150-600 comparison

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17924521
.

A Pika photo - how cool is that?!!!!
Not many folks get the chance to enjoy these little critters.
It's great that you posted this, Rik!

.

Now what did you contribute to the purpose of this thread, Tom? Just teasing with you-happy you got a kick out of the pix. "I strive to please. "

rgfrison wrote in post #17924641
I just watched this last night, pretty informative, the sigma they are testing is the sport, which is getting into 100-400Lv2
price range also. I am debating this same thing. I loved my 100-400 L version I, and might go that route again. A 400 5.6 is another I am kicking around. Longevity is one thing the video does not cover, if it did, the 400 f/5.6 would win hands down,
it has proven itself time and time again. I would like more reach, but closing distance will accomplish the same thing with better results.

It's always a dilemma, ain't it?!? Definitely not thinking about the Sport.If I had that coin, the L lens would me in my future. As for longevity, not my main concern, at my age, we don't buy in bulk anymore.

LV Moose wrote in post #17924824
Easier said than done, or we'd all be shooting critters with a nifty-fifty. Also, there are plenty of instances where geography won't allow you to close the distance any further... rivers, swamps, thick undergrowth, and so on. And if the target is up in a tall tree, same thing applies; having to rely on closing the distance might mean shooting up at a steeper angle vs a more desirable shallow angle.

Or boardwalks over alligator ponds!

rgfrison wrote in post #17924641
I would like more reach, but closing distance will accomplish the same thing with better results.

ROFL! Try that in Yellowstone with a wolf or bear.

I thought we were talking about birding lenses.
Wolves and Black Bear don't worry me, Grizzly would be a different story. I have no worries about
Yellowstone, I go to the wilderness for solitude and relaxation, zoo shooting is not on my to do list.

RikWriter wrote in post #17926106
ROFL! Try that in Yellowstone with a wolf or bear.

rgfrison wrote in post #17926168
I thought we were talking about birding lenses.
Wolves and Black Bear don't worry me, Grizzly would be a different story. I have no worries about
Yellowstone, I go to the wilderness for solitude and relaxation, zoo shooting is not on my to do list.

Easy, guys. Reach is what I am looking for without coming up with thousands (with an "s") of dollars.

rgfrison wrote in post #17926168
I thought we were talking about birding lenses.
Wolves and Black Bear don't worry me, Grizzly would be a different story. I have no worries about
Yellowstone, I go to the wilderness for solitude and relaxation, zoo shooting is not on my to do list.

First of all, birds are even harder to get close to.
Second, calling Yellowstone a zoo is plain ignorant and ridiculous. In actuality, animals in the "wild" are much more likely to act like zoo animals because they get into human trash and look to humans for food. In national parks, there are very strict rules strictly enforced about leaving human trash accessible to wildlife. So you're basically kidding yourself.
And last, some of us who actually love wildlife and bird photography find it relaxing and exhilarating or we wouldn't do it.

I didn't read that as an insult or anything really. I just saw 3 different sentences, separated by commas, and didn't read the final statement as a extension of the first.

- I am not afraid at Yellowstone
- I like to get to the wilderness for relaxation
- I don't shoot at zoos

Perhaps I am reading this wrong then.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17926454
I didn't read that as an insult or anything really. I just saw 3 different sentences, separated by commas, and didn't read the final statement as a extension of the first.

- I am not afraid at Yellowstone
- I like to get to the wilderness for relaxation
- I don't shoot at zoos

Perhaps I am reading this wrong then.

No, you are not reading it wrong. That's exactly the way I read it. In no way whatsoever does it look to me as if Randy is associating Yellowstone with a zoo.

.

I'm thinking we've strayed off-topic.

ardeekay wrote in post #17918240
Hey, birders, any of you know of an unbiased comparison of the sigma 150-600C vs. The Tamron 150-600? ...also curious how each play with TC's?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17926821
No, you are not reading it wrong. That's exactly the way I read it. In no way whatsoever does it look to me as if Randy is associating Yellowstone with a zoo.

.

Maybe you're right. If so, I apologize for misunderstanding.

I am sorry for the confusion, The original point I guess I didn't make very well was about my lens issue.
I have decided to try and better my stalking skills and get something I have used, until I can afford to
buy big glass if I ever do. I am no pro, it is just a hobby I am passionate about.

The op already has amazing images taken with a 300 f/4L, if he could hold off and buy what he really wants he is going
to be happy he saved this money instead of buying a get me by lens, when he already has a great lens
that could get him by.

Pm'd you.

The Sigma C version is 4.25#. Still feels heavy compared to my other lenses.

OK, good to know. Must be the Sport version that's 6#s.

I have the 600mm Tamron and with a little practice and good light you can get good photos with it

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ztMm​DL

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E4fJ​hM

Those are pretty soft, however I think the issue isn't so much the lens as a front focusing issue. In all the owl shots, I can see the grass in front being in focus more than the owls. Not sure if you have any other bodies that might allow focus adjustments, but if so, I would try that lens on those bodies.