I've decided - Sigma 150-500 OS

hashcake

hashcake

Gone to pot!
Messages
5,943
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
After a lot of thought, I've decided to go with a Sigma 150-500 OS for wildlife.
I just can't justify the Canon 100-400L IS at this point in time and I am prepared to accept another 100mm over the IQ.
I just need a little bit more convincing so if you Canon users who own a Sigma 150-500 OS can post some sample shots, it would be most helpful.
I know this lens is very popular with people into birding photography so the more people who can post, the merrier :)

I think it would be pointless any Nikon users of this lens posting samples due to the difference in the engineering of the lens.
It might perhaps be possible that the Nikon version is slightly sharper and as you can appreciate, this would defeat the object.
 
Would the difference between the Sigma and the L be actually noticeable in real life terms? I sometimes wonder.
 
Here's a free bump for you Darran, plus I'd be interested in the comments.
Also at the 500mm end presumably there would be no difference in quality between the 50-500 and the 150-500???
 
Ok I won't post any images then!!!

Really pleased with my Sigma 150-500 lens. Heavy though!
 
King of Groove said:
Ok I won't post any images then!!!

Really pleased with my Sigma 150-500 lens. Heavy though!
Click to expand...

Clive if you have images taken at 500mm please post them.
Seems like the Canon users are all asleep.
 
One thing to mention is 50-500 doesn't have image stablisation whereas the 150-500 does.
 
n1kcy said:
Also at the 500mm end presumably there would be no difference in quality between the 50-500 and the 150-500???
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what difference I would expect between the 50-500 and the 150-500 @500mm.
I would assume they would both be on par IQ wise but the 50-500 doesn't have OS and I wouldn't want to try using one hand held with out.

Nicky, the thing is, it won't be as sharp as your 70-200L IS f4 MKII so could you accept that?
I can live with it not being quite as sharp as my 70-200L IS f4 but it's no quite the same as your 2 grand lens.
 
hashcake said:
I'm not sure what difference I would expect between the 50-500 and the 150-500 @500mm.
I would assume they would both be on par IQ wise but the 50-500 doesn't have OS and I wouldn't want to try using one hand held with out.

Nicky, the thing is, it won't be as sharp as your 70-200L IS f4 MKII so could you accept that?
I can live with it not being quite as sharp as my 70-200L IS f4 but it's no quite the same as your 2 grand lens.
Click to expand...

I don't know, everything is just so expensive, why can't camera gear just grow on trees in my garden. :'(
I'm thinking of getting a converter to go with the 70-200, but then don't know whether to get the 1.4 or the 2.
I do still have my old lens which is the Canon 70-300 IS which is a great little lens but obviously worlds apart from the 70-200. The just isn't a clear winner for an answer.
 
I looked at both, before choosing the 100-400. The Sigma had a reputaion that seemed correct for being a bit soft at the extreme end, and if I couldn't use 500, why pay for it. L glass also came in to my thoughts. I had both on test from local camera shop, and thought the Sigma was heavier and more bulky. What finally swung me to the Canon was guy in shop (who I know quite well) saying that they reckon to get 50% of their Sigma sales returned inside two years for trade in towards the Canon. They never get Canons back.
 
Having used a 1.4TC with my boggo 70-200 f4L, I can confirm that it is a perfectly workable combination. I have heard that the f2.8 II works fantastically with a x2 TC.

I may have to have a look at this 150-500 of yours at one of the meets, Darran!
 
Sample pic taken with the Sigma 50-500mm non OS lens at 500mm f/6.3 (wide open). I was taking these shots to compare to my friends 150-500 and we both reckoned the 50-500mm was indeed sharper. The 50-500 is an EX lens which I believe designates better quality of build overall and glass.

4323145980_eb675563ea_o.jpg


crop from above image.

4322412875_764ff5dc0b_o.jpg


Hope these shots help.
Tommy.
 
Tommy,

That i mighty impressive IMO, is that straight out of the card?

By the way, from my understanding the EX is better build and the marmite (love it or hate it) finish, DG is Sigmas higher quality glass. I could be wrong.
 
Cheers Donki, I honestly can't remember if I done anything to the pics or not. I done the lens test back in February I'm afraid and the old mind is a bit of a sieve.
oh found out what the designations mean btw, http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-technology

Dg - These are large-aperture lenses with wide angles and short minimum focusing distances. With an abundance of peripheral illumination, they are ideal lenses for Digital SLR Cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.

EX - The exterior of this lens is EX-finished to denote the superior build and optical quality, and to enhance its appearance.
 
Gonetae said:
Cheers Donki, I honestly can't remember if I done anything to the pics or not. I done the lens test back in February I'm afraid and the old mind is a bit of a sieve.
oh found out what the designations mean btw, http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-technology

Dg - These are large-aperture lenses with wide angles and short minimum focusing distances. With an abundance of peripheral illumination, they are ideal lenses for Digital SLR Cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.

EX - The exterior of this lens is EX-finished to denote the superior build and optical quality, and to enhance its appearance.
Click to expand...

