Jump to content

SIGMA 150-600mm Lens

jjukza

By jjukza,
in Sony Alpha Full Frame Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

jjukza Newbie

jjukza

Posted
Posted

Hello, I'm pretty new to Photography, I use a SonyA7iii and want to be able to photograph Football(Soccer) games and wild life from a distance with a good zoom and I was thinking of getting the Sigma 150-600mm lens and happen to stumble across the A mount version of the Sigma and was wondering what mount adapter I would need for my A7iii? 

Thank you! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FunWithCameras Community Regular

FunWithCameras

Posted
Posted

You'll need an adapter to put the A mount version on the camera. There are several A mount adapters from Sony, and it can be a bit tricky choosing the right one. I'm not an expert - you'll need to do some research. Which adapter is best depends on the camera, and on the lens (although I though the Sigma 150-600 is not a screw drive lens, which eliminates one part of the equation).

You should also pay attention to the limitations you get - some adapters don't support all the functionality of the lens.

After I had a bit of a look at it all, I chose to go for native E mount lenses. I didn't want the hassle 😞 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameratose Rising Star

Cameratose

Posted
Posted (edited)

The A7 III needs the LA-EA4 for autofocus and tracking. Usable features depend on the lens.

You may be disappointed with response. I've used the LA-EA4 on an A7R III and the LA-EA5 on an A7 IV and A1. In all cases, there is a split-second delay before the lens responds when focusing. You have to learn to anticipate, which can be very difficult and frustrating for action photography. 

Even though there will be more cost, I recommend you look at E mount only for action. You can at least subtract the $200 or so for the adapter. 

You should be able to use anything from 400-600mm for soccer, and there are lots of choices available to you.  

Edited by Cameratose
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • Pieter
      JPEG options?

      By Pieter · Posted

      If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...