Great review -- I recently bought the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, with its latest generation VR, and a couple of days ago the sun came out and I quickly compared it to my 300mm f/2.8 and the older generation VR 200mm f/2 and 500mm f/4 lenses and was amazed how well it stood up. I agree it's not as sharp or as fast as the primes -- but it's very light and very cheap. If your traveling, for example to africa for a safari, I'm putting it in my bag, together with 70-200mm zoom, and a couple of shorter primes - and then deciding what else I can carry. I'm waiting for a sunny day to field test 200-500 against all the longer lenses I own before I make a decision. But in my entirely ill informed view this is a great lens at the price.
Rocking the 200-500 + TC14Eiii for wildlife at the moment, and loving it. On the D7200 it's 420-1050mm FF equivalent, which you need for birds far out on the lake or little songbirds that won't let you get near.
@@PCEngineer2007uk same here! I did hear some folks on the internet discuss autofocus problems when above 5.6f for DX format, so was leaning towards the nikon 200-500 , and from there I could upgrade with a 1.4 nikon teleconverter to the +-700mm range. (taking into account the extra stop of loss with the teleconverter you end up at the same 6.3 as the sigma, but for 700mm, is my reasoning ... :) )
@@quintencoucke5805 you're kinda wrong, with a teleconverter on the nikon you end up at f8 and on the sigma it becomes f9, but there is no problem because almost every camera keeps having good autofocus until f8, only on the sigma it is a problem. They have both no autofocus problems, only the sigma has autofocus problems when having a teleconverter on it. And I'm talking about a 1.4x teleconverter not 1.7 or 2 but those will not work well on both
I think that since you used a mono pod to stabilize the sigma and did not use one with the nikon that any comparison of sharpness between them is completely unreliable.
You mentioned that the Sigma was hard to zoom, when I hired this lens I had the same problem until I realised that you can actually hold the lens at the end and you can push/pull to zoom. A bit like with the Canon 100-400. Sigma actually recommend zooming in that way. I'm yet to try out the 200-500 but I think it's still going to be a really tough decision between the two.
I know you said that AF on the Nikon was good, but another youtuber said it focuses a little slower, can have trouble acquiring focus, and can have trouble re-acquiring if AF lost. Did you encounter that? I shoot sports, wildlife, and birds. Thanks.
I'm looking to buy the Nikon; hence, the reason I'm watching this vid in 2020. What impresses me more than anything else is you went out to shoot MLB on a day in which Ichiro was pitching. LOL.
Curious. What technique did you use to get the exact same photograph from two different cameras simultaneously? You had another person shooting the other camera, saying 123 go? You had the two cameras set up on a tripod with a dual mount head and you could pivot them simultaneously?
One thing you didn’t mention is weather housing. I know the Sigma sport has this but I have been unable to definitively work out what level of weather housing the Nikon has - it has a rubber seal on the mount but otherwise nothing specific is mentioned. Can you clear that up Jared?
Hi Jared, I currently own the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens which has been great but I have been thinking of replacing it with the Canon 500mm F4 IS mark i. I am thinking there may be an advantage when pairing with a 1.4 TC mark iii F4 and 700 at 5.6 is better than 600 at F6.3. Scotland doesn't always have a lot of Sun so good light for wildlife is always a challenge. Do you think the older canon is possibly sharper and would produce a slightly better image?
Thanks, Jared, I've been waiting for this video. I've gone for the Nikon. Primarily because of the weight if I'm honest, especially after hearing your comments regarding quality for both. I climb up and down hills all day when I'm shooting birds and that extra kilo or so makes a difference, and with the price difference I also got a kirk foot for the lens. The extra 100mm reach would be useful but it's far from a deal breaker at these focal lengths. Would love to know at what focal length the Sigma changes to f6.3 though, just out of curiousity
+Alex Alexander Check out the paragraph with the title "Max Aperture": www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx
Love your videos. Thank you. I have a Nikon D5600 and the 70-300mm Nikkor lens. I do mostly bird photography as a hobby including those small warblers. I want to upgrade my equipment, but dont know if I should change the body (D750, or?) or the 200-500. Thoughts?
I got Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C (for Canon 6D) is it good enough for aviation photography? Do got some tips for camera settings to fit Aviation photography with that lens? Thanks!
+Anthony Hershko these were all taken with the Sport version: www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-hawkes/albums/72157653793193904 there is EXIF data on the images too.
+namboozleUK Thank you so much!!! Amazing pictures!! Last question, what camera settings do you recommend at night aviation photography? (I'm not using a tripod). Thanks!
I've been waiting for a good review & comparison between these 2 lenses, but I would have like to seen some birding and other photos included. Thanks Jared for the near apples to apples!
