Pro Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Posts
- 72
- Likes Received
- 31
- Name
- Ψ
What to do? Or do nothing? Thinking of three possible options where I limit myself to spending under $2k out of pocket. This is more or less a stream of consciousness which may spark discussion that may or may not be helpful to others.
A. I currently have the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 contemporary which I shoot with an adaptor on my R5. I have applied Duade Paton's suggested settings in the lens and the camera which helps reduce e she of the pulsing issues this combo has (especially with close up subjects). This combination is pretty darn good, but not what I would call excellent. This option is to just keep the Sigma and be happy, then spend the money on something like the Canon R7.
Pros: 1. The lens is just about 4 lbs, which is at least a pound lighter than the RF 200-800
2. The cost is a non-issue since I already own it.
3. Compared to the RF 100-500, it is a third stop brighter on the long end
4. The long end is 100mm more than the RF 100-500
5. Can be used with extenders through the full range
6. Keeping this lens and getting an R7 would: give me effective 240-960mm reach, I could also put 1.4x on my RF70-200 with R7 and get nearly 500mm at f/5.6!
7. Assuming I got an R7, this option would mean a second body...can come in handy often.
Cons: 1. The lens, at 4lbs, is a pound heavier than the RF 100-500.Still hand holdable but gets tiring sooner.
2. The IQ, while good, I'm sure isn't as good as either of the RF options. Ditto the AF.
3. The minimum focus distance on the Sigma is over 9 feet compared to 3 feet with the RF100-500 and even better 2.6' for the RF200-800. So the Sigma is essentially useless for anything relatively close.
4. Filter size in 95mm, which is very expensive to buy filters (only filter I have this size is an Eclipse filter). The RF100-500 used 77mm filter, of which I have many.
5. Not weather sealed.
B. This option would be to sell the Sigma and put the money towards the RF 100-500. I could sell the Sigma for enough such that my out of pocket would be less than $2k
Pros: 1. IQ and AF likely better. The RF100-500 is getting rave reviews and is made for the RF mount. Extra functionality.
2. It is lighter than the Sigma by a full pound, thus easier to hand-hold for longer periods
3. More compact, thus easier to transport
4. Filter size is 77mm and I have several filters for that size already
5. Can be used with extenders (this is both a pro and a con since it will only work at 300mm and beyond with the RF100-500 lens)
6. Minimum focus distance is much better than Sigma (3ft vs 9ft) so filling the frame for small subjects that are close is easier.
7. Weather sealed! Not that I shoot in bad weather, it's still nice to know the lens isn't going to go TU if caught on a downpour.
Cons: 1. Cost. I would have to sell the Sigma to justify getting this lens and still fork out close to $2 grand additional.
2. Focal length is 100mm shorter
3. F-stop is 1/3 stop less bright and would be at f/10 with a 1.4x extender if you needed more than 500mm
4. Extender is unusable at the wide end. Only good for 300mm and beyond.
C. This option would be to keep the Sigma but also buy the RF 200-800 for under $2k
Pros. 1. This option would provide more reach when needed (in good light). 800mm is pretty good!
2. RF mount doesn't need extender
3. IQ and AF likely better than Sigma but I've read that quality drops off some on the long end.
4. I'd still have the Sigma if I needed wider f-stop (late afternoon, sunset conditions).
5. f-stop is as good as the 100-500 (f/7.1) all the way to 455mm and only slightly less (f8) all the way to 637mm. After that it's f9
6. Extender can be used throughout the full range.
Cons: 1. Cost, even though I'd keep the Sigma, I'd still fork out close to $2 grand.
2. Filter Size. This also has a 95mm filter size so my extensive 77mm filter collection would not work.
3. f-stop is only f9 on the long end
4. Not weather sealed
I do like the Sigma / R5 combo, but I think I'm leaning towards selling it and getting the RF 100-500, but maybe not right away (Option B). The things that stand out about this option: Less size and weight to carry around; the filter size is compatible with a lot of filters I have already; IQ is probably going to be better, as is AF.
