Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

I spent much of last week on the Gulf Coast of Florida with other family members. I had my Sigma 150-600mm on the camera one day shooting conures along the beach. several relatives were sitting around the condo talking and decided I would see how it does for portraits. The distance to the subject was close enough that at times the camera couldn't lock focus without me leaning backward another 3 to 6 inches. Taken with a 70d.

My 87(?) year old aunt
150mm - ISO 200 - 1/200 sec - f/5.0

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/sFy2​mL

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tm7E​cn

Another moon...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tnAA​Gq

davidmtml wrote in post #17571786
Spotted this Bald Eagle on my way up to go hiking yesterday. 600mm, f9, with a Canon 60D

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tBk9​b7 Memorial Day Bald Eagle by David Rabenberg, on Flickr

wow, nice capute, great sharpness

NebrGuy wrote in post #17572666
I spent much of last week on the Gulf Coast of Florida with other family members. I had my Sigma 150-600mm on the camera one day shooting conures along the beach. several relatives were sitting around the condo talking and decided I would see how it does for portraits. The distance to the subject was close enough that at times the camera couldn't lock focus without me leaning backward another 3 to 6 inches. Taken with a 70d.

My 87(?) year old aunt
150mm - ISO 200 - 1/200 sec - f/5.0

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/sFy2​mL IMG_4978.jpg by Robert, on Flickr

My 79 year old dad
150mm - ISO 200 - 1/160 sec - f/5.0

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tm7E​cn IMG_4980.jpg by Robert, on Flickr

This proves that our lens is more than capable for portraits, very nice, i like the skin tones and the bokeh !

Nature Wildlife shooters of 300mm ++ may like this new feature coming to Lightroom. "Dehaze" in my view is especially good for shooters of 300mm ++ because we capture - unfortunately - more of the air or 'atmosphere' which often contains summer or morning 'Haze'.

Looks like this feature helps get the most contrast, detail, and saturation out of the shot.

I myself have 5.7 and will hope that I can eventually get this feature without buying into the monthly subscription. Yet... it really is a good feature for my nature works....

https://www.youtube.co​m …adbpl=fb&adbpr=​5850453463

From my pond yesterday

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …7662561484/in/d​ateposted/

5C7A4217 C) All Rights Reserved

Immaculens wrote in post #17576636
Nature Wildlife shooters of 300mm ++ may like this new feature coming to Lightroom. "Dehaze" in my view is especially good for shooters of 300mm ++ because we capture - unfortunately - more of the air or 'atmosphere' which often contains summer or morning 'Haze'.

Looks like this feature helps get the most contrast, detail, and saturation out of the shot.

I myself have 5.7 and will hope that I can eventually get this feature without buying into the monthly subscription. Yet... it really is a good feature for my nature works....

https://www.youtube.co​m …adbpl=fb&adbpr=​5850453463

Thanks Will..
BTW they were running a special for CC LR & PS $7.99 month, as opposed to $9.99

To upgrade from LR 5 to 6 it was $75, so 7.99x12 months = 95.88 is not bad for 1 year subscription.. and you get both LR & PS
You can cancel your subscription at any time, not 100% sure if that policy has changed.

Hi all, question for those of you who have this lens and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L non IS.
I tend to use a 2x tele on my 70-200 to get the reach i want, but then i get very soft results.

Has any one who has bought this lens stopped using there 70-200 for example?
The wife has said if i want to buy the sigma i have to sell the canon and Im also not sure if i will miss the F2.8 on the canon.

Smurff wrote in post #17577649
Hi all, question for those of you who have this lens and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L non IS.
I tend to use a 2x tele on my 70-200 to get the reach i want, but then i get very soft results.

Has any one who has bought this lens stopped using there 70-200 for example?
The wife has said if i want to buy the sigma i have to sell the canon and Im also not sure if i will miss the F2.8 on the canon.

Two different lenses for two different purposes. Sure you can get some sports, wildlife with the 70-200 2.8 non IS, but adding a tele, is crippling it. Now if you had the 2.8 II that may different. I have no idea if they make a 2.8 II non IS. Even then, your missing 400- 600 that the C gives you.

I say it all comes down to what your intended use will be.. which you didn't mention. Also how often you will use the C vs the 70-200 2.8 non IS

Bianchi wrote in post #17577867
Two different lenses for two different purposes. Sure you can get some sports, wildlife with the 70-200 2.8 non IS, but adding a tele, is crippling it. Now if you had the 2.8 II that may different. I have no idea if they make a 2.8 II non IS. Even then, your missing 400- 600 that the C gives you.

I say it all comes down to what your intended use will be.. which you didn't mention. Also how often you will use the C vs the 70-200 2.8 non IS

Sadly i knew that was the answer and your completely right.
Ive stopped using the 70-200 lately i must say.
Went to an airshow today and spent the day with the tele on, the results were fantastic for filling the recycle bin.
I do like to go to car racing when the weather is good, otherwise im just a bit of a wander'er with the 24-105 on.

Bianchi wrote in post #17577867
Two different lenses for two different purposes. Sure you can get some sports, wildlife with the 70-200 2.8 non IS, but adding a tele, is crippling it. Now if you had the 2.8 II that may different. I have no idea if they make a 2.8 II non IS. Even then, your missing 400- 600 that the C gives you.

I say it all comes down to what your intended use will be.. which you didn't mention. Also how often you will use the C vs the 70-200 2.8 non IS

I would agree with Bianchi. I used the 70-200 non-IS with the 2x tele. It was ok, but I was never really thrilled with the results. For one, it seemed like the reach just fell short of what I wanted/needed and enlarging the image didn't help. I sold my 2x teleconverter when I bought the 150-600mm because I just don't need that now.

To your question: Have I stopped using the 70-200? No. I just spent a week in Florida. I wrestled with taking both the 150-600 and the 70-200 as it is a lot of weight to carry on the plane. I did take both and was glad I did. I used the 150-600 to shoot a number of wildlife shots and the 70-200 during my niece's wedding. I was not the official photographer so I didn't know if I would use it or not, but since I had it there I did. I don't think I will get rid of it any time in the near future unless I were to switch to an IS version.

Love how close you can get with the 150-600. No need to crop!

A new category perhaps - PIF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tTrj​QA

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/sWL8​ZS

Bianchi wrote in post #17577570
From my pond yesterday

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …7662561484/in/d​ateposted/
5C7A4217 C) All Rights Reserved by Sett N trenZ on Flickr

Terrific Shot! I'd hang out at your pond all day!

I agree 100%!
Never seen a bird spear fishing before.

Smurff wrote in post #17577649
Hi all, question for those of you who have this lens and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L non IS.
I tend to use a 2x tele on my 70-200 to get the reach i want, but then i get very soft results.

Has any one who has bought this lens stopped using there 70-200 for example?
The wife has said if i want to buy the sigma i have to sell the canon and Im also not sure if i will miss the F2.8 on the canon.

I have both the 150-600 and the 70-200mm IS II. I think as others have commented they are two different beasts, and I wouldn't part with either