Very interesting and informative video Jared way to go! Could you do a video for fully controlling a manual lens? Meaning a lens with an aperture ring and only manual focus, which a prosumer camera is not able to meter in order to get a correct exposure automatically
I'd say they are more for all sports below the top two or three divisions played outside. Mostly I'm thinking school and local fieldsports. Nowadays the town newspaper doesn't have a fulltime staff photographer so they draw from shooters at the game or match and print them. But the shooter tends to be a guy/gal with a good set-up that can nail good images when the sportspeople are predictible. I suspect the same is true here too. Those lenses won't nab the shot with the ease of a larger maw when the pro-sportspeople do the magic that they get the big bucks for.
That comparison didn't help me decide between the two. The review was too indecisive. Pixel peeping D4S files are much different than the D500 I'm considering.
Those images look amazing! How did you edit them to get such a fantastic contrast? When I'm working with the contrast slider or the curves, I somehow always seem to either blow out the highlights or loose all of the detail in the shadows. Or both :/
Jared Polin Oh alright. I wasn't aware that I could also open these with the edits in my Photoshop Elements (unfortunatly, as a student with quite a tight budget, I don't own Lightroom yet, but I also don't want to pirate it) . Ty for all of your videos!
Isn't the Sigma non-sports version pretty much the same lens but without weather sealing and a lighter casing? It's 4 pounds rather than 6 for the sport version. I don't see why the image quality should be different though. What's different in the two that one would be superior to the other?
hey Jarod, i find very useful having a long range. that is why i got a 2x tele-conveter on my 70-200 f/2.8 becoming 400 mm f/5.6. Is it the same quality. or do you think i shoudl get the 200-500 When i bought tele-conveter the lens was not there in the market... your insight is appreciated...
+Marcos Enrique II Ruiz Rivero (Aviel is Superguide) I tried this on my Tamron lenses.. No. 2X converter will degrade IQ considerably. I will not use 2X converter. Just not worth it.
First I got the Nikon 200-500 but I was lucky to be able to also extensively try the Sigma Sport as well. Pretty similar performance overall, and agree to what Mr. Polin is saying. Sigma is overall a tad sharper and has better contrast out of the box. AF is similar, maybe the Sigma is just a little more snappier. However, after the first firmware update the Sigma Sport was already clearly ahead of the Nikon 200-500. Since then the Sigma Sport have been updated once or twice and each time the AF speed has become better. The Sigma Sport now beats the Nikon 200-500 clearly in terms of AF speed and also the IQ is a tad better. The versatility and pro quality of the Sigma is awesome. Since then I have sold the 200-500 and never looked back. Sorry Nikon, Sigma wins this one for sure. My favourite lens however is still the 600mm prime from Nikon.
+Jared Polin Thanks for the videos! Great content Is there gonna be review of the Epson P600? You already did the unboxing Or a video with that one vs the Canon Pixma Pro 10 you did previously?
+Awkwardly Accented Vlogger Gottcha! Imjust excited about shooting.. What would you use? I have the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 also the 50MM F 1.8g Thanks for any advice :)
Steve Neville If i'd have to pick i'd go with the 55-200, you said there's lots of lighting so it shouldn't be to much of a issue even though the lens isn't very wide. i'd try that. And try to keep that shutter nice and high. Personally i use my 70-200 because i can go to 2.8, but seeing how you don't have that option i'd go 55-200. Also it's crop sensor so you have a lot of zoom to play with
+Steve Neville I'm personally using a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS lens on my D3300. It's no longer in production, but you can find one used for around $800. It imitates a 70-200 lens on a full frame (It's 75-225 on the D3300) and I think that it does a nice job. I have also recently bought a 2x teleconverter (would make it a 100-300 5f.6) used for $150 for this lens but I don't have much opinion on this yet, haven't gotten a chance to really use it. Big downside to this lens though is that it's only for APS-C bodies. If you ever want to make that full-frame upgrade, you'll have to leave this lens behind. Otherwise, Awkwardly Accent Vlogger's suggestion with the 55-200 will probably do you very well.
+Awkwardly Accented Vlogger thanks for the suggestions. Do you have a Facebook or something so I can ask questions? I did end up using the 55-200 high shutter speed and had to bump up my ISO because it was taking dark pics. They came out looking ok for my first time. The 50mm f1.8g takes the best portrait pictures. I took some amazing shots for my first time. I need someone to critique my photos so I can know what to change. Thanks
Thanks for this, I have mobility issues so your review with the weight etc really helped. Just upgraded to Nikon D7100 and have 18-140mm plus 80-200 and been looking at both of these. May go for the 200-500 for the air displays.
