cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Ready for bird season?

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

I am and I can't wait to get going again.

IMG_0731.jpg

IMG_0733.jpg

_52D5401.jpg

 

 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
61 REPLIES 61


@KingNine wrote:
Thanks! That first one is actually one of the first shots I got with it after buying my copy. There is literally a wildlife sanctuary 3 blocks from the camera store I purchased it from. I bought it and drove around the corner....

I did think about my purchase when using it the next weekend and dark clouds rolled in on me quick. All of the sudden the weather sealed one seemed like a good idea lol. I'll just need to be prepared and take pictures within my limitations.

Yes, the Sigma 150-600mm "C" can take some great photos, if you stay within its' comfort zone.  One of the lens' best features  is the zoom lock switch, which locks at several focal lengths.  Lens creep, no more.  Canon should take some notes on that feature.  [EDIT] I get the best results by locking at 500mm, with an f/8 aperture.

 

Having the option of the Sigma Dock was a plus for me over the Tamron.  In addition to custom AFMA, you can also configure custom auto focus modes.  I like the idea having weather sealed lenses, but not so I can shoot photos in bad weather with less worries.  I'm too old and fragile to be trying to do that.  No, my brain cells have concluded that weather sealing means the lenses will last longer, and will be less inclined to have mold, mildew, water drops, or dust.

 

But, the 150-600mm "C" does have its' limits.  I think the IQ suffers as you move above 500mm.  And, the lens doesn't really shine at minimum aperture, not until you get around f/8.  If you want high shutter speeds, 1/1000 or faster, then you need a bright sunny day, not a dim overcast or rainy sky.  

 

IMG_0029.JPG

I get better results shooting the new Canon 100-400mm at f/5.6 and cropping, than using the 150-600mm "C" at f/6.3, or even f/8.  Ernie may have a point about the Canon 400mm might be better than a 150-600mm zoom.  That above shot is nearly a 100% crop of a 400mm shot.  The bird was on the other side of a lake, close to the water's edge.  I would imagine that the 400mm prime would do at least as well, if not better.  Using the wide aperture, f/5.6, let me use a high shutter speed, 1/2000, which let me freeze the bird in flight. 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

" And, the lens doesn't really shine at minimum aperture, not until you get around f/8."

 

Did you mean to say 'maximum' aperture? Most if not all lenses do better when stopped down one stop.  Some two stops but usually never more than that.  No tele I ever used or even heard of did well at its minim aperture of f22.  Some teles even have f32 and that would be even worse because of diffraction.

 

The blue bird on the first post is also a 100% crop.  Even with 600mm a blue bird is still a small bird.  They will not let me get closer with all that open ground there.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" And, the lens doesn't really shine at minimum aperture, not until you get around f/8."

 

Did you mean to say 'maximum' aperture? Most if not all lenses do better when stopped down one stop.  Some two stops but usually never more than that.  No tele I ever used or even heard of did well at its minim aperture of f22.  Some teles even have f32 and that would be even worse because of diffraction.

 

The blue bird on the first post is also a 100% crop.  Even with 600mm a blue bird is still a small bird.  They will not let me get closer with all that open ground there.


Oops.  Yes, I did mean to say maximum aperture.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

I thought you guys might enjoy this. This is far from scientific and I was not careful to take this image with the same settings as I was not thinking I would get home and compare side by side like this. However I found two of the same great egret with eggs that were taken with each lens. They are both cropped down about 60-70% to fit the same square image. I've adjusted exposure and dehaze just a little but not saturation.

 

The first is the Canon 100-400 mk2 taken at 241mm, 1/2000, f5, iso 100

Great Egret.jpg

 

The second is the Sigma 150-600 C taken at 293mm, 1/2500, f5.6, iso 320

Great Egret Sig.jpg

Canon 7D Mk II, Sigma 150-600 C, Canon 70-200L 2.8 Mk1, Canon 24-105L Mk1, Canon EF-S 10-18 IS STM, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 24 2.8

Yup, I do like those shots.  

 

In my limited experience, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM has lightning fast and accurate focusing.  The Sigma 150-600 isn't even in the same league, in this regard.  

 

The Canon can recover from mis-aimed focus, with a flick of the wrist.  The Sigma, most of the time, will go on a hunt.  Don't get me wrong, though.  I really do like the Sigma.  It is my preferred tripod super telephoto lens.  Meanwhile, the Canon is my preferred handheld lens.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"The Sigma 150-600 isn't even in the same league, in this regard."

 

The "S" is.  Smiley Happy

 I can't see or didn't notice any better performance form the 100-400mm 2 over the "S".  Add the fact it doesn't have 500mm thru 600mm and the choice was simple.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The Sigma 150-600 isn't even in the same league, in this regard."

 

The "S" is.  Smiley Happy

 I can't see or didn't notice any better performance form the 100-400mm 2 over the "S".  Add the fact it doesn't have 500mm thru 600mm and the choice was simple.


That makes sense, provided performance in that range is just as good as 150-500mm.  One other performance feature that I like about the 100-400mm Mark II is the remarkably short MFD.  Off the top of my head, I think the Sigma 150-600 "C" has an MFD around 21 feet, or so.  The Canon 100-400mm Mark II has an MFD that is just a bit over 3 feet.

 

IMG_0034.JPG

The comparatively short MFD can make for some pretty dramatic photos.  The above is another near 100% crop.  This little guy landed well under 20 feet away, probably around 15 feet.  With the Sigma, I would have never been able to capture this shot.  With the Canon, the DOF is about two inches on a 1D Mark IV at 400mm.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"I think the Sigma 150-600 "C" has an MFD around 21 feet, or so."

 

I think it's more like 9 feet.  A little closer for the "S".  At least that's what mine can do.  I don't remember what my 100-400mm was perhaps you are correct about it but I doubt you are going to get that close to a bird.  A wild bird that is !   My preferred ramge for birding is 25 to 50 feet.  And that is well within the MFD of either Siggy or the Tamron for that matter.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I think the Sigma 150-600 "C" has an MFD around 21 feet, or so."

 

I think it's more like 9 feet.  A little closer for the "S".  At least that's what mine can do.  I don't remember what my 100-400mm was perhaps you are correct about it but I doubt you are going to get that close to a bird.  A wild bird that is !   My preferred ramge for birding is 25 to 50 feet.  And that is well within the MFD of either Siggy or the Tamron for that matter.


B&H lists the MFD on the "C" at 110.2 inches.  The "S" is listed at 102.4 inches.  The 100-400 is listed at 3.2 feet (97.54 cm).  A full meter is 39.37 inches.  

 

The red wing blackbird had been flying in circles around me.  Every time I would raise the camera, it would take off and land somewhere behind, landing in a tree, where it could peep at me between leaves and branches.  After about a minute of playing cat and mouse, it finally landed in the open, about a car length away, and took a good look at me.  

 

I suspect that I may have been near a nest.  They have been known to attack when you get too close to their nests, but this one just seemed to want to get a good look at me.  I had been standing in the same spot for last several minutes.  It may have been trying to lead me away, too.  Water fowl are good for trying to lead you away, and red wing blackbirds like to live near areas with shallow, still water like swamps and small ponds and lakes.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"B&H lists the MFD on the "C" at 110.2 inches.  The "S" is listed at 102.4 inches."

 

OK.  110 inches is 9 feet (110/12=9, give or take).   Not 21 feet or am I missing something?  Certainly not as close as the 100-400mm but not 21 feet either.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements