Sigma 150-500 - should I buy??? - I did - test shots added

TwentySixDays

TwentySixDays

Messages
2,668
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I have added the test shots as a new "reply" (#19)

I am trying to make a decision on my second lens for my D300.

I will be using it mainly for birds/wildlife with a bit of motorsport thown in.

I used to use a 500mm/f5.6 which I found was just about long enough.

My budget is limited.

I am thinking of Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM.

Looking at the reviews the lens is a bit soft, but considering the price.

Below is a 100% crop of a picture which was taken with a Sigma 70-300mm (hand-held)

Can anyone advise if this is comparable with the 150-500?

SigmaSample.jpg



The other possible option is a Sigma 70-300mm APO with a 2x converter.

Any advice would be appriciated.

Cheers Stuart
 
You can't compare RAW files across brands ... what counts in the final output.

I've owned this lens in both Canon and Nikon mouts. It's about the best all round long zoom lens (I've owned most of the options). All these zooms need to be stopped down to get best results and some copies will be better than others. I just stivck m ine in f8.0 and use ISO to sort shutter speed. I use AV mode. Works fine. Most long zooms are also a bit softer at the longest end. Again, depends on copy. It is easily better than the 70-300 Sigma. The key to long lens use is giving the lens a secure platform. OS will held a lot, but you need to pay attention to the image in the viewfinder. 500mm is long and even on a tripod you can get shake.
 
I just bought one for use on my 50D and it's looking good. I just need to practice my long lens technique now :(
 
Just Dave said:
I have a 150-500mm and its not soft,

as said 70-300 wont AF with x1.4 or x2 converter (kenko)

images with 150-500mm all uncropped

3524284829_938796fd1c_o.jpg


3524284827_077bdd9e12_o.jpg


3524284825_a4db78dd57_o.jpg



3528064905_079e102107_o.jpg
Click to expand...
Now't wrong with them! I have seen some cracking shots with so-called soft lenses and personally i put it down to the user not the lens 99% of the time.
Recently I was looking at a dslr magazine a quite a few shots were VERY soft but the reviewer said they were spot on? one of the best shots i have seen recently was taken with Vivitar 28-300mm remember them? I was amazed when the togger said it was a £25.00 Ebay bargain!
Brian
 
Stuart, Best avoid 2x converters your images would be very soft at best, 1.4x would be a better choice if any.
Go for the 150-500mm or 50-500mm (much better) if you can find one for same money (they come up for sale quite often s/h) and don't forget monopod or tripod for long lenses they do make a big difference to image quality.
Cheerio
Brian
 
:thumbs: Thank you all for your quick responses. :thumbs:

Really good info ... I hadn't though about the RAW format/processes.

Off to the shops now - if they were open :lol:
 
Here's a picture I took at Barnes Wetland Trust with the 150-500:

DSC_3772web.jpg


I believe the 50-500 doesn't have image stablisation unlike the 150-500 which does have the option.
 
crieffy said:
Chuffed to bits with mine:)

Excellent for the money (mind you, it seems to have gone up in price a lot recently:eek: ). I much prefer it to the 50-500mm I had before - I never use a tripod so I find the OS feature very useful.

All of these were handheld..
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=122206

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=143785

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=134325

Have fun,
John
Click to expand...
Brilliant shots there!!!!!!!!!!! all i can say about the bird shots is WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brian
 
Claymore said:
Now't wrong with them! I have seen some cracking shots with so-called soft lenses and personally I put it down to the user not the lens 99% of the time.
Click to expand...
How can you tell with a websized image? Not knocking the quality of the lens (I have no experience of it) but it makes me cringe everytime anyone says how sharp a lens looks based on a websized shot taken with it :nuts:

Disclaimer: If there are any %100 crops in this thread I can't see them as I'm at work, and the network blocks photos hosted by certain sites so I don't always see everything :p
 
Richard Peters said:
How can you tell with a websized image? Not knocking the quality of the lens (I have no experience of it) but it makes me cringe everytime anyone says how sharp a lens looks based on a websized shot taken with it :nuts:

Disclaimer: If there are any %100 crops in this thread I can't see them as I'm at work, and the network blocks photos hosted by certain sites so I don't always see everything :p
Click to expand...
Hi Richard, I'm no expert but i just go by comparing images on websites with those on my PC monitor of shots that are very sharp taken with pro lenses (I have a few L lenses)
Surely a sharp picture is a sharp picture either on screen or not? got me confused now LoL maybe there are 2 types of sharp photo's? got me puzzled (doesn't take much doing)
High prices doesn't always mean high quality
 
My Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM arrived this morning.
Here are some test shots...

OS is just a gimic - isn't it...
1) Shot from 40ft (12mtrs) ISO 800 1/80sec f11 500mm Handheld
No PP - 100% crop,left OS=ON, Right OS=OFF
OSTest.jpg


On the rest of the shot I used AP set to F8

2) Shot from 120ft (36mtrs) ISO 800 1/250sec F8 500mm Handheld OS=ON
No PP - 100% Crop (full frame inset)
Heron800.jpg



3) Shot from 40ft (12mtrs) ISO 800 1/250sec F8 500mm Tripod OS=OFF
No PP - 100% Crop
GreatTit800.jpg



4) Shot from 15ft (4.5mtrs) ISO 800 1/250sec F8 270mm Handheld OS=ON
Full Frame resized to 800px and sharpened
DSC_3032a800.jpg



5) Shot from 80ft (24mtrs) ISO 200 1/250sec F8 500mm Monopod OS=OFF
1/3 Frame Resized to 800px Sharpened - Insets 100% crops
Heron5.jpg



6) Comparison between Nikon 18-105@12ft and Sigma 150-500@40ft
TestSigma500.jpg


Thanks again for all the advise :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top