Sigma 300-800

[Dvir Barkay]

Hello all, I am looking at getting a long lens to compliment my Canon 300/2.8. I came from a Tokina 100-300/4, which is a good lens, and I loved the ability to zoom in and out. I love my 300/2.8 lens, but its only 300, and even though the photos with the TCs are great, I still find that I miss the ability to zoom and compose my images better. Thus that leads me to the Sigma 300-800. I have done lots and lots of research, and have pretty much decided on this lens. I know that its is very heavy, doesn't have a limiter, needs a great tripod etc... I plan on using it mostly from hides, with my 300/2.8 being used as a BIF/ low light/ carry around wildlife lens. My one question about the Sigma is the image quality. Many people say its great, but I do want to know if it will compare well to my 300/2.8. I recently took a few photos with the 300/2.8 and x2TC at 600mm and F/8, and got some really sharp photos. I wanted to know how would the sigma compare to those images at 600mm, and one thing I haven't been able to find yet are sample RAW files from the sigma. So my question to all those that have used the lens, or still use it, if they can give me some input on its optical performance, and I would be incredibly grateful if anyone can give me a RAW file. Thanks in advance for any help ;)

The shots with the 300/2.8 and x2TC

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjpozlmmah46z1t/_O2P6048.CR2?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6icqwn3o4ednloy/_O2P6021.CR2?dl=0

[Ed Erkes]

The Sigma 300-800 is an amazing lens IMO. Sure, it is heavy and lacks image stabilization, but it is quite sharp and, for my style of photography, the compositional flexibility of a zoom is very important -- especially when shooting from a blind. You will need to use a heavy tripod to get the most from the lens. I use a 9 lb metal Gitzo 500. I recently did a test of the Tamron 150-600 on my website and compared it to the Sigma 300-800 and Nikon 200-400. Full-frame and 100% crops are viewable at http://erkesphoto.com/photography-technique/tamron-150-600-f5-0-6-3-lens-test-nikon-mount-2/

[Dvir Barkay]

The Sigma 300-800 is an amazing lens IMO. Sure, it is heavy and lacks image stabilization, but it is quite sharp and, for my style of photography, the compositional flexibility of a zoom is very important -- especially when shooting from a blind. You will need to use a heavy tripod to get the most from the lens. I use a 9 lb metal Gitzo 500. I recently did a test of the Tamron 150-600 on my website and compared it to the Sigma 300-800 and Nikon 200-400. Full-frame and 100% crops are viewable at http://erkesphoto.com/photography-technique/tamron-150-600-f5-0-6-3-lens-test-nikon-mount-2/

Thank you for that, I actually saw your test a week or so ago. I was surprised how well the Tamron was, and a bit concerned that it seemed rather close. I know its a good lens (the Tamron), but tests show that at 600mm its only ok. And if the Sigma at 600mm is only ok, than I am not quite sure if that is good enough. You have any images that I can see?

[Ian Cassell]

Sigma also just announced their 150-600, which you might consider.

[Dvir Barkay]

Sigma also just announced their 150-600, which you might consider.

Yeah I looked at it, but for me its not quite what I want its either the Sigma 300-800 or saving up for Canons 200-400.

[Ed Erkes]

Thank you for that, I actually saw your test a week or so ago. I was surprised how well the Tamron was, and a bit concerned that it seemed rather close. I know its a good lens (the Tamron), but tests show that at 600mm its only ok. And if the Sigma at 600mm is only ok, than I am not quite sure if that is good enough. You have any images that I can see?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. I downloaded your images and compared the raw files to my flycatcher raw file from the Sigma and also did my standard denoise and capture sharpen with Nik Shrpener pro and, while your images do appear very sharp, I don't think they are any sharper than the Sigma image. I actually think the Sigma image is slightly sharper than your images. SO, my question is: What visual criteria did you use to reach the conclusion that your images were quite sharp and mine was only "OK"???

I think you'll need to borrow or rent the lens to satisfy your concerns. I do think might be disappointed in the reach of the Canon 200-400. With the built-in teleconverter, it only gives you 560mm. That is the reason I rarely use my Nikon 200-400 any more.