These are great but no weather sealing makes it a difficult decision to buy them if you're going on a safari tour or something like that. All that dust...
hey Jared one question I'm gonna start sport photography and I'm saving up for the sigma just that where do u go to tale the shots what's it called shot square photographers square or area please answer
How do you think the Nikon 70-200 with a Nikon 2X teleconverter compares? My biggest struggle is is it worth it to buy a full new lens if a 2x gives me close performance and I obviously still have my 70-200 2.8 on me just needing to pop off the TC.
you use monopod for sigma and some compersion not right simga will f6.2 and nikkor f5.6 you must use sam f stop its big diffrent make this nikkor lens high sharaper in f 8
i would be extremely curious to see a comparison of the Nikkor 600 f4 vs Sigma 150-600 Sport at 600mm and some diaphragms. Of course it wont be a surprise who's best, but..how big is the difference in image quality?
idk but the specs on th 1dx are better for the d4s nikon it is the best but i am obviously a canon fanboy but of all (high end sports) camera's you can't beat the 1dx the price on the d4s is better but why wouldn't you use the 7d markII the specs except the fullframe and iso are similar but a lot of people like the cropt sensor for sports and wildlife and it is almost a fourth of the d4s nikon doesn't really have something 10 fps or higher in that price range
+TheSirab1 I look closely at ISO clarity because I do so much low light action (fire scene, indoor sports etc.). I think cannons are excellent cameras. I just got a nikon first and had it for so long that I have accumulated lenses for it, so now I'm pretty locked in. Like I said, I prefer nikon for my stuff, cannon is good for other stuff.
+daan stam because #Jared Polin is comparing the 200-500 Nikon with the 150-600 Sigma.... So, he took the best Nikon camera out there. Make sense, right? There is no equivalent lens for Canon. (A future 200-500 IS has been announced)
I have use the 200-500 today and I think I agree with your comments. I like the weight of the nikon but it does look dull, not much contrast and not sharp when before applying sharpness. Sigma af is suppose to be faster too.
Jared, I think you should try the Nikon some other time. The lighting was poor which was the obvious reason for staying at 5.6 but I have seen super tact sharp images with that lens that have mistaken me for being taken with prime lenses. The 200-500 is extremely sharp and in comparisons with a 500mm f4, there was almost no difference unless you actually zoomed in 1:1 and even then it wasn't that much of a difference which blew me away. That lens just like most lenses aren't going to be tact sharp at 5.6 also combined with a high ISO.
Both excellent lenses. If you need more focal lenght, buy Sigma. If you need a fixed aperture, by Nikon. The small differences are depending on the calibration of cameras and lenses. Even two Nikon D4s are not equally calibrated.
It's only one stop. You talk about having to bump up the iso "so much", but it's really just one stop (well for the Nikon anyway), which isn't that big a deal.
when I bought my big sig, the nikon was not available yet. however, the stabilization at slow shutter speeds is incredible! took a great portrait inside at 1/15th at 600mm that was very good. yes it is heavy, so GO TO THE GYM!
@8:44, Jared gives us permission to play with ourselves ;-) All kidding aside, this was a nice comparison review! Will you be given the opportunity from Canon to do the same with the their superzoom once it comes out? There is a 150-500 I believe in the making.
+Frans van Terwisga I wish Canon would keep the tag price at low to mid 1000s like Nikon did. But I doubt it since the 100-400 ii is 2K. I guess it doesn't cost to dream.
Sir, please review for the image quality for the image quality of Nikon 200-500mm on my APS-C sensor camera nikon D5300. Is it worth buying over Tamron G2 150-600?
Pitcher foot focus, in the Nikon your not completely focused on the pitchers body, the mound's dirt is focused behind the pitchers foot, 5.6-6.0 its not that much of a difference, should of re-shot the Nikon lens if your that technical with the sharpness. Remember its not just the lens it's also the shooter. Overall nice review Jared!
I'm curious, you comment about the Sigma zoom being "very tight", yet the 150-600 Sport is built for push/pull zoom, as well, rather than relying only on the twist to zoom... Did you work with the push/pull capability? I actually purchased the Sigma to use at airshows and plane-spotting...
Porque não comparou as qualidades das objetivas nikkor com a sigma numa mesma dslr e ambas lado a lado e os resultados das fotos uma do lado da outra e os vídeos meio a meio ou seja 50% da tela mostrando a nikkor e 50% mostrando a sigma ? deixou a desejar este comparativo ! esperava mais de você !
Thanks for a great review. Based on your video, I bought the Nikon and am very happy with it. I chose Nikon bec of: 1. Price 2. Weight 3. Its a Nikon. I have had Quality Control issues with Sigma lenses. I had a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO and the image quality was terrible. I had returned it for exchange twice and this one was the least terrible of the three. But still unacceptable. Will never buy a Sigma again.
This is what Thom Hogan says about the Nikon 200-500mm: From the little that I’ve used the Tamron (200-500mm, 150-600mm) and Sigma (150-600mm) lenses, I’d say that the Nikkor is clearly sharper than the other two in virtually every situation, every focal length, and every part of the frame when shot wide open. That’s particularly true of the extreme corners www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f56-lens.html
Hey Polin I been follow for so long I want to get your answer here a question for you, Should I buy the Nikon 2x converter for my 70-200mm F2.8 or should I buy the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 let me know.
