted 3 outstanding images taken with the 200-500 and another of a Bald Eagle, WHERE IS YOURS? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

CWGordon

I have the later Tamron 150-600. Always satisfied, but a tough lens to use handheld. Takes time to learn to use successfully. My Nikon 80-400 sharpness exceeds that of the 150-66, but the range needs a bit more. Just this week I obtained a 500 PF. I haven’t used it yet, but it is a dream to handhold on the camera. Borrowed the guides 200-500 on recent trip out west. Excellent, but weighed as much as the Jeep. This is a topic with no loser. All of these lenses are good. Nikon better, but costs more. Others good enough to surpris, much less expensive, but also heavy. Money no object get the 500 PF. Budgetary concerns, get the nikon 200-500 used. Bargain for similar range, better optics, similar price.

ekfelton Loc: Michigan

If you don’t have any budgetary concerns get the Nikon 180 - 400 with the built in 1.4. The lens is excellent, tack sharp and well built as it should be for the price.

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Well .., let’s see... Billnikon ...., ahhhh .., yep a Nikon Man ....., ahhhh ,., Dr.Bob .., a Nikon Man .... I really don’t like adding TC’s on any lens used on a High Pixel Cam 800/810/850 ..

As for the lens bull .. for the price and image quality ...real world sides with Bill... Bill”s picture evidence confirms his argument .. and supports his views ... we are not talking about lens build quality or weather sealing .. we are talking about the price of the lens.. lens reach combined with the picture quality results ..

That being said ..., the best photography / photos comes from the BEST photographers who know how to use what they have and know how to properly post edit same ..

I love my 200-500 ... if I need more reach ,, I can rent it .., a Nikon of course ...

Haydon

Mary White wrote:

Your images are very nice. In my personal opinion, it's all subjective. I prefer images of white birds with more feather definition, and less post processing.

Mary don't mind him; he strongly closed minded outside of his own choices. Gene's made it clear that there are other choices that stand well on their own and he's one of our resident pros with a strong technical background. Nothing wrong with your images. Convincing someone that is closed minded isn't worth your effort. Third party lenses in many cases are just as sharp. Keep doing what you love and don't let anyone stand in your way.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

billnikon wrote:

Reviews vs Real World are more conclusive. So far the real world is winning showing the 200-500 to be superior in every way. Where is your proof otherwise. I have posted 3 outstanding images taken with the 200-500 and another of a Bald Eagle, WHERE IS YOURS? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Or...go to Flickr (and other sites) and you can see hundreds of full res images from each of the lenses mentioned here.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

chrisg-optical wrote:

Or...go to Flickr (and other sites) and you can see hundreds of full res images from each of the lenses mentioned here.

Where are your images big mouth? The challenge remains without a single one from a Sigma lens. WHY IS THAT? Are they afraid of competing with the best. I think YES.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

billnikon wrote:

Reviews vs Real World are more conclusive. So far the real world is winning showing the 200-500 to be superior in every way. Where is your proof otherwise. I have posted 3 outstanding images taken with the 200-500 and another of a Bald Eagle, WHERE IS YOURS? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I post my images all the time. But here are a few for you. All were taken with a D800 and the Sigma Sport @600mm, hand held.

If you want to have a little humble pie to go with your crow entree, you can take a look at some of my other images here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/albums

Just because you have co-opted Nikon to your avatar name, and you posted some tiny, yet nice looking images of snowy egrets and a green heron, doesn't really support your position or give you license to yell at people here. If you actually take a look into my flickr feed (which is always in my signature when I post) you'll see a lot more examples.

I added the last 2 images, taken with my 600mmF4 and a D800, just for comparison. As you can see, the Sigma does very nicely against the Nikkor. So much so, that I have used the Nikkor about 6 times since 2016 when I acquired the Sigma. No need to keep it, and I do enjoy the freedom of a 6.5 lb lens vs the 11 lb one+tripod+head. I definitely could not duplicate these results with the 200-500 and less so with a TC, when I had one for two weeks, borrowed from NPS, or when I tried a friend's copy for a day. Besides, I would not have taken it out in rainy/snowy conditions, due to the so-so build quality. I have had my Sport out in every condition imaginable.

I've got more, but you should be able to get the gist. Since you are such an expert on what a Sigma lens "can't" do, maybe you can post some of your own comparison shots that support your position.

At the end of the day, the 200-500 is a budget priced lens targeted at the enthusiast bird and wildlife shooter, who doesn't want to spend a fortune on a lens. It, like many of Nikon's lower priced, non-pro lenses is quite capable of producing very good images. To make the lens competitively priced at $1400, they cut a few corners - no environmental sealing, less than robust build quality, etc. It is not intended to compete with their 500mmF4 or the 600mmF4. Based on my own experience, the Sigma Sport does. And the proof is in the pudding.

BTW, correct usage of English would be "Where ARE yours?" not "Where IS yours?"

My advice to you, Bill, is to play nice in the sandbox. You are more likely to be listened to and considered if you don't insult people, and show yourself to be professional and considerate of other opinions. Your images are "nice" but I would not call them "oustanding". Post images with the store original box checked, so we can see just how good your stuff really is. Or better yet, point us to your website.

.

Feral Rescue - uncropped
Feral Rescue - uncropped...