Sigma 50-500mm v Sigma 150-500mm

Roy_Nikon · #41 (**permalink**) 14-12-2009, 12:37 PM

Hi. Came to this thread a bit late.

I bought a 150-500 this summer after endless procrastination. I shoot a D700 and a D200. On balance I wish I'd procrastinated a bit longer and waited for Nikon to come up with something like the rumoured 100-500.

I am very unsure about this lens. Whenever I've done a tripod mounted comparison with my 70-200 VR1 plus TC1.7E I convince myself that the Sigma compares quite well. But nothing I've ever shot in anger looks much good to me - just something very unsatisfying about it, whereas the Nikon combo always looks a lot better than I expect given the TC. A combination of softness (I don't think it's really possible to hand hold this lens: the OS just isn't very good at all) lack of contrast and a general "deadness" about the images. On the D700 with th ISO cranked up for decent shutter speeds it produces some reasonable results, sometimes. The D200 - which I sometimes select for the range - gives horrible results. Obviously, as many people have noted, it's better below about 400 mm - but the 500 is what attracts us! It's battery-hungry too so when I have the battery grip on for extended shooting the weight is very very obtrusive.

I don't think that you can make a lens of this focal length range at the price this one sells for without heavily compromised performance. When I read it up prior to buying one many people were praising it. I think this is a case of whistling in the dark having shelled out quite a lot of cash and not being willing to admit disappointment.

I'm just going out to have another bash with it (new monopod) taking both bodies with me, despite previous experience.

Otter Spotter · #42 (**permalink**) 15-12-2009, 07:41 AM

Hi,

i couldnt agree more. I went to a local camera shop and hand held the 150-500mm Sigma and to be honest it was so heavy it was a nightmare to keep still and the Image Stability feature in the short time I used it was not good at all.

I think for the money it has to be good value for people wanting the distance but not wanting pro quality shots.

I have just bought a 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma from E-bay which when it arrived the AF motor had gone.It was sent back very quickly and in all fairness a complete refund was given so no complaints.

However, I have to say that I am now waiting and saving for the Canon Bullet proof comparison as I like many other people question the build of Sigma and I would rather put my hard earned cash into what everyone considers to be one of the best lenses ever made.Its the price you have to pay if you want professional looking shots.

I would recommend anybody looking for a new lens to look and look and research and research again and again before buying. i must have been through many choices to arrive at my final lens buying destination.

Ukwildlifeo · #43 (**permalink**) 22-12-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephen p

Hi Andy,

After using both, there is no contest between the 120 - 400 and the 150 -500mm.

I found the contrast, sharpness and weight balance much much better on the 150 - 500mm hence why i got it.

I know a lot of people who think the same aswell.

Hope that helps,

Steve.

Ive also heard the 120-400mm is less reliable too. One of the reasons I went for the 150-500mm

Ukwildlifeo · #44 (**permalink**) 22-12-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter Spotter

I think for the money it has to be good value for people wanting the distance but not wanting pro quality shots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter Spotter

However, I have to say that I am now waiting and saving for the Canon Bullet proof comparison as I like many other people question the build of Sigma and I would rather put my hard earned cash into what everyone considers to be one of the best lenses ever made.Its the price you have to pay if you want professional looking shots.

Looking online I often see this sort of thing said but short of shelling out for a super telephoto Prime lens or top end zooms (£2-3000+), Ive never really seen much difference between the sigma 500mm zooms and the 'lower end' brand super telephoto zooms (i.e. canon 100-400mm).
The only advantage I can see is the sigmas work best at f8, which can be a bit slow at late Dusk/very cloudy days, but then I hear the canon 100-400mm has to be stopped down too.

One to bear in mind is the 150-500 is well known for having the odd dud lens being sold so check you have a good copy! Sigma customer service are pretty good at swapping from what I hear

As for not being able to produce pro quality shots....