Sigma 300-800mm on a modern Nikon dSLR

Sorry to be a bit tenuous with the Nikon connection, but...

In this year's (well, last year's) wildlife photographer of the year, there were a couple of images shot with the old Sigzilla 300-800mm f/5.6 lens. It's not been updated for several years; I recall complimentary reviews, but they were from a long time ago when we didn't have 36MP+ sensors, and as I've experienced, "good on a D700" isn't an ideal predictor any more.

Sadly it's still expensive enough that I'm unlikely to pick one up to own (yes, I know KEH lists one), but I might consider hiring, since I've very much run out of range and image quality in Yellowstone with a 200-500, even with a TC14 on it.

Does anyone happen to know how well it holds up these days?

One person to answer that would be Robert O'Toole Sigma's 300-800mm F5.6: Brown Bear Paradise in Alaska Part 1 | SIGMA Blog

If I am not mistaken, then PNET member Giangiorgio Crisponi also uses one.

If it was me, I'd be trying the Sigma 150-600 Sports if the 200-500 proved too short. I have not put the 1.4x on the 200-500 and have no plans on doing so since there is hardly any zoom that works well when combined with a TC - I rather crop the image than deal with AF at f/8.

Thanks, Dieter. Unfortunately the blog photos are all with the D700 and D4, which are going to be quite a bit more lenient on the 300-800 than a D810 or D850. But Giangiorgio seems to have some shots from a D500; I can't tell whether they hold up at 100%. I'll drop him a line.

The problem with the 150-600 (other than it being a bit chubbier than the Nikkor) is that it's f/6.3 at the long end. That means I can't teleconvert it usefully. The 200-500 isn't brilliant with a converter, but stopped down a bit it's not terrible (I'll try to confirm that if I can get over my ongoing sharpening issues with pnet posts). Of course this does assume there's some contrast to focus with - but if I'm pointing at wildlife with 700mm of reach, it's probably far enough away not to be moving all that fast (unless we're talking tiny garden birds, and that's Shun's problem). Obviously the 150-600 is a lot more portable than the 300-800...

The Sigma 300-800/5.6 is quite heavy, almost 6kg in weight. Thus I think maybe it is best suited for a relatively stationary shooting position from which you cover a range a distances for animals (or athletes). For example, near some water. You'd need a heavy tripod and gimbal or fluid head for that lens, I'd think, and some rolling bag for transport. I find it hard to believe I could handle that lens without hurting myself. ;-)

A Sigma 500/4 or a used or new Nikon 500/4 would be easier to transport and they both have stabilization, and the f/4 maximum aperture gives better AF and shutter speeds. Brad Hill gave a very favorable account of the latest Sigma 500/4. I saw in a review of the Sigma 300-800 that at 800mm the center showed some quality loss at f/5.6 that was largely rectified by stopping down to f/8.

Thanks, Ilkka. Yes, I'm expecting the 300-800 to be both heavy and front heavy; without VR I don't expect to be able to aim it, let alone shoot with it, hand-held. At least for my impending trip I was thinking to stay very near the car most of the time (with some visits to obvious look-outs at uncivilised times). I'll have my TVC-34L on me anyway; I have a d4 (head, not camera) and a Triopo ball head that should cope; I still have my Manfrotto 393, but it's annoyingly heavy and bulky for an international trip.

I think my alternative is likely to be a Nikkor 800mm, but the rental prices go up a bit for that (though at least it comes with the teleconverter). I'd go smaller if I was likely to be mobile, but I'm not really fit enough to trust myself to hike alone around Yellowstone without getting eaten by something.

I might leave it in the hope I get to Yellowstone in spring (which will complete my set of seasons), with a D850 if finances permit. I was just mulling my options.

For what it's worth, here's the 200-500 + TC14E, with a modicum of unsharp mask (because everything I post here looks soft) at f/11 and 700mm, 1:1 crop.

To improve that image, I would start with better light. Overcast sky (?) with snow coverage on the ground can result in very low contrast images. This is one of the problems when traveling to make photographs: one can not control the weather on site, so one has to work with what is presented. At home we can follow weather forecasts and choose to photograph when the light and other conditions are their best.

If you can have sunlight, try positioning the sun behind the subject and see if the contrast goes up and you can get a nice crown of light around the subject's perimeter. Within overcast conditions, I would perhaps focus on the larger landscape, herds, the geothermal activity. I think making animal close-ups in these conditions would be difficult, especially with a long lens. The light needs to be more lively for that. If you can find anything colourful or texture for the environment, or some steam to make the images more interesting, take advantage of that. On a sunny day (sunset/sunrise perhaps) the eyes would have more colourful and contrasty reflections as well.

The very long focal length can make the environment more homogeneous whereas in such a location I think one would want to show more of the surrounding features.

To improve that image, I would start with better light.

:-) Yes, the good news was that we had very impressive snow during every day but the first (when we were snowshoeing and walking around geysers and I wasn't carrying the 200-500, handy though it would have been for an otter); the bad news was that I couldn't stay indefinitely and wait for it not to be overcast. I'll have a week to hope for better light this time. But reassuring that it's not entirely my technical ability at fault!

On this occasion the surroundings were basically white, except for a black bit of river. But I concede that in other bits of Yellowstone there's some environment to show off.

I'm not so much trying to get an animal close-up this time as trying to get anything that's not a tiny dot. :-) I'm specifically aiming for carnivores from overlooks, so I'm not going to be getting very close. I'm sure I'd get a better image if I did - but I'm on my own, not very fast, and contain a large number of edible calories; hiking into the middle of a wolf pack (before dawn) lacks a little appeal. I'll see what I can get, anyway!