Thanks thats that cleared up then, my young.... ish mind its pretty crap too at times.
 
been using 150-500 OS for about 6 months now Mainly for motorsport.
Comments as follows
Using it hands free at 500mm down to 1/150 sec it gives good results.
If you can get above 1/500 it is excellent.
HOWEVER
if you use on a monopod (Not a tripod note!) Switch the OS off as it will give really poor pics.
(The Nikon lenses I have dont seem to mind if they are on a monopod with the VR ON)
The difference between this lens and the 50-500 is tiny (I couldnt see anydifference)
I love this lens but after handholding for 3-4 hours it can give me backache so I always carry some Ibuprofen with it......
 
good thread, im having a toss up(:eek:) at the minute between the three..

and when funds allow i'll be on the lookout for one!!:suspect:
 
Gonetae said:
Sample pic taken with the Sigma 50-500mm non OS lens at 500mm f/6.3 (wide open). I was taking these shots to compare to my friends 150-500 and we both reckoned the 50-500mm was indeed sharper. The 50-500 is an EX lens which I believe designates better quality of build overall and glass.
Click to expand...

I use my 50-500mm a lot and also think it has a little sharpness wide open at 500mm over the 150-500mm but I read the only reason it is EX designated and the 150-500mm not is because Sigma will no longer give the badge to a zoom lens and now only use it for primes. (started with the 150-500mm).
 
Just Dave said:
Hi Heres some of my shots with the Sigma 150-500mm OS, and I love it, all hand held


3530976133_9874993f93_o.jpg


3524284829_938796fd1c_o.jpg


3524284827_077bdd9e12_o.jpg


3528064905_079e102107_o.jpg


3533505269_8e1884f239_o.jpg


And one from today

4668985511_c208e23a89_b.jpg

dave
Click to expand...

quite impressive, considering the high iso,

when we was out the other week i showed tim the IQ differrence between the 50d and the 450d using my 135-400mm sigma and it was quite shocking!

if its the same for this lens then it should be fantastic on a 50d.. :D
 
westley byford said:
quite impressive, considering the high iso,

when we was out the other week i showed tim the IQ differrence between the 50d and the 450d using my 135-400mm sigma and it was quite shocking!

if its the same for this lens then it should be fantastic on a 50d.. :D
Click to expand...
Thanks Ill let you know what its like on my next camera 7D when I get it :D in a couple of months nearly saved up for it now,
 
Just Dave said:
Hi Heres some of my shots with the Sigma 150-500mm OS, and I love it, all hand held


3530976133_9874993f93_o.jpg


3524284829_938796fd1c_o.jpg


3524284827_077bdd9e12_o.jpg


3528064905_079e102107_o.jpg


3533505269_8e1884f239_o.jpg


And one from today

4668985511_c208e23a89_b.jpg

dave
Click to expand...


That's a cracking set and the best I've seen taken with the 150-500mm.
I am impressed at the level of sharpness @ 500mm.
 
hashcake said:
That's a cracking set and the best I've seen taken with the 150-500mm.
I am impressed at the level of sharpness @ 500mm.
Click to expand...

thank you very muchly Darran, you wont be disappointed if you get one, maybe theres a member near you,who has the lens and would let you try it out, it does take a little getting used to and is a heavy lens to carry about, I love mine though, its hardly off the camera, cant wait to try it with my new cam when I get it :thumbs:
 
While Dave's photos are undoubtedly a cracking set, I don't think it would be wise to judge the quality and results from a lens based on some rather small images on the web. TBH it is very easy to make a good looking 800x533 image from a file that might not bear closer scrutiny too well. If all you want is small webshots then by all means make your judgement based on such images, but I would want to look under the covers and see what the 100% crops were like before proclaiming any lens worthy of my attention.

FWIW here is a shot from my 100-400 taken today, wide open at 400mm and f/5.6.

20100605_100556_8690_LR.jpg


100% crop, from my 7D, which is known to be very demanding on lens IQ :
20100605_100556_8690_LR-2.jpg


I think her watches says 10:06. :D

If you're looking to snag kingfishers at Rye Meads then you're going to need every piece of pixel perfect sharpness you can muster.
 
tdodd said:
While Dave's photos are undoubtedly a cracking set, I don't think it would be wise to judge the quality and results from a lens based on some rather small images on the web. TBH it is very easy to make a good looking 800x533 image from a file that might not bear closer scrutiny too well. If all you want is small webshots then by all means make your judgement based on such images, but I would want to look under the covers and see what the 100% crops were like before proclaiming any lens worthy of my attention.

FWIW here is a shot from my 100-400 taken today, wide open at 400mm and f/5.6.

20100605_100556_8690_LR.jpg


100% crop, from my 7D, which is known to be very demanding on lens IQ :
20100605_100556_8690_LR-2.jpg


I think her watches says 10:06. :D

If you're looking to snag kingfishers at Rye Meads then you're going to need every piece of pixel perfect sharpness you can muster.
Click to expand...


Tim I've accepted the fact that neither a 150-500 or a 100-400 will have enough reach for shooting the Kingfishers at Rye Meads.
I'm thinking generally about larger birds or birds I can get closer to as well as wildlife in general.
Also the need for more reach when we go to Alaska will be necessary.
I would prefer the maximum aperture of 5.6 that the 100-400 gives but it's a toss up between that and 6.3 and 500mm with the sigma.
The cost also has to come into play and this time I will have to come to a compromise.


Good point about the size of the photos and if Just Dave could possibly post a link to larger files, this would be very helpful.
 
hashcake said:
I would prefer the maximum aperture of 5.6 that the 100-400 gives but it's a toss up between that and 6.3 and 500mm with the sigma.
Click to expand...

I did a comparison between the 50-500mm @ 500mm, Sigma 100-300mm f4 with 1.4x teleconverter @ 420mm and a 300mm f4.5 prime with a very good quality 1.7x teleconverter @ 510mm for someone a few days ago.

After comparing the 510mm pics with the Bigma I would say the Sigma is actually only about 450mm ( I would presume the 150-500mm is the same ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top