Nice work Jared, what does the Sigma look like on your D5 or the Nikon 200-500 on the D5. (yea loved that review) With that combo, the ISO is no longer an issue. Would you still pick the Sigma or have you Also looked a the Tamron 150-600 G2. I know good glass is everything but I would rather have the camera (D5) and my D810 be one of the larger factors. I shoot indoors in a lot of low light situations with Symphonies, Operas and other musical events where the light is crap. I currently use a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 but at time need longer reach and the better camera can save me a ton on glass. I would rather rent the better glass when truly needed. I am also looking at pairing the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VRG I am not sure you have looked at that yet. I will poke around at your other reviews. Thanks again for all the hard work. Stan
+Nicholas McClay The contemporary is pretty much identical to the sport in image quality, maybe even a hair better in the sample I was trying. The sport has faster focus and some more small features, like being able to lock zoom at multiple locations in the range instead of just the end. The collar is removable on the contemporary, but not on the sport.
Hey Jared I have a question. Since You recently had the nikon D500 is there any chance You could do a test with 150-600 Sigma? I know it's for FF body lens, but I'm curious about that extra reach and how it would effect the image quality having 1.5x crop so 300-900mm :) + if VC would work? Thanks.
Can we just ignore the quality for a sec and look at how amazing those photos are? I mean, I’m just a teenager and I’m stuck taking photos of anything interesting in the city with a 28-135mm kit lens
Great review -- I recently bought the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, with its latest generation VR, and a couple of days ago the sun came out and I quickly compared it to my 300mm f/2.8 and the older generation VR 200mm f/2 and 500mm f/4 lenses and was amazed how well it stood up. I agree it's not as sharp or as fast as the primes -- but it's very light and very cheap. If your traveling, for example to africa for a safari, I'm putting it in my bag, together with 70-200mm zoom, and a couple of shorter primes - and then deciding what else I can carry. I'm waiting for a sunny day to field test 200-500 against all the longer lenses I own before I make a decision. But in my entirely ill informed view this is a great lens at the price.
Rocking the 200-500 + TC14Eiii for wildlife at the moment, and loving it. On the D7200 it's 420-1050mm FF equivalent, which you need for birds far out on the lake or little songbirds that won't let you get near.
I'm contemplating the 200-500 on my D7100.... torn between that and the 150-600mm sport!
@@PCEngineer2007uk same here! I did hear some folks on the internet discuss autofocus problems when above 5.6f for DX format, so was leaning towards the nikon 200-500 , and from there I could upgrade with a 1.4 nikon teleconverter to the +-700mm range. (taking into account the extra stop of loss with the teleconverter you end up at the same 6.3 as the sigma, but for 700mm, is my reasoning ... :) )
@@quintencoucke5805 you're kinda wrong, with a teleconverter on the nikon you end up at f8 and on the sigma it becomes f9, but there is no problem because almost every camera keeps having good autofocus until f8, only on the sigma it is a problem. They have both no autofocus problems, only the sigma has autofocus problems when having a teleconverter on it.
And I'm talking about a 1.4x teleconverter not 1.7 or 2 but those will not work well on both
I think that since you used a mono pod to stabilize the sigma and did not use one with the nikon that any comparison of sharpness between them is completely unreliable.
You should be a detective or lawyer :D
I agree 100% percent, I own the Sigma 150-600 C, anytime I use it on a monopod it's almost always better than hand held.
At 1/4000 does that really matter?
@@starwf07 suprised the fro wasn't at 1/8,000
@@starwf07 Exactly, but some people is learning
You mentioned that the Sigma was hard to zoom, when I hired this lens I had the same problem until I realised that you can actually hold the lens at the end and you can push/pull to zoom. A bit like with the Canon 100-400. Sigma actually recommend zooming in that way. I'm yet to try out the 200-500 but I think it's still going to be a really tough decision between the two.
namboozleUK So true. I use my Sigma to shoot jet fighter and warbirds at air shows, it’s moving in 3D and I only zoom that way: push/ pull
The Pentax 150-450 f/4.5-f/5.6 is absolutely incredible, especially on one of their APS-C offerings.
After watching this video, I asked my wife for her opinion. She said wider & longer is best...lol
glennskitchen epic comment 😂😂😂
LOL...
glennskitchen hahahahaha
@@CreativeCloudTutorials .
After 5 years...still epic.
Wow the only game Ichiro Suzuki pitched in (1 Inning) ... Rightfielder ... great comparison ... Awesome lenses
I know you said that AF on the Nikon was good, but another youtuber said it focuses a little slower, can have trouble acquiring focus, and can have trouble re-acquiring if AF lost. Did you encounter that? I shoot sports, wildlife, and birds. Thanks.
I'm looking to buy the Nikon; hence, the reason I'm watching this vid in 2020. What impresses me more than anything else is you went out to shoot MLB on a day in which Ichiro was pitching. LOL.
Why didn't you compare the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary since it is about the same price and weight of the Nikon?
