Critique Kingfishers and Lens Envy

[Compuwight]

I went to Arundel Wetland Centre to photograph Kingfishers (amongst others) with limited success !
I used a Nikon D500 and D850 both with Sigma 150-600C with a monopod for support, I found the lens slow to focus and at f6.3 limited.
Those around me had 600mm f4 lens and I was very envious at the results compared to the Sigma, I appreciate the cost difference is huge and I need to save (forever) !

Best of Mine......

 

[GeeJay57]

Good Kingfisher sightings and assuming you’ve cropped in, the images are not too bad.

As for big glass… If you’ve not done it already, perhaps you could hire a 600mm f/4 and do some A-B with your current lens just to see what the real differences are for you.

In my case, I really can’t justify the spend on a ‘big white’ from Canon, just wouldn’t be using it enough and would probably end up ‘needing’ a 1DXn to go with it too.

 

[the black fox]

Or you could change to the Olympus/ oms OM1 and a 300mm f4 that would give you 600mm f4 reach with between 20 to 50fps with 7 stops of I.s lightweight to so no need of tripods or monopods and one hell of a lot cheaper for both than any 600mm lens .look at my red kite shots above . And I’m also no spring chicken chasing 80 now

 

[Dale.]

Congrats on getting a KF, well done.

The images do look a little soft, it seems to be a missed focus thing, mixed with motion blur maybe. Cropping will bring out the softness even more. Was there anything in front of the lens( glass/perspex)? I'm assuming there wasn't but it's worth the ask. You've had tons of light by the looks of it too, so I'm thinking shutter speed versus aperture shouldn't be a problem as such here, which will help of course. Strong, contrasty, what looks like direct sun light won't help though.

It may be heat haze or something atmospherical?

I wonder is your lens back or front focusing?

I'm suprised you found the Sigma slow to focus, I have that lens for my Canon bodies and have found it almost as snappy as my L glass. In fact, I would say that the Sigma was just as fast and also, as sharp as the 100-400L Mk1 that I once owned, to the point that I almost sold the Canon. I have a thing about letting good glass go though and I hung on to it until recently, when I got the Mk2. I would say the Mk2 is quicker than the Sigma, as well as sharper (it's ridicolously so actually) but the Sigma is still no slouch and a lens I'll be keeping. I do feel the Canon (Mk2) also resolves the sensor better than the Sigma, it seems to get every single pixel out of my R7 and 5Div.

f6.3 isn't ideal, although the 600mm can be very handy. I've managed to get decent KF images with my Sigma, infact, until I bought the 100-400Mk2, it was my go to lens and has been a real workhorse. The shutter speeds would drop at the end of the day for sure, but with a little patience and picking my moment, I could still get them sharp, even at 1/125 sec. Forget anything moving at that shutter speed though.

I've never used a 600mmf4 and I can imagine, you'd know where the money went if you used one but I have often thought to myself is f4 £0000s better than 6.3 (or 5,6 on the 100-400)? I'm not knocking the big lenses, they are works of art and I appreciate the expensive lenses come into their own in lower light levels, where the Sigma would/does struggle.

The Sigma will always be a compromise but it does a great job in my opinion.

 

[Compuwight]

Good Kingfisher sightings and assuming you’ve cropped in, the images are not too bad.

As for big glass… If you’ve not done it already, perhaps you could hire a 600mm f/4 and do some A-B with your current lens just to see what the real differences are for you.

In my case, I really can’t justify the spend on a ‘big white’ from Canon, just wouldn’t be using it enough and would probably end up ‘needing’ a 1DXn to go with it too.

Cheers, having never been to this location before I realised too late that I had chosen the flexibility of the Zoom over the performance of a prime. ON reflection and next time I will take my 500PF f5.6 on the D850.
Hiring a lens is something I have avoided thus far as I suspect I will want one afterwards..... that said it might be an idea on my next visit !

 

[Compuwight]

Or you could change to the Olympus/ oms OM1 and a 300mm f4 that would give you 600mm f4 reach with between 20 to 50fps with 7 stops of I.s lightweight to so no need of tripods or monopods and one hell of a lot cheaper for both than any 600mm lens .look at my red kite shots above . And I’m also no spring chicken chasing 80 now

Hi, thanks for your time. I currently have too much invested in Nikon to be able to consider a change !
ON reflection I should have taken my 500PF f5.6 on the D850/D500.
I need the monopod due to a damaged shoulder and neck as I cannot hold anything still for long enough without support.

 

[Compuwight]

Congrats on getting a KF, well done.

The images do look a little soft, it seems to be a missed focus thing, mixed with motion blur maybe. Cropping will bring out the softness even more. Was there anything in front of the lens( glass/perspex)? I'm assuming there wasn't but it's worth the ask. You've had tons of light by the looks of it too, so I'm thinking shutter speed versus aperture shouldn't be a problem as such here, which will help of course. Strong, contrasty, what looks like direct sun light won't help though.

It may be heat haze or something atmospherical?

I wonder is your lens back or front focusing?

I'm suprised you found the Sigma slow to focus, I have that lens for my Canon bodies and have found it almost as snappy as my L glass. In fact, I would say that the Sigma was just as fast and also, as sharp as the 100-400L Mk1 that I once owned, to the point that I almost sold the Canon. I have a thing about letting good glass go though and I hung on to it until recently, when I got the Mk2. I would say the Mk2 is quicker than the Sigma, as well as sharper (it's ridicolously so actually) but the Sigma is still no slouch and a lens I'll be keeping. I do feel the Canon (Mk2) also resolves the sensor better than the Sigma, it seems to get every single pixel out of my R7 and 5Div.

f6.3 isn't ideal, although the 600mm can be very handy. I've managed to get decent KF images with my Sigma, infact, until I bought the 100-400Mk2, it was my go to lens and has been a real workhorse. The shutter speeds would drop at the end of the day for sure, but with a little patience and picking my moment, I could still get them sharp, even at 1/125 sec. Forget anything moving at that shutter speed though.

I've never used a 600mmf4 and I can imagine, you'd know where the money went if you used one but I have often thought to myself is f4 £0000s better than 6.3 (or 5,6 on the 100-400)? I'm not knocking the big lenses, they are works of art and I appreciate the expensive lenses come into their own in lower light levels, where the Sigma would/does struggle.

The Sigma will always be a compromise but it does a great job in my opinion.

Thankyou !
We were in a hide with open slits shooting across open water in bright sunlight, so I suspect that heat haze played in part in finding and holding a good focus.
I have recently had occasion to check the focus over similar distance with focus chart and tripods, it was spot on !
I also have the 70-200 Sigma 2.8 sport and its focussing is blisteringly fast as is my Nikon 500PF so its subjective as to the speed on the 150-600C.

Chatting with the regulars, I have decided to revisit with the 500PF and be there for 10am when they open and the light is less harsh and the less heated. I might also experiment with manual focussing and waiting for the KF to fly into frame !

As my old Nan used to say 'practice makes perfect young man' !

Thanks again !