Diagnostic question?

Should an 80-200 AFS f2.8 be noticeably softer than the Sigma Sport 150-600? It's mounted on a D800. I bounced this around another forum; pretty sure I know the answer but it's an expensive answer so I wanted a second opinion.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
Should an 80-200 AFS f2.8 be noticeably softer than the Sigma Sport 150-600? It's mounted on a D800. I bounced this around another forum; pretty sure I know the answer but it's an expensive answer so I wanted a second opinion.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Shooting what and how, exactly? Are you planning to shoot portraits with the 150-600? Are you planning to shoot handheld or on a tripod? Stopped down, wide open? I really don't have any information to give you an answer that you could use.

You are trying to compare two different lenses that are meant to do two very different things. Can you do a portrait shot with the 150=600? Sure. Can you do action shooting with the 80-200? Sure. Would I want to? No.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that with the Sigma, on any given in-focus shot, at 100% it's noticeably sharper than the Nikon 80/200 at 100%. In random crops of photos side by side, it's noticeably by the amount of detail retained, which lens is which. It's never been as sharp as some of the on line images shot though the same series lenses, I just thought it was operator error until I started learning the Sigma. I know Sigma started taking quality serious but never expected a 600mm zoom to surpass even the old 80-200 AFS. This is an old lens but was designed for a full frame 35mm film; good copies still have a reputation for sharp. Trying to make sure my understanding and expectations are realistic.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
If you're shooting from the same distance, and you're shooting at the max 200mm with that lens, and 600mm with the Sigma, and then you are printing or viewing the subject at the same size, then the Sigma will definitely be sharper.

But if you shoot the same subject at 150-200mm with each lens from the same distance with the same aperture and shutter speed, then the Nikon should be sharper.

I have the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 and I tested that when I first got the Tamron.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
OK, if someone took a bunch of photos randomly with both lenses' could you reasonably identify which of the two lenses just by IQ?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Are we talking straight out of the camera, or processed? I had the 80-200mm but not the sigma 150-600. I do however have the Nikon 200-500mm. Side by side, SOOC i could tell the difference between the two. Not by which one is sharper, but by the color rendition of both lenses. Once it is processed , not really.

You still have not told us what will you be using the lens for? If you're looking for help deciding which lens to purchase , it is nearly impossible to make any suggestions without that information.

If you are pixel peeping at 100% all the time, you will never be happy with any lens!
 
Blacktop and Blade, you have answered my question. I missed it in Blade's the first reading. I'm using my phone and over looked some stuff on this screen too small to be viewed by humans. :)

Either RAW or PP.. Typically PP does not fix fuzzy. The shots can be cleaned up but I can't use a pic from the Nikon at same scale as the Sig; IS is not there. The Sigma is a good lens for the money but no way it's sharper than your 200-500.

Already own both lenses and shoot pretty much everything you mentioned. I typically shoot people, events, and everything else with the Nikon, and wildlife with Sigma. Been playing around with Sigma on macro just because it's sharper than the Nikon... and I was curious. Until the Sig, the Nikon was pretty much what I had for lenses. Was wanting to get a short Tele prime until the Nikon issue...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Top