Sigma 50-500 or 150-500

Redpaul

Redpaul

Suspended / Banned
Messages
623
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I'm looking to get a second hand Sigma to go with my Canon 7D and would value your opinions. I have a budget of about £600 and am undecided between the non OS 50-500 and the OS 150-500.
I will be using it mainly on wildlife and some sport.
I'm on my iPhone so I'm not sure if my old Sigma 120-400 is listed so ignore it if it is.

Cheers,
Paul
 
I have the 150-500 for my nikons, it was the first telephoto zoom I bought for birds. Although I've since spent a fortune on other lenses I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it and still use mine as a walkabout lens. if you intend using it at the 500mm end as I'm sure you will then I'd get a OS lens, technique and stability is a large part of getting good results.
 
I have the 150-500mm OS and a friend has the 50-500mm OS but that was too much money!

I have been very pleased with the results from the 150-500mm OS which is mostly used between 300-500mm.

Heather
 
I too have the 150-500. I have been very pleased so far. Before purchasing it I did a lot of in depth research and tbh there isn't that much between the 2 lenses. It seems to depend on making sure you have a good copy. Here are a couple of my first shots with it.


IMG_2414-Edit.jpg by chpimaging, on Flickr
150mm


IMG_2325-Edit-2.jpg by chpimaging, on Flickr
500mm

There are a lot of reports that say that it is soft past 400mm. However I'm more than happy with it.
 
Thanks for the replies folks. 150-500 OS it is then.
Cracking shots Chris.

Paul
 
Thanks Paul, you'll enjoy it. oh and prepare for the weight. I use a Black rapid sport strap attached to the tripod mount, rather than the standard strap. I dont notice the weight when carrying it around either
 
I had the 150-500 and have now got the 50-500. Both are cracking good lenses. Given the choice between one of them with OS and one without, I would go for the OS version as they're heavy and it's a little difficult to keep them steady when fully zoomed and hand-held.
 
I've owned all three varieties of these lenses at some stage. The 50-500 was the worst (still good). Image quality was weakest for me and no OS really hurts this length.

The 150-500 had slightly better quality at the long end but nothing spectacular. Acceptable given the range.

The 50-500 OS I had was amazing. Great stabilisation and great quality through the range. This was comparing to some of canons best L lenses. It really was head and shoulders above for me but the others were still good. Naturally you'll pay for the added benefits.
 
Hi paul
Ive recently brought a sigma 50-500 (non os) and its an amazing piece off glass for the money, i also used to own a siggy 150-500 os which was also good but i must admit i prefer the 50-500 myself. Here is an image from my 1st outing with the 50-500 (non os) and im sure the images will get better as i get more practice with it.
8476893238_c273bf3581_c.jpg


Good luck in whichever you choose.

Andy
 
From reviews I gather the 50-500 is slightly sharper overall but I've had a 150-500 OS for over a year now and have been very happy with the results I've got from it. I bought mine from Panamoz for about £600 new but they have increased their prices a fair bit of late.

This was taken with the 150-500 OS, handheld at 500mm, f6.3, 1/800sec and ISO 1000 and has no PP apart from a crop.
7132819465_b1cfa8db91_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
Hi Stuart, was this taken with the 5D mkIII or the 7D? The lack of noise at ISO 1000 is fantastic. I tried some at at ISO 800+ the other day and had to adjust the noise levels in LR.

EDIT: Just looked on Flickr and seen that it was a JPEG, shot on the 5D.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top