[Dvir Barkay]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. I downloaded your images and compared the raw files to my flycatcher raw file from the Sigma and also did my standard denoise and capture sharpen with Nik Shrpener pro and, while your images do appear very sharp, I don't think they are any sharper than the Sigma image. I actually think the Sigma image is slightly sharper than your images. SO, my question is: What visual criteria did you use to reach the conclusion that your images were quite sharp and mine was only "OK"???

Not saying that, I was really surprised with your Tamrons images because they look very good, much better than tests show, your images are quite sharp as well even surprisingly sharp for the Tamron, were as tests say its just just ok to good at 600mm, but certainly no 600 prime. My hope was that the Sigma is closer to the prime than it is to the Tamron, I saw Romy Ocons test against his old 500/4, and the Sigma looks just as good. So I was hoping that the sigma at 600 would be similar to the older 600/4 prime from canon for example, which I am sure is sharper than my 300/2.8 with x2TC. So I was hoping to hear if the Sigma is only as good as my 300/2.8 with x2TC (which is very good, but not like the lens with no TC) or better? Can you give me some samples, I think seeing a RAW file might just help me with my concerns?

[Ed Erkes]

My D800 raw files are over 40 MB and I live in a very rural area with fairly poor satellite internet. I've never used dropbox, but I do know that I can't email an image of that file size with my internet service.

[Dvir Barkay]

My D800 raw files are over 40 MB and I live in a very rural area with fairly poor satellite internet. I've never used dropbox, but I do know that I can't email an image of that file size with my internet service.

I understand, though dropbox is super easy and free if you ever want to give it a try.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Dvir, my dad has the Tamron 150-600 and I have been suitably impressed, even at 600mm...it will never really compete with the 200-400 lens ito IQ and sharpness, but for mobility it is probably a good option if the IQ is comparable to what you would get from the 300-800?

[Dvir Barkay]

Dvir, my dad has the Tamron 150-600 and I have been suitably impressed, even at 600mm...it will never really compete with the 200-400 lens ito IQ and sharpness, but for mobility it is probably a good option if the IQ is comparable to what you would get from the 300-800?

Yeah I heard good things about the Tamron, and my dad is also actually interested :), I am hoping that the Sigma 300-800 is close to the 200-400, at least the Nikon version. Still hoping for any samples that I can find.

[Loi Nguyen]

Hi Ed, I'm quite impressed with the images you shot with the Tamron 150-600. My question is have you tested the AF for bird in flight? Like Morkel said, it could be good for mobility. Thanks. Loi

[Jonathan Ashton]

For what it is worth I have used a Sigma 300-800, my friend had one and it was a Nikon version. I thought the lens was very sharp indeed, my only reservation about the lens was that it was a monster! My pal tried to carry it whilst I carried my 500mm - he was knackered after a couple of hours walking about. So portable not really, good image quality - yes, convenient - only if you do not intend carrying it about.

[Dvir Barkay]

For what it is worth I have used a Sigma 300-800, my friend had one and it was a Nikon version. I thought the lens was very sharp indeed, my only reservation about the lens was that it was a monster! My pal tried to carry it whilst I carried my 500mm - he was knackered after a couple of hours walking about. So portable not really, good image quality - yes, convenient - only if you do not intend carrying it about.

Thanks for the info, I plan on using it mainly in hides (in the future safaris etc...), with my 300/2.8 being used for BIF and as a hiking wildlife lens. Also, I am pretty strong, I tried the old 600/4, and can hold it for quite some time, not that I plan on ever handholding the sigma haha. How did the Sigma compare at 500 to your 500 image quality wise?

[David Stephens]

I would suggest hanging on a little longer and not make a lens purchase, but consider the 7D MkII when it comes out. You'll can quite a few more usable pixels on your focal length limited shots, giving you more effective reach with your excellent 300/2.8. I'd also suggest saving up for a 500/f4, which will match very well with a 7D MkII and your TCs. (The 200-400mm is more of a sports lens). Rather than rely on zoom, I think you'll get used to judging whether to shoot your big lens bare, with a 1.4x or with a 2.0x time. Also, Canon's latest generation IS is superb, almost totally relegating tripods to long exposure shots. Since you plan to be a pro, I think that stepping into the 7D2 and holding out for a 500mm f/4L IS-II will prove to be an invaluable investment. You've already experience good IS on the Canon super-telephoto lenses, but the latest generation of IS is an order or two of excellence better. I've hand held a 1,000mm rig, getting a sharp image of the moon at 1/40-sec. You'll be able to do that also. Image dumping the tripod 99.9% of the time.

