Hi! I have a Sony a6000. I'd like to upgrade from this camera, but since the lenses are more important I'd like to buy a lens first. Which one do you recommend: Sony E 70-350mm G OSS vs Sigma 100-400mm DG DN OS? Any other recommendations. 

Check my post here:

 

Hi

I'm no expert, but here are a couple of thoughts that I have on the choice.

If I was considering upgrading my camera at some time in the future - maybe to full frame? The Sigma would still be compatible 

The Sony extends when zooming - some photographers find this annoying as it moves the balance point of your set up whenever you change focal length.

The Sigma has more elements on the shutter which means the out of focus parts of your photos should look smoother (called Bokeh) for some photographers this is a nice effect.

I never find myself wishing for less "reach" but often wish I had more! - when trying to get pics of animals and birds in the distance. The Sigma will give you this.

However, the Sony is lighter!

2 hours ago, thebeardedgroundsman said:

Hi

I'm no expert, but here are a couple of thoughts that I have on the choice.

If I was considering upgrading my camera at some time in the future - maybe to full frame? The Sigma would still be compatible 

The Sony extends when zooming - some photographers find this annoying as it moves the balance point of your set up whenever you change focal length.

The Sigma has more elements on the shutter which means the out of focus parts of your photos should look smoother (called Bokeh) for some photographers this is a nice effect.

I never find myself wishing for less "reach" but often wish I had more! - when trying to get pics of animals and birds in the distance. The Sigma will give you this.

However, the Sony is lighter!

Thank you! Yes, This is why it's a difficult decision! The 400mm (600mm on APS-C) is really tempting! I think, my next camera will be the a6600. If I want a full frame in the future, I don't know. I wish, the Sony would have that extra 50mm, but even without this I'll go for the Sony. It's a little cheaper, smaller and lighter. On a long bike trip, or trekking trip it will work better! I just don't know if there are any differences in the quality. Is it worth to go for the cheaper, lighter and smaller lens, or the heavier, bigger and more expensive gives so much more that it's better to buy that? 

The Sigma also extends when zooming, it's much bigger and lightly heavier. The difference between 350mm and 400mm focal length is barely noticeable so I wouldn't worry about that too much. Indeed, if you want to have the option to go fullframe one day, the Sigma may be a better investment. However, if you, like me, love the small form factor of APS-C cameras the 70-350 is a vastly better fit.

I upgraded to the 70-350 from a 55-210. The 70-350 is indeed a fair bit sharper but a lot of the image quality at these focal lengths is determined by available light: with a small F/6.3 aperture and the fast shutter speeds needed to prevent motion blur at these focal lengths, you often end up with high ISO's. The smaller APS-C sensors show their limits here.

23 minutes ago, Pieter said:

The Sigma also extends when zooming, it's much bigger and lightly heavier. The difference between 350mm and 400mm focal length is barely noticeable so I wouldn't worry about that too much. Indeed, if you want to have the option to go fullframe one day, the Sigma may be a better investment. However, if you, like me, love the small form factor of APS-C cameras the 70-350 is a vastly better fit.

I upgraded to the 70-350 from a 55-210. The 70-350 is indeed a fair bit sharper but a lot of the image quality at these focal lengths is determined by available light: with a small F/6.3 aperture and the fast shutter speeds needed to prevent motion blur at these focal lengths, you often end up with high ISO's. The smaller APS-C sensors show their limits here.

Yes, indeed! I prefer the small form factor of the APS-s cams. Could you please show me any pictures that you have taken with your 70-350 lens? Most of the pictures I have seen were very noisy and/or not sharp.  It's quite much money so I'd like to know what I buy. 
I bought my a6000 used. The only lens I have is the 16-50mm kit lens and it's not enough. I was thinking about the 55-210mm too but I want / need more than 210mm. 

You might wanna check out this comparison/review: very thorough and informative.

 

14 hours ago, Pieter said:

Thank you! I've seen all the videos and images I could find! I ordered the 70-350 lens. After my old 16-50mm it will be completely different! I can't use it for FF and it's not 400mm, but I decided to buy this because of the size and the price! 
Thanks for your help!

 

 

Congrats on your new lens. Have fun!!!

THE 55-210 LENS GREAT.I BOUGHT THE 70-350 A WASTE OF MONEY.YOU ARE BETTER OFF BY A SECOND SUPER ZOOM CAMERA LIKE NIKON COOLPIX 950.NOT SO GREAT IN POOR LIGHT BUT OTHERWISE VEY SHARP AND ZOOM OF 2000MM

 

 

A6000,A6500.SIGMA 30 1.4,SONY 50 1.8,16-50,55-210,70-350,  NIKON COOLPIX 900

 

Ok... Seems we have very different opinions on what is a waste of money. An ultrazoom fixed lens camera with a microscopic sensor sounds like a waste of money to me. Yes you have a 2000mm FF-equivalent focal length for cheap, but with an f/36 equivalent aperture... Apart from high noise levels, diffraction and atmospheric haze wreaking havoc on image quality at these focal lengths, this camera has a very basic contrast-detect AF system. Getting moderately sharp photo's of anything but stationary subjects will be a real challenge at >600mm FF-equivalent focal length. To me all this has no practical value and such a camera would just be a brick in my bag.

Edited October 8, 20214 yr by Pieter

I am a wildlife photog and I have two Sony cameras - the a9 and the a1. I only use proprietary lenses (by that I mean Sony lenses) because sometimes with third party lenses the incredible focusing or tracking functions of the camera do not work. I had to learn this the hard way.

That said, for wildlife photography I use either a 70 - 200 mm lens or a 100 - 400 mm with a 1.4 teleconverter. I like the G-master lenses because, although they are more expensive, they give you more valuable light.