[RockvilleBob]

Thank you for doing this.
That's a real challenge. One one photo the lower left target with radiating arms is clearer than the other but comparing the upper right similar target with the same pattern the situation is reversed. Looking at the feather detail I cannot see much difference. Perhaps just a slight variation in the camera angle(?)

[normhead]

Ian, you might want to run this as a poll... I find you get a lot more answers with a poll, people like to be anonymous. And rather than guess the lens, I've started just asking folks which image they prefer. Thanks for doing this work in any case.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/312892-your...-images-3.html

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Thank you for doing this.
That's a real challenge. One one photo the lower left target with radiating arms is clearer than the other but comparing the upper right similar target with the same pattern the situation is reversed. Looking at the feather detail I cannot see much difference. Perhaps just a slight variation in the camera angle(?)

I don't know, the lenses were attracted to the same tripod in the same location. only thing that I can see that is different is that one of the lenses has a taller foot than the other. Another discrepancy is that to shoot at the same FOV one was taken at 230mm F5.3 while the other lens was shot at 200m F5 this could be the problem with varying DOF you have to remember when viewed at 100% these are 36mp and very easy to see small changes in DOF But your guess is as good as mine.

---------- Post added 11-19-2016 at 04:49 PM ----------

Ian, you might want to run this as a poll... I find you get a lot more answers with a poll, people like to be anonymous. And rather than guess the lens, I've started just asking folks which image they prefer. Thanks for doing this work in any case.

I thought about running it as a poll,

The people that are really interested in the lens are the most likely to play along with them, the people that are not interested in finding the truth about lens performance will sitting in the shadows rather than making their evaluations public because of the fear of being wrong. I really just wanted to let my evaluations go public of what I get from the lenses at hand.

---------- Post added 11-19-2016 at 04:56 PM ----------

Now the 200-400 and the 150-600 sport at 400mm F/6.3,

[RockvilleBob]

K looks a little sharper than L so I would guess K is the $7,000 Nikon vs the $2,000 Sigma
You have some great glass

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

K looks a little sharper than L so I would guess K is the $7,000 Nikon vs the $2,000 Sigma
You have some great glass

Maybe maybe not

When I post the 200-400 with a 1.4 tc to the sigma 150-600 you maybe in for somewhat of a surprise, I was as I had felt that one lens was better than the other at 600mm but I was wrong and right at the same time.

[RockvilleBob]

Either way I am very pleased with the Sigma 150-600 Sport. For IQ for the photography I do it more than meets my needs in good light. The only reason I may look at another long lens is to get the f4 aperture for early/late light. I am particularly interested in the reviews for the recently announce Sigma 500 f4.
I am guessing you're familar with the lens comparison site Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Image Quality
I find it very helpful.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Either way I am very pleased with the Sigma 150-600 Sport. For IQ for the photography I do it more than meets my needs in good light.

I am very pleased with the sport also and has some key features not found in any of the other lenses sitting in my bag, as seen here the IQ difference between it and more expensive lenses is not to far behind like I have said before, if this lens was available 10 years ago the equipment in my bag would look very different than it is today.

---------- Post added 11-19-2016 at 10:26 PM ----------

For the 200-400 to reach the 600mm FOV I needed to use the new 1.4tc from Nikon
1 of the images are taken at full zoom while another is taken at the same FOV as the first, for the third image the other lens was fully zoom to give an idea of how much more reach the one lens had over the other. This was done to solve focus breathing of one of the lenses.

[RockvilleBob]

In order of sharpness I see them as O being the sharpest followed by N and then P. looking at the test pattern. Some of the feather sections I have P sharper than N but overall I would say O as the sharpest.
I look forward to finding out which is which
Again thank you for doing this.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Answers
I = sigma 150-600
J= nikon200-400
K=Nikon 200-400
L=sigma 150-600
M= Nikon 200-400 +1.4 tc @ 460mm
N= sigma 150-600 @ 600mm
O= nikon200-400+ 1.4tc @550mm
What was surprising to me was the 200-400 with the 1.4 tc while in the past I had tested the sigma against the Nikon lens with the 1.7 the sigma won. Now with the new 1.4 tc the Nikon is better.

This is going to make me rethink how I am reaching 600mm. But the 150-600 has other benefits that ( for me ) out weigh what the Nikon 200-400 can do. One of the key features is the custom profile that can be done for AF correction and how you can fine tune it across an array of different FL and focus distances, with the 200-400 if you want to get the very best from the lens you need a correction for the focus shift depending on how the lens is shot.

Next I will compare AF
Nikon 70-200 F4
Nikon 200-400 F4
and the sigma 150-600 sport

[RockvilleBob]

Thanks again for doing this Ian. While the 200-400 would be nice the Sigma 150-600 Sport fits my pocketbook better and still leaves room to add a long Prime, perhaps the new Sigma 500 Sport or a used Nikon.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I jumped right into the extreme testing AF for the 150-600 Sport and to do this I went right away into conditions that I would not normally wouldn't consider using the lens and that was with the sigma 1.4 TC and not the best light

The first series was taken wide open 850mm F/9 1/1600 iso2500
Shot along the highway (speed limit of 100km)







It worked wayyyyy better than I thought it would

850mm F/9 1/1600 iso2500

[BigMackCam]

Ian, I haven't managed to stay up-to-date with this thread for various reasons, but I'm following it sporadically and finding it very enjoyable - thanks for publishing your tests.

What's clear is that the Sigma punches above it's weight. In terms of "bang for the buck", it's remarkable.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

As you can see that, with the 1.4 tc you are not limited too shooting static targets. While the sport along with the 1.4 tc is not ideal for action in lower light levels it can still give you a vary reasonable keeper rate.

---------- Post added 11-27-2016 at 03:35 AM ----------

Ian, I haven't managed to stay up-to-date with this thread for various reasons, but I'm following it sporadically and finding it very enjoyable - thanks for publishing your tests.
What's clear is that the Sigma punches above it's weight. In terms of "bang for the buck", it's remarkable.

The more I use it the more I like it

Next testing done is how fast the lens focuses from near to far and more down to earth

[RockvilleBob]

Thanks Ian - I will be trying to use the 1.4 TC on my next outing for eagles. I appreciate all your work.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Just finished the sigma sport AF speed comparison to some of the other lenses that I have.
One of the tests that I like to do is see the time it takes the camera to take a photograph on a target that is at some distance away, then take a photo at near MFD and see the time it takes to accomplishes this while measuring the accuracy also

To do this I first set the D800 to AF-C along with selecting AF lock only and AF hold OFF.

The light level was 12.3 ev for most of the testing

Here is the Nikon 70-200 F4



and here is the accuracy



8 of 10 images took 0.3sec 1 took 0.4 and the last had AF error placing the focus plane 20cm behind the target, by the second frame it was on the target

With the 150-600 @ 410mm




10 of 10 images took 0.4 sec and 2 missed focus by 30cm behind the target

---------- Post added 03-25-2017 at 08:41 PM ----------

Either way I am very pleased with the Sigma 150-600 Sport. For IQ for the photography I do it more than meets my needs in good light. The only reason I may look at another long lens is to get the f4 aperture for early/late light. I am particularly interested in the reviews for the recently announce Sigma 500 f4.

Here is a review of the new sigma 500 F4 against the Nikon 500 F4
Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

My only hope is that someone looses interest in their sigma lens and sells it at a very good discount