[Ed Erkes]

Hi Ed, I'm quite impressed with the images you shot with the Tamron 150-600. My question is have you tested the AF for bird in flight? Like Morkel said, it could be good for mobility. Thanks. Loi

I haven't shot any birds in flight with the Tamron yet. I did compare its AF performance to the Nikon 200-400 by photographing my four dogs playing in the backyard. I really couldn't discern a significant difference. I don't own any fast f2.8 telephotos to compare to though. I think the Tamron will perform fairly well, with the possible exception of birds flying fast directly at you. If you look at the images on my website, you can see that I've been able to get some nice flight and other action images with the nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800. More often than not, my AF failures are due to my failure to keep the sensors on the bird.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Thanks for the info, I plan on using it mainly in hides (in the future safaris etc...), with my 300/2.8 being used for BIF and as a hiking wildlife lens. Also, I am pretty strong, I tried the old 600/4, and can hold it for quite some time, not that I plan on ever handholding the sigma haha. How did the Sigma compare at 500 to your 500 image quality wise?

Dvir, this is a rather subjective point really, all I recall is that when I looked at the images that were taken with the 300-800 I was struck by how clean and sharp they were. I suppose a lot depends upon just how critical you need to be and if you intend producing large prints etc. To put it simply I would not have any reservations about image quality regarding the Sigma 300 -800mm.
David makes a good point regarding the 500mm with TCs this is what I use - or at least the Mk1 version. I am increasingly using the 500mm with 1.4 and 2x TC and handholding, I started to do this with the 7D and I do it more often now I have a 1DX.
I know you said the intended use was primarily in hides but sometimes you do take the lens for a walk and I really do not think you would enjoy a walk with the big Sigma. I would have thought taking the Sigma on safari would be a bit of a nightmare unless you mean a safari using your own vehicle and not using airports etc. (I suppose I am pretty strong too especially for an old fart!)
It all boils down to money and usage, the zoom facility on the Sigma is handy but it is a whopping great lens, the 500 Canon with 1.4 and 2x TC would give similar and then longer focal length. You can often anticipate when you will require the TC so changing /swapping is not really much of an issue.
The Canon MK1 500mm will be about half the price of the new one, the new one is improved, it is lighter , it focuses a little closer & faster and is possibly a little better optically but I don't think you would notice a tremendous difference and in any event Photoshop would render the optical difference insignificant.
I am trying to be objective, I am, I suppose, a little biased but I can recommend what I use, a new 500 would be nice but at at an additional cost of £5,000 for me it does not represent value for money. If I had not got a 500 in the first place I may be more biased towards the new 500mm.
I am not too sure now if I have helped or confused the matter for you!

[Dvir Barkay]

I think I am a little more confused haha ;)

I am happy to hear that you have no reservations about its image quality, that seems to be the narrative people use, that its very sharp, similar to the older generation canon primes, and Nikons primes as well.

I also know that Klaus Nigge, a pro that I very much admire and a staple at Ngeo, uses the Sigma 300-800, and if I can get the kind of things he can get I will be very happy.

I also wonder how well it focuses? Obviously compared to the bare primes it wont be as good, but how about the lenses with TCs vs the sigma?

And now the confusion part, I have thought about the 500 primes, although I favor the 600 primes. The older 600mm suffers from the same issues the Sigma does, incredible weight, and even though it does have a limiter and better focusing, I think that the zooming flexibility outweighs the differences between the old 600. Now the new 600 is a feather weight, at least compared to these two, and I would love that lens. But even used its in the 10000$ range, which is too much for me at the moment, certainly since I also need other stuff.

So I am down to this:

If I am sure that the Sigma 300-800 can focus well or good enough, I think after all your input I am sure that the optical quality will be good enough, although I am still up for sample RAW files please :) ! Than I shall get the Sigma. And maybe in the future, I will add the new 600/4 II IS as a more hike friendly long lens.