The Nikon is great value. I think some pictures are sharper on Sigma because it’s 6.3 and has more things on focus, than the 5.6 on Nikon.
most entertaining part of this video was -
"get out of here icloud preferences" ..
i laughed several times watching this
Curious. What technique did you use to get the exact same photograph from two different cameras simultaneously? You had another person shooting the other camera, saying 123 go? You had the two cameras set up on a tripod with a dual mount head and you could pivot them simultaneously?
Your reviews are always awesome Jared. Keep up the good work.
Iff I need to crop hard to get my results, (Yea, i know, Jarred, you don’t like cropping 😅) there is no way around pixel peeps.
Thank Jarod, There are so few 200-500mm reviews. Much appreciated
.
One thing you didn’t mention is weather housing. I know the Sigma sport has this but I have been unable to definitively work out what level of weather housing the Nikon has - it has a rubber seal on the mount but otherwise nothing specific is mentioned. Can you clear that up Jared?
Hi Jared, I currently own the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens which has been great but I have been thinking of replacing it with the Canon 500mm F4 IS mark i. I am thinking there may be an advantage when pairing with a 1.4 TC mark iii F4 and 700 at 5.6 is better than 600 at F6.3. Scotland doesn't always have a lot of Sun so good light for wildlife is always a challenge. Do you think the older canon is possibly sharper and would produce a slightly better image?
Thanks, Jared, I've been waiting for this video. I've gone for the Nikon. Primarily because of the weight if I'm honest, especially after hearing your comments regarding quality for both. I climb up and down hills all day when I'm shooting birds and that extra kilo or so makes a difference, and with the price difference I also got a kirk foot for the lens. The extra 100mm reach would be useful but it's far from a deal breaker at these focal lengths. Would love to know at what focal length the Sigma changes to f6.3 though, just out of curiousity
+Alex Alexander Check out the paragraph with the title "Max Aperture": www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx
+Jochen Römling Thanks very much for that link.
I have the Sigma 150-600mm Sports. It’s very heavy. I am probably going to buy the Nikon for handholding.
Absolutly...i took contaporary!
Love your videos. Thank you.
I have a Nikon D5600 and the 70-300mm Nikkor lens.
I do mostly bird photography as a hobby including those small warblers.
I want to upgrade my equipment, but dont know if I should change the body (D750, or?) or the 200-500.
Thoughts?
Lens, definitely a new lens. Then a new body.
Go for D500 with 200-500 f/5.6 E ED which is the best combo for Birding!
Glass glass glass
I got Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C (for Canon 6D)
is it good enough for aviation photography?
Do got some tips for camera settings to fit Aviation photography with that lens?
Thanks!
+Anthony Hershko these were all taken with the Sport version: www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-hawkes/albums/72157653793193904 there is EXIF data on the images too.
+namboozleUK Thank you so much!!! Amazing pictures!! Last question, what camera settings do you recommend at night aviation photography? (I'm not using a tripod).
Thanks!
+namboozleUK wow great job :D
Nice review! Still deciding between sigma sports or contemporary version... Which one will you buy?
Jared...have you used the Nikon 200-500mm with the D500??
Jared... Have you tested the Tamron 150-600 against the Sigma contemporary?
Regards,
Duane
I've been waiting for a good review & comparison between these 2 lenses, but I would have like to seen some birding and other photos included. Thanks Jared for the near apples to apples!
Very interesting and informative video Jared way to go! Could you do a video for fully controlling a manual lens? Meaning a lens with an aperture ring and only manual focus, which a prosumer camera is not able to meter in order to get a correct exposure automatically
JP, what is the difference between the two versions of the Sigma? Sport vs Standard?
i just realized you shot the game where Ichiro was pitching lol nice
Maybe the Nikon 300mm PF f4 would be a good compromise. No zoom obviously but price, performance, size and weight makes it a good option...
I'd say they are more for all sports below the top two or three divisions played outside. Mostly I'm thinking school and local fieldsports. Nowadays the town newspaper doesn't have a fulltime staff photographer so they draw from shooters at the game or match and print them. But the shooter tends to be a guy/gal with a good set-up that can nail good images when the sportspeople are predictible.
I suspect the same is true here too. Those lenses won't nab the shot with the ease of a larger maw when the pro-sportspeople do the magic that they get the big bucks for.
How much of an issue is the weight ? I’d like to shoot wildlife and sports. Is the weight really an obstacle?
That comparison didn't help me decide between the two. The review was too indecisive. Pixel peeping D4S files are much different than the D500 I'm considering.
Those images look amazing! How did you edit them to get such a fantastic contrast? When I'm working with the contrast slider or the curves, I somehow always seem to either blow out the highlights or loose all of the detail in the shadows. Or both :/
+overTIMe hmmmm, in lightroom. You can download the RAW files and see my edits as the are saved inside the DNG.
Jared Polin Oh alright. I wasn't aware that I could also open these with the edits in my Photoshop Elements (unfortunatly, as a student with quite a tight budget, I don't own Lightroom yet, but I also don't want to pirate it)
.