Anyone else have the Sigma? Are you contemplating a change or addition? Love to hear others' thoughts.
A. I currently have the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 contemporary which I shoot with an adaptor on my R5. I have applied Duade Paton's suggested settings in the lens and the camera which helps reduce e she of the pulsing issues this combo has (especially with close up subjects). This combination is pretty darn good, but not what I would call excellent. This option is to just keep the Sigma and be happy, then spend the money on something like the Canon R7.
Pros: 1. The lens is just about 4 lbs, which is at least a pound lighter than the RF 200-800
2. The cost is a non-issue since I already own it.
3. Compared to the RF 100-500, it is a third stop brighter on the long end
4. The long end is 100mm more than the RF 100-500
5. Can be used with extenders through the full range
6. Keeping this lens and getting an R7 would: give me effective 240-960mm reach, I could also put 1.4x on my RF70-200 with R7 and get nearly 500mm at f/5.6!
7. Assuming I got an R7, this option would mean a second body...can come in handy often.
Cons: 1. The lens, at 4lbs, is a pound heavier than the RF 100-500.Still hand holdable but gets tiring sooner.
2. The IQ, while good, I'm sure isn't as good as either of the RF options. Ditto the AF.
3. The minimum focus distance on the Sigma is over 9 feet compared to 3 feet with the RF100-500 and even better 2.6' for the RF200-800. So the Sigma is essentially useless for anything relatively close.
4. Filter size in 95mm, which is very expensive to buy filters (only filter I have this size is an Eclipse filter). The RF100-500 used 77mm filter, of which I have many.
5. Not weather sealed.
B. This option would be to sell the Sigma and put the money towards the RF 100-500. I could sell the Sigma for enough such that my out of pocket would be less than $2k
Pros: 1. IQ and AF likely better. The RF100-500 is getting rave reviews and is made for the RF mount. Extra functionality.
2. It is lighter than the Sigma by a full pound, thus easier to hand-hold for longer periods
3. More compact, thus easier to transport
4. Filter size is 77mm and I have several filters for that size already
5. Can be used with extenders (this is both a pro and a con since it will only work at 300mm and beyond with the RF100-500 lens)
6. Minimum focus distance is much better than Sigma (3ft vs 9ft) so filling the frame for small subjects that are close is easier.
7. Weather sealed! Not that I shoot in bad weather, it's still nice to know the lens isn't going to go TU if caught on a downpour.
Cons: 1. Cost. I would have to sell the Sigma to justify getting this lens and still fork out close to $2 grand additional.
2. Focal length is 100mm shorter
3. F-stop is 1/3 stop less bright and would be at f/10 with a 1.4x extender if you needed more than 500mm
4. Extender is unusable at the wide end. Only good for 300mm and beyond.
C. This option would be to keep the Sigma but also buy the RF 200-800 for under $2k
Pros. 1. This option would provide more reach when needed (in good light). 800mm is pretty good!
2. RF mount doesn't need extender
3. IQ and AF likely better than Sigma but I've read that quality drops off some on the long end.
4. I'd still have the Sigma if I needed wider f-stop (late afternoon, sunset conditions).
5. f-stop is as good as the 100-500 (f/7.1) all the way to 455mm and only slightly less (f8) all the way to 637mm. After that it's f9
6. Extender can be used throughout the full range.
Cons: 1. Cost, even though I'd keep the Sigma, I'd still fork out close to $2 grand.
2. Filter Size. This also has a 95mm filter size so my extensive 77mm filter collection would not work.
3. f-stop is only f9 on the long end
4. Not weather sealed
I do like the Sigma / R5 combo, but I think I'm leaning towards selling it and getting the RF 100-500, but maybe not right away (Option B). The things that stand out about this option: Less size and weight to carry around; the filter size is compatible with a lot of filters I have already; IQ is probably going to be better, as is AF.
Anyone else have the Sigma? Are you contemplating a change or addition? Love to hear others' thoughts.
