Another 150-600mm Thread

[shadowsports]

Greetings Gents,

While I was recently considering picking up a 100mm 2.8L for Macro (shooting bugs), I decided that I'd much rather take some wildlife photography given the the time of year. Started researching and after 12 videos and a bunch of reading, I'm still on the fence as to which lens to buy. Have "peep-ed" too, but I know this isn't always absolute.

Considering the 150-600's Sigma C, S and Tamron G2.

The Sigma C is a $teal at 4.3lbs, 95mm, 4.1 x 10.2, Min focus 110.2 in
The Sigma S is a beast at 6.3lbs, 105mm, 4.8 x 11.4, Min focus 102.4 in
The Tamron G2 at 4.4lbs, 95mm, 4.27 x 10.4, Min focus 7.22 in

Then comes maximum reproduction ratios:
1:5
1:5
1:3.9

Not a macro lens and there's nothing wrong with 1:5, but the Tamron is closest to 1:1

Price
$989
$1799
$1399

Price is low on my list of consideration (at the moment) If the "S" is the bomb, I'd get it. It's weight is a bit discouraging though.

Sigma Contemporary Pro's:
-Attractive price, weight, length. Seems to be a lot of happy owners out there
-I own a Sigma Dock

-Previous positive experience with contemporary and art series lenses

Sigma Sport (Not sure if this is pro or con)
-Seems like you will need to tripod for this 100% of the time (con?)
-105mm beast. Longest, widest, heaviest lens
-May not be relaistic thinking I'd use handheld, but I saw plenty of vidoes where people were doing it and they got some nice shots
-Weather sealed

Tamron (pros)
-Cool zoom lock feature one-click focus ring
-Weather sealed

Tamron (Cons):
-I already have a Sigma USB Dock. Kills me that I'll have to buy a Tap-In for one lens.
-Reversed Zoom ring, I know I can get used to it, but **bleep**

My least favorite at the moment is the Sport model. Primarily because of weight. But my 24-70 is about 4.5lbs and feels like a feather to me. I would want to use the lens handheld sometimes and don't see myself shooting with a 6.3lbs lens free hand for extended periods. I do have steady hands however.

Was considering renting 1 or 2 of them as well. I've never owned a Tamron lens. Only Canon and Sigma.

If you own a Sigma C or S, I'd appreciate hearing about your experience.  Love it , hate it and why.

Bob, Hank, Wadizzle, Scott, TCampbell???

Ernie, I know you have the Tamron. Wanted to get your take as well.

I know I could have posted on DPReview..  but I haven't spent as much time there as I have here.  And honestly, I value the feedback I'd receive here more.

Thanks Men!

[shadowsports]

Thanks both of you.  I sure will.  Going to "cheat" a little and watch some BIF videos on youtube, then head to the beach (mile away) from my house and shoot some seagulls as first test subjects.  The beach also abutts a golfcourse with a big pond so maybe I'll see some herrings as well.  We have marshy estuaries too, but I have to drive a little bit for those,  Also have good ponds with ducks, geese and water fowl in golden gate park.  Lens coming across the country, so will be good 6 days before its in my hands.

[ebiggs1]

Start big and work to the smaller birds.  It'll boost your confidence.

[Waddizzle]

---

@shadowsportswrote:

Finally made up my mind.  I'm going to do the SigmaC with TC1401 for extra reach. 

Wadizzle, your mention of the complete AF re-write. 

Ernie, I'm going with your UV filter recommendation. 

Thanks guys for the insight, recommendations and great help.

---

You are welcome.  The Sigma C is still not as good as my. EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, which focuses faster than lightning.  But, it is great to use when you want some extra reach.  Like Ernie said, there is a learning curve, actually two, IMHO.  One, is getting used to using a super telephoto lens.  Two, is getting used to the particular lens you are using.  Super telephoto lenses have different focusing and image stabilization modes.  They can either help you, or hurt you.

I think Ernie recommended the B+W Clear Nano filter, not a UV.  I do not recommend a UV with this lens, even if you are around water.  I never really got vivid colors until after I ditched the UV for a Clear Nano filter.  My 100-400mm really doesn’t like UV filters.  Now I use claer filters on all of my lenses.  Besides, the camera body has UV filter built into the image sensor assembly, so you really do not need one.

[shadowsports]

Ernie,
Right. I realize they mean a few drips, and light moisture. My 24-70 Art is the same, but it did well in a few Russian rains. I don't subject my equipment to heavy rain, but having slightly above average dust and water resistence is nice.

[ebiggs1]

Rick, if you wanted "weather proof" the Siggy Sport is the only game in town.  It is why I bought mine and why I use it most of the time.  It is heavy as stated before but I have gotten used to heavy gear a long long time ago.  I had a job durning hurrican Ivan a few years ago for instance.

The reason I don't use a filter on this guy is the front element has a special coating that simply wipes off.  Anything and everything.....so far anyways.  The main reason for a filter is protection of that expensive front element.  Not so for the big Siggy S.   This lens and my EOS 1DX love each other.  They work fantasticly together.