Sigma 150-600 contemporary

Thanks Sid. I'm using a Windows Pc
Please have a look
https://flic.kr/p/2kGT​LtH
https://www.dropbox.co​m …egkk6a/31165760​1.jpg?dl=0

I'm not familiar with windows so can't really help if that's the issue, the jpg you uploaded checked out fine here. Have you reinstalled the software or asked the question to the software developers or their forum?

Thanks Sid. I figured out a way: I created a preset, marked "auto apply..", set the lens name = "%150-600%" and the correct lens selected. It seems to be working fine.

Cool, glad you got something sorted

First shots with the Sigma from a local wildlife park blind.

Only owned this lens for a short while but loving it so far. I think it looks pretty good at 600mm wide open.

I also purchased the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter.

This is without TC.

A juvenile flamingo just starting to show a hint of the colour to come...

A long-tail tree monkey seeking shelter from the hot sun

Photo from Tronhard's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1093454)

Tronhard wrote in post #19208364
A juvenile flamingo just starting to show a hint of the colour to come...

Hosted photo: posted by Tronhard in
./showthread.php?p=192​08364&i=i32758050
forum: Canon Lenses

Amazing colors. I did not know they did not start life all pink but we do not have those out here in the west.

Jdumas wrote in post #19210400
Amazing colors. I did not know they did not start life all pink but we do not have those out here in the west.

Most adolescents of light coloured birds seem to start off with more mottled, darker and subdued colours. I believe it is to act as camouflage while they are unable to defend themselves or flee predators. The young of the second-largest sea birds, the Gannets, have the same thing:

For example:
An adult feeding its very young chick on the nest. They young chick's almost white lets it blend in with the white guano that surrounds the nest.

Nice to see that the much-maligned 7D can still get it done. Was my mainstream camera body until superseded by the 7D2 in 2015 and now both are superseded by a Fuji X-H1. Still in use, though, by my daughter.

russbecker wrote in post #19212150
Nice to see that the much-maligned 7D can still get it done. Was my mainstream camera body until superseded by the 7D2 in 2015 and now both are superseded by a Fuji X-H1. Still in use, though, by my daughter.

Russ, how was your experience in going from Canon to Fuji? Did you adapt your EF lenses? How does the AF on the X-H1 compare with the 7DII?

Yes, the only Fuji glass I own are the 1.4X and 2X extenders, and last fall I picked up a Fuji XF 100-400 after trying it from Lens Rentals.

I have found that the Fuji 100-400 is nearly the equivalent of the Canon 100-400 Mk2 both bare and with the 1.4X extender. However, the Canon 100-400 Mk2 with the Fuji 2X extender definitely out performs the Fuji with the same extender. All the of adapted EF glass is used with the Fringer Pro 2 adapter. The Fuji 100-400 has the advantage of being nearly a pound lighter than the equivalent rig with the Canon 100-400 plus Fringer plus 1.4X ( I have found that the Fringer adapted glass works best if the extender is after the Fringer adapter, hence the reason I have the Fuji extenders). So, if I am out walking around I used the X-H1 with the Fuji 1.4X and the Fuji 100-400; if I am staying more or less in one place I will use the X-H1 with the Canon 100-400 and either the 1.4X or 2X Fuji extender. I am amazed at how well the Canon 100-400 plus Fuji 2X works; until Canon brought out their RF 800/11 I hadn't thought about shooting with the Canon 100-400 at 800mm and f/11 but there is juice left to be squeezed from that orange in the right light and the AF isn't much different than with the 1.4X extender.

I use the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100 f/2 and the 135mm f/2L with the Fuji, as well as the 24mm f/2.8 EFS pancake. The latter has since been superseded my a Neewer 32mm f/1.6 and Neewer 25mm f/1.8 fully manual glass in a native X-mount. Those two lenses cost $30 and $50 respectively and perform amazingly well, as does my 45 year old Fujinon 55 f/1.8 adapted left over from my film days.

I have also used the Fringer adapter with the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk2 (works well), the 300 f/4 (struggles), and the 50 f/1.8 plastic fantastic (mixed results). In general, EF lenses that gave you trouble on your Canon DSLR bodies will give you trouble adapted and those that were rock solid are still rock solid.

I have also tested the Sigma 60-600 with the Fringer adapter; the AF and IQ were both excellent, but that lens is about as heavy as a Sherman tank and was rejected for that reason.

The 7D2 is faster, especially if you are making a big change in distance, the focus motors on the Fuji 100-400 are slower than the Canon 100-400. The 7D2, however, is not as precise as the X-H1; I shoot the 7D2 at 10 FPS squeezing off bursts of 2 or 3 shots and then select the one with the best focus; with the X-H1 I no longer shoot bursts at either 6 or 11 FPS but shoot single shot because I can tap the shutter button rapidly enough and almost all of the shots are in sharp focus. This is true whether I use the Fuji 100-400 or the Canon 100-400. Another plus is that the X-H1 has the quietest mechanical shutter I have used, it is very stealthy when shooting wildlife.

Spot AF on the Fuji works about as well as Spot AF on the 7D2, both are capable if ignoring small branches you are trying to shoot through. The Fuji, like all of the rest of the MILC on the market, is only sensitive to vertical line contrast so it may struggle at times in this mode, but if it does lock focus it is 'there', unlike the Spot AF on the 7D2 which can maddeningly be 'nearly there' despite having a cross-type AF spot.

When you focus with the Canon glass and the Fringer adapter there will be a brief interval of hunting (say a half second) before locking focus; with the Fuji the X-H1 will smoothly go to focus, but not as quickly as with the Canon glass. The X-H1 is much more likely to get locked onto a busy background with the Fuji 100-400 than the Canon 100-400 and this is where the Canon has a big advantage; if you get locked onto the background you can reach out and quickly twist the manual focus ring to get things back close and then re-focus; the Fuji is entirely focus-by-wire and you have to actually put the X-H1 into manual focus mode and then start twisting the focus ring, by that time the shot is gone. When the Fuji lens gets locked on the background I just point it at some near object that nearly fills the frame and force it to re-focus.

I rented an X-T4 to see if there was any AF performance improvement and the answer was not really. The X-T4 was a bit faster, but not much, and was just as prone to get locked onto a busy background. I could not see a discernible difference in IQ between the 24MP and 26MP sensors (both are superior to any of the Canon APS-C sensors). And, for me, the X-T4 body was too small and hard to hold, and the shutter release button was not nearly as comfortable. Fuji still has the problem of having to please the hipster cult that comprises a large part of their following.

Russ, thanks for that detailed response!!

Being a long-time Canon user, I was impressed by Fuji's lens selection. Even though I don't often use fast primes, it opened my eyes to what it means for a company to be really committed to high quality APS-C lens offerings.

At the time I asked, I was looking at the X-S10. The X-T4 seems like a great camera with many high-end features, but I was also turned off by its controls and ergonomics. I like that Fuji has USB-C instead of micro, and while I can live without two slots, I wish the X-S10's slot supported UHS-II like the X-T4.

In any event, I ended up going with the Sony a6400, which also has only a single UHS-I slot, as well as micro USB. What decided it for me was that all of the reviews and comparisons I read said that Sony's AF and tracking was superior. Since my two most used lenses are EF-mount Sigmas (17-70 and 100-400), I went with the Sigma MC-11 adapter.

Thanks again, and best of luck!