Ready for bird season?

[ebiggs1]

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

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

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

The "S" is.  

 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.

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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"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.

---

It was just a guess from "off the top of my head."  Thanks for correcting me.

"  ..  but I doubt you are going to get that close to a bird. ...a wild bird that is !  "

Well, the posted shot obviously says it did happen.  The bird approached me, after circling around me for nearly a minute.

[ebiggs1]

Sorry for the confusion.  But what I meant was 'generally' wild birds will not let you get that close.  Birds in a Zoo or a backyard feeder get used to you and they will let you approach them easier.

This is one of the problems of forums, all that is said may not be  correctly said or understood by the other person.

[KingNine]

1: Thanks for the kind words on the two shots. I thought the 150-600 was the better of the two in these shots but the composition on my Canon shot was simply better so I too chose it to show people over the shot taken with the Sigma. Why I mentioned that I had not touched saturation was the color rendition of each image. They are booth amazingly tack sharp when I zoom in so there is zero edge there however the colors on the the Sigma lens are very well saturated while the colors on the Canon are more muted. Maybe I should have posted the full size images to really show differences. The little jpeg squares don't really let you see much.

2: I did not buy both lenses. Yes I would love to have the luxury of owning both but buying the Canon (even used) was really going to put a world of hurt on my pocket book (and my relationship with my wife lol). However I was prepared to go to bat to buy it and had already taken steps towards making her amenable to it. After seeing my results with the Sigma and getting images I liked better I could no longer justify the Canon purchase. I had considered buying the 400 prime as well but it is so specialized and I needed more "usability". I take too many shots near marshes where I can't zoom with my feet without swiming with gators haha. From what I understand you don't get any sharper at 400 than the Canon prime.

3: I was going to respond to the 21 feet thing but I see you guys already cleared it up. 9 feet is it for sure. Also, as mentioned by you guys, the speed of focus for recovery I will give to the Canon hands down over my Sig C. The canon is a milisecond faster on initial focus lock and probably half to a full second if focus is lost. I just ran into some issues with it yesterday trying to get some pics of migrating warblers in trees and brush. In the darker undergrowth I noticed it but it wasn't bad. I did think about whether or not the Canon would have recovered quicker or not but like I said it wasn't bad. (I have not used the S lens and will have to take ebiggs word on it's focus prowess)

I did love the Canon for really all aspects. It is such a great lens. It was the price and the extra 200mm of very usuable and croppable reach that I went for. It was mentioned earlier that the Sig might not be that sharp at 500-600 but I do not see that. I am getting tack sharp images wide open with it. I'm not haveing to stop down  to get them. Maybe one day I'll run a comparison test and see for grins if it indeed gets me sharper images but right now I'm very pleased with what I'm getting.

[KingNine]

Also wanted to mention what a good shot that red winged black bird was!

[Waddizzle]

---

@KingNine wrote:
Also wanted to mention what a good shot that red winged black bird was!

---

Thanks.  This is what a subsequent shot from the same sequence looks like uncropped.

I'm not sure if I could have re-aimed and re-focused the 150-600 "C" fast enough.  He is in the process of turning around, and then lifting off in this shot.

[KingNine]

I would guess you would have been fine but I don't know how your copy you tried worked with your body. My 7d Mk2 in AIServo mode is lightning fast and even if they jump if I"m in focus mode I'm ususally good as the camera just tracks them. But what matters is you have the lens that works for you right? If you have the right tool to shoot the way you want to shoot then what else do you need?  

I shot a similar type of shot with a Red Winged Black Bird and it is one of my favs. I was using a friends 70-300 L when I took this. That grass isn't just lazily leaning right. The wind was howling that day. He was moving all around on that reed. Only a few shots were in focus.