Ty for all of your videos!
+overTIMe lrn2torrent homie
Eric Sangimino Just a question, can you read? I do not want to pirate it
I can read. Still said because I don't care.
Isn't the Sigma non-sports version pretty much the same lens but without weather sealing and a lighter casing? It's 4 pounds rather than 6 for the sport version. I don't see why the image quality should be different though. What's different in the two that one would be superior to the other?
It has more elements.
If I use it in a entry range or a mid range camera then would the high ISO bring grains to the photo ?
What do you think which is sharper or more useful? Is the Sigma 150-600 Sport or the Tamron 150-600 G2?
hey Jarod, i find very useful having a long range. that is why i got a 2x tele-conveter on my 70-200 f/2.8 becoming 400 mm f/5.6. Is it the same quality. or do you think i shoudl get the 200-500 When i bought tele-conveter the lens was not there in the market... your insight is appreciated...
+Marcos Enrique II Ruiz Rivero (Aviel is Superguide) I tried this on my Tamron lenses.. No. 2X converter will degrade IQ considerably. I will not use 2X converter. Just not worth it.
First I got the Nikon 200-500 but I was lucky to be able to also extensively try the Sigma Sport as well. Pretty similar performance overall, and agree to what Mr. Polin is saying. Sigma is overall a tad sharper and has better contrast out of the box. AF is similar, maybe the Sigma is just a little more snappier. However, after the first firmware update the Sigma Sport was already clearly ahead of the Nikon 200-500. Since then the Sigma Sport have been updated once or twice and each time the AF speed has become better. The Sigma Sport now beats the Nikon 200-500 clearly in terms of AF speed and also the IQ is a tad better. The versatility and pro quality of the Sigma is awesome. Since then I have sold the 200-500 and never looked back. Sorry Nikon, Sigma wins this one for sure. My favourite lens however is still the 600mm prime from Nikon.
Could you show some pics of yours with your Sigma please? i'm trying to decide which one i should get! :D
Thank you in advance!
have you ever used the 50-500mm lens from sigma and is there a big difference in sharpness / quality to the 150-600mm sigma lens? Thanks
+Jared Polin Thanks for the videos! Great content
Is there gonna be review of the Epson P600? You already did the unboxing
Or a video with that one vs the Canon Pixma Pro 10 you did previously?
Nice vid , whats the actual magnification on that lens?
Sigma is 150-600mm, Nikon is 200-500mm.
Dude you got to see the game when Ichiro Suzuki pitched a game! That’s something rare to see!
What about Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC lens, how is it compared to these two lenses?
Would the 35mm f1.8 DX on the Nikon d3300 be ok for shooting a football game indoors? Lots of lighting FYI
+Steve Neville Well no, you need so much more range than that.
+Awkwardly Accented Vlogger Gottcha! Imjust excited about shooting.. What would you use? I have the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 also the 50MM F 1.8g Thanks for any advice :)
Steve Neville If i'd have to pick i'd go with the 55-200, you said there's lots of lighting so it shouldn't be to much of a issue even though the lens isn't very wide. i'd try that. And try to keep that shutter nice and high. Personally i use my 70-200 because i can go to 2.8, but seeing how you don't have that option i'd go 55-200. Also it's crop sensor so you have a lot of zoom to play with
+Steve Neville I'm personally using a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS lens on my D3300. It's no longer in production, but you can find one used for around $800. It imitates a 70-200 lens on a full frame (It's 75-225 on the D3300) and I think that it does a nice job. I have also recently bought a 2x teleconverter (would make it a 100-300 5f.6) used for $150 for this lens but I don't have much opinion on this yet, haven't gotten a chance to really use it. Big downside to this lens though is that it's only for APS-C bodies. If you ever want to make that full-frame upgrade, you'll have to leave this lens behind.
Otherwise, Awkwardly Accent Vlogger's suggestion with the 55-200 will probably do you very well.
+Awkwardly Accented Vlogger thanks for the suggestions. Do you have a Facebook or something so I can ask questions? I did end up using the 55-200 high shutter speed and had to bump up my ISO because it was taking dark pics. They came out looking ok for my first time.
The 50mm f1.8g takes the best portrait pictures. I took some amazing shots for my first time. I need someone to critique my photos so I can know what to change.
Thanks
Have you sent out your fro knows photo cards yet?
Jared, did you fine tune the Sigma with the Sigma dock, or just use the lens out of the box?
Thx for that Video from Germany. I Love the fair comparison u give
Bringing out more detail is due to the Sigma stopping down further, and is also why the Nikon has better bokeh.
Thanks for this, I have mobility issues so your review with the weight etc really helped. Just upgraded to Nikon D7100 and have 18-140mm plus 80-200 and been looking at both of these. May go for the 200-500 for the air displays.
