After some poor weather I finally got to test more than just the AF settings...
The Sigma 150-600mm Sport is badly de-centered...........
Is it not possible to buy any bit of photography gear that is right?
It's just damned disheartening new or S/H half of what you buy is junk!
I thought Sigma had made strides to improve quality......they haven't.
A lens can get decentered by a knock after it left the factory or the shop... The issue is the service centers.
The seller has the right to send the lens in to Sigma yes.
I don't know what the law is in Holland but here if someone sells you something that is not functioning correctly new or S/H you have the right to a refund, unless the product is stated as faulty.
This was sold as a non faulty item and as such I have the right in law to a refund.
I would be very surprised if the seller did anything other than just give me my money back, especially as I bought the item from his home.
But thanks for your concern!
If you bought the lens 2nd hand, you can't blame Sigma really. You just don't know the history of the lens.
But yes, there are too many duds even among new lenses.
Quote:If you bought the lens 2nd hand, you can't blame Sigma really. You just don't know the history of the lens.
But yes, there are too many duds even among new lenses.
Actually I do blame Sigma, the guy from whom I bought the lens was the type where even his old gear is perfect,one of the old school! This is a fault at the point of fabrication, the box looks, as is the lens new with nay a dent even in the corners. But hey I was on a rant, we have all been there with lenses...
.
Stop press!!!!.
I had to stop writing this because the just guy rang and on monday he's refunding me, the lens has 18 months of guarantee left and he will return it to Sigma service as soon as it falls in his hands.
Many de-centered telephotos go unnoticed when you're shooting birds, anyway I can get on with breathing again now!
.
Just some observations from my short experience with the Sport; and comparisons with the Tamron G2.
It's just plain heavy at 3.16 Kgs. (with the 288 gm hood) and not well balanced with the heavy front element + hood.
Large difference in balance when zooming on a gimbal mount.
It's vignetting is much stronger than the Tamron.
It's aperture drops quicker than the Tamron, at 200mm the sport is already at F5.3 and continues to drop earlier all through the range. Strange with the Sport's monster front element.
Minimum focus distance G2.... 2.2 meters... Sport .... 2.6 meters
Better bokeh with the Sport with less onion rings.
The Tamron G2 (grey market) is €50 more than what I payed for the Sport.
The Tamron is a Kg less and better in the hand both in weight and balance.
Both are now sort of weather sealed.
The arca tripod foot is removable with the G2 and it's becomes 1.9 Kgs.
But the Sport is just a beautiful built beast!
Reports are that the G2 is now as sharp as the Sport or sharper in the center but less so at the edges, but with the D500 you don't use the edges.
There's nothing like a de-centered lens to wound you when you suffer severely from LBA, but man, does that wound heal up quick when you get refunded!
I'm still not fully decided but I feel a G2 coming on!
I see the Tamron meanwhile as the better package, at least the second generation: The brake for any (not only just selected) focal length and the Arca foot which would cost another 200 € at the Sport are making the difference. The Tamron now also has a dock and believe me, it's complicated to adjust AF for ∞. Zooming handheld with the Sigma? Manual focusing without a tripod? You need very good luck...
But the foot of the Sigma is easily detached, it's just 2 screws to open.
We could also say, the Tamron G II is the result of the mistakes Tamron and Sigma did with 3 lenses before ^_^ I'm not counting Nikon's 200-500/5.6
I just don't know why you want after your 500/4 now the zoom. You're not wanting that 100 mm extra, do you? A crop from the Nikon will serve as well. Why don't you get another body for shorter FL? I found the lens change with the Sigma demanding and not so quickly done in the field.
Quote:I see the Tamron meanwhile as the better package, at least the second generation: The brake for any (not only just selected) focal length and the Arca foot which would cost another 200 € at the Sport are making the difference. The Tamron now also has a dock and believe me, it's complicated to adjust AF for ∞. Zooming handheld with the Sigma? Manual focusing without a tripod? You need very good luck...
But the foot of the Sigma is easily detached, it's just 2 screws to open.
We could also say, the Tamron G II is the result of the mistakes Tamron and Sigma did with 3 lenses before ^_^ I'm not counting Nikon's 200-500/5.6
I just don't know why you want after your 500/4 now the zoom. You're not wanting that 100 mm extra, do you? A crop from the Nikon will serve as well. Why don't you get another body for shorter FL? I found the lens change with the Sigma demanding and not so quickly done in the field.
Agree with your points in general and I'm shooting both formats, D750/D500.
The foot of the sigma is detachable and I took it off, with the four screws it weighs 108 gms, it's less in the way without it, for weight saving I think a generic lens-hood would do more to help lens balance.
So far with my Tamron the AF has been spot on with the only errors coming from BIF.
The Tamron came before the 500mm F4, and much as I love shooting with the latter it's 4.2 Kgs!! So it's a lens more for setup shoots out of the camper or with a back-pack. Another other thing is it's just that...500mm! a lot of the time it's not quite enough and often way too much, I love shooting at F4 with melt away backgrounds and it's fine when you have the birds and your shooting but if there aren't many you get fed up lugging it around for no shots.
In many ways I'm glad I tried the Sigma, it's a giant lens of beauty, but there just not enough advantages to make it a better practical lens than the G2.
I also have the "shoot out of the camper" plan, using 20 square meters of camouflage printed cotton to cover one side of the van completely , like a livable mobile bird hide, selling the G1 to my friend will mean I can treat myself to the G2, which I now think is the best practical tele-zoom out there.
f/4 is neither on the Sigma nor the Tamron available - so that bit you have to let go, you will not get it from the zoom - and 600 to 500 mm is 0.9° difference
Sorry mate, this is just not worth to mention for me, especially at this FL the prime will perform great and the zoom soso, compared to it.
If it's the weight: Tamron.
If it's the added value: Tamron
I don't understand why Sigma is milking their sports clients for an extra foot, coming at 1/7 of the lens' price! Especially since it's not possible to balance the lens on a Gimbal with the standard foot without buying an extra long swallow-tail plate. And this I know by experience although I forgot about the 4 screws and remembered only half of them.
If I were about to buy again a long lens, I would consider the Tamron first, now it has 10 years of warranty in Switzerland, I can see the effort and value they put in and Sigma already got some scratches in their renommée for me. Quattro cameras and moon prices (very different ones, depending where you live), different speed in their Windows and Mac-versions of RAW converter, the mediocre 12-24, the very heavy 85/1.4, the very great 500/4 and the whole series of cinema lenses are in the row to counterbalance the list. They are still great, but as I see it, they should take care not to loose it and focus so much on cinema lenses.
Quote:f/4 is neither on the Sigma nor the Tamron available - so that bit you have to let go, you will not get it from the zoom - and 600 to 500 mm is 0.9° difference
Sorry mate, this is just not worth to mention for me, especially at this FL the prime will perform great and the zoom soso, compared to it.
I wasn't saying it was for the extra 100mm FL alone, handy that it is, it's the fact that you can also zoom out. One dreams of the bird approaching... with a fixed focal length you may get three or four frames before the bird is too close, with a zoom you quickly go to 200mm or so and continue shooting, there you get want you really want, close images of birds at shorter focal lengths where the lens is much sharper.
|