What is your honest views of sigma 150 to 500mm sport version? ?
would you ever try a super zoom camera like canon sx50 it zooms to 1200 mm
Will both of these fit the Nikon Z6 with the FTZ adapter?
What about the sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 sport it weighs 3.9 pounds and it’s damn sharp especially on f8.
These are great but no weather sealing makes it a difficult decision to buy them if you're going on a safari tour or something like that. All that dust...
hey Jared one question I'm gonna start sport photography and I'm saving up for the sigma just that where do u go to tale the shots what's it called shot square photographers square or area please answer
Have a question...is there a chance the lenses are not calibrated with the camera? Would Auto Fine Tune help at all with the sharpness?
When can we expect to see the new sigma 60-600mm lens here?
How do you think the Nikon 70-200 with a Nikon 2X teleconverter compares? My biggest struggle is is it worth it to buy a full new lens if a 2x gives me close performance and I obviously still have my 70-200 2.8 on me just needing to pop off the TC.
you use monopod for sigma and some compersion not right simga will f6.2 and nikkor f5.6 you must use sam f stop its big diffrent make this nikkor lens high sharaper in f 8
Dude, great review. To the point and non-bias. Appreciate it. You have helped me choose based on what is more of an importance to me. Thanks again!
i would be extremely curious to see a comparison of the Nikkor 600 f4 vs Sigma 150-600 Sport at 600mm and some diaphragms. Of course it wont be a surprise who's best, but..how big is the difference in image quality?
thank you for the dngs FRO youve always been very generous unlike other photographers
Hello Jared , please compare Nikon 200-500 with Tamron 150-600 g2 that would be very useful info.
idk but the specs on th 1dx are better for the d4s nikon it is the best but i am obviously a canon fanboy but of all (high end sports) camera's you can't beat the 1dx
the price on the d4s is better but why wouldn't you use the 7d markII the specs except the fullframe and iso are similar but a lot of people like the cropt sensor for sports and wildlife and it is almost a fourth of the d4s
nikon doesn't really have something 10 fps or higher in that price range
I've never seen a camera that can get anywhere near the Nikon D4s in clarity at high ISOs.
+291xMac There is no point defending a camera that is 1-2 years younger than the Dx and only beats it by high ISO clarity lol.
+TheSirab1 I look closely at ISO clarity because I do so much low light action (fire scene, indoor sports etc.). I think cannons are excellent cameras. I just got a nikon first and had it for so long that I have accumulated lenses for it, so now I'm pretty locked in. Like I said, I prefer nikon for my stuff, cannon is good for other stuff.
+daan stam because #Jared Polin is comparing the 200-500 Nikon with the 150-600 Sigma.... So, he took the best Nikon camera out there. Make sense, right? There is no equivalent lens for Canon. (A future 200-500 IS has been announced)
great test, thank you for that.
Will we get another Test between nikkor 24-70 vs the new 24-70 VR too? ;) Would be rlyy rly great.
Best regards
I have use the 200-500 today and I think I agree with your comments. I like the weight of the nikon but it does look dull, not much contrast and not sharp when before applying sharpness. Sigma af is suppose to be faster too.
Jared, you don't twist the Sigma, you Push & Pull. Same on the Sigma100-400mm C.
I think he misses the point. I tried both with D500 (indoors sport). Nikon always hit the spot, Sigma not. Thats the price for reverse engineering.
Great job, informative compelling, entertaining. Thanks for sharing your knowledge
Jared, I think you should try the Nikon some other time. The lighting was poor which was the obvious reason for staying at 5.6 but I have seen super tact sharp images with that lens that have mistaken me for being taken with prime lenses. The 200-500 is extremely sharp and in comparisons with a 500mm f4, there was almost no difference unless you actually zoomed in 1:1 and even then it wasn't that much of a difference which blew me away. That lens just like most lenses aren't going to be tact sharp at 5.6 also combined with a high ISO.
do you recommend the Sigma 150-600 on the a6000 or the 20-700 g master oss lens on the a6000?
I'll have to look to see what Sigma has in the Art series.
Just some maths : 5,6x1,4=7,84 6,3x1,4=8,8
The nikon can handle AF and teleconverter, the sigma does not. Which pushes nikon range to 280-700mm.
Both excellent lenses. If you need more focal lenght, buy Sigma. If you need a fixed aperture, by Nikon. The small differences are depending on the calibration of cameras and lenses. Even two Nikon D4s are not equally calibrated.
The significance of capturing ichiro pitching is understated.
It's only one stop. You talk about having to bump up the iso "so much", but it's really just one stop (well for the Nikon anyway), which isn't that big a deal.
when I bought my big sig, the nikon was not available yet. however, the stabilization at slow shutter speeds is incredible! took a great portrait inside at 1/15th at 600mm that was very good. yes it is heavy, so GO TO THE GYM!
lol and more lol
Thanks Afrojared, what great info on these lenses, I will go with Nikon, :)
I m begginor I have Canon 80d
Can I use Nikon 200-500 mm lense for my Canon 80d
cricket world of course no 😂
@8:44, Jared gives us permission to play with ourselves ;-)
All kidding aside, this was a nice comparison review! Will you be given the opportunity from Canon to do the same with the their superzoom once it comes out? There is a 150-500 I believe in the making.
+Frans van Terwisga I wish Canon would keep the tag price at low to mid 1000s like Nikon did. But I doubt it since the 100-400 ii is 2K. I guess it doesn't cost to dream.
Sir, please review for the image quality for the image quality of Nikon 200-500mm on my APS-C sensor camera nikon D5300. Is it worth buying over Tamron G2 150-600?
did you use a custom white balance on those pics?
Wow - you were able to shoot Ichiro pitching!
Pitcher foot focus, in the Nikon your not completely focused on the pitchers body, the mound's dirt is focused behind the pitchers foot, 5.6-6.0 its not that much of a difference, should of re-shot the Nikon lens if your that technical with the sharpness.
Remember its not just the lens it's also the shooter.
Overall nice review Jared!
I'm curious, you comment about the Sigma zoom being "very tight", yet the 150-600 Sport is built for push/pull zoom, as well, rather than relying only on the twist to zoom... Did you work with the push/pull capability? I actually purchased the Sigma to use at airshows and plane-spotting...
Thanks for your honest and detailed review, very helpful!
Porque não comparou as qualidades das objetivas nikkor com a sigma numa mesma dslr e ambas lado a lado e os resultados das fotos uma do lado da outra e os vídeos meio a meio ou seja 50% da tela mostrando a nikkor e 50% mostrando a sigma ? deixou a desejar este comparativo ! esperava mais de você !
Can I use sigma 150-600 lens in Nikon d5600
Thanks for a great review.
Based on your video, I bought the Nikon and am very happy with it.
I chose Nikon bec of:
1. Price
2. Weight
3. Its a Nikon. I have had Quality Control issues with Sigma lenses.
I had a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO and the image quality was terrible.
I had returned it for exchange twice and this one was the least terrible of the three.
But still unacceptable.
Will never buy a Sigma again.
What is the max aperture of the sigma at 500 mm?
f/6.3
I want to buy lens for D500 and D850 already I have Sigma 150-500 lens
I understood the sport to have better build quality than the contemporary. No comment on that, which is what probably lead to the increased weight.
at f5.6 wouldn't the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x teleconverter be the same?
well I guess a lil less reach...
just wondering if this less would be worth it
This is what Thom Hogan says about the Nikon 200-500mm: From the little that I’ve used the Tamron (200-500mm, 150-600mm) and Sigma (150-600mm) lenses, I’d say that the Nikkor is clearly sharper than the other two in virtually every situation, every focal length, and every part of the frame when shot wide open. That’s particularly true of the extreme corners www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f56-lens.html
He's paid by Nikon....he would say that. I disagree with real world testing. the 150-600 C is the best of the bunch IMO
Hey Polin I been follow for so long I want to get your answer here a question for you,
Should I buy the Nikon 2x converter for my 70-200mm F2.8 or should I buy the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 let me know.
Nice work Jared, what does the Sigma look like on your D5 or the Nikon 200-500 on the D5. (yea loved that review) With that combo, the ISO is no longer an issue. Would you still pick the Sigma or have you Also looked a the Tamron 150-600 G2. I know good glass is everything but I would rather have the camera (D5) and my D810 be one of the larger factors. I shoot indoors in a lot of low light situations with Symphonies, Operas and other musical events where the light is crap. I currently use a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 but at time need longer reach and the better camera can save me a ton on glass. I would rather rent the better glass when truly needed. I am also looking at pairing the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VRG I am not sure you have looked at that yet. I will poke around at your other reviews. Thanks again for all the hard work.
Stan
Love my Sigma Sport!
Now I'm super curious about how the contemporary sigma would hold up next to the Nikon for a bang-for-your-buck comparison. Very cool video review!
+Nicholas McClay The contemporary is pretty much identical to the sport in image quality, maybe even a hair better in the sample I was trying. The sport has faster focus and some more small features, like being able to lock zoom at multiple locations in the range instead of just the end. The collar is removable on the contemporary, but not on the sport.
A little late to the party. I played around with the Contemporary today and it locks at all the marked focal lengths just like the Sport.
I believe the sport has better weather sealing also.
Hey Jared I have a question. Since You recently had the nikon D500 is there any chance You could do a test with 150-600 Sigma? I know it's for FF body lens, but I'm curious about that extra reach and how it would effect the image quality having 1.5x crop so 300-900mm :) + if VC would work? Thanks.
Nice review!
Can we just ignore the quality for a sec and look at how amazing those photos are? I mean, I’m just a teenager and I’m stuck taking photos of anything interesting in the city with a 28-135mm kit lens
I'm a bit late, but the nikon 50mm 1,8 D is super sharp and one of the cheapest lenses of the market (recently got mine for 70€)