Sigma ?-500mm

Bigvin

Bigvin

Messages
616
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering if any of you guys have any ideas about the various differences between the three Sigma's that i've been looking at.

1. Sigma 50-500mm
2. Sigma 50-500mm OS
3. Sigma 150-500mm OS

I've got a chance of getting a Sigma 50-500mm non-OS for £500. For a bit extra I could get the 150-500mm OS. For quite a bit extra there's the 50-500mm OS.

From what i've read on this forum, people seem to rate the 50-500mm better than the 150-500mm. But cost wise, would the 150mm be better than the 50mm non-OS.

Also would the 50-500mm non-OS be OK if used with a monopod?

On a bit of a tight budget thanks to the car needing some work, so looking for the cheapest option that will work.

Thanks for looking in. :thumbs:
 
From what I've read, the 50-500mm (aka bigma) is sharper than the 150-500 providing you intend to use mostly on a tripod/monopod. I don't know by how much, but I was reasonably happy with the 50-500mm when I owned it, never tried the 150-500.

If I were to buy again it would be the 150-500 though for the OS since I use mainly handheld.

The newest one, 50-500 OS is the best option, but you pay for it.
 
fabs said:
I've been using the 50-500 (non OS) on a monopod for years but it depends what you are photographing. OS is only really of any benefit at slow shutter speeds.
Click to expand...

It's mostly birds that I'll be shooting. Haven't got a monopod at the minute so It'll be something else I'll have to buy.


draiman said:
From what I've read, the 50-500mm (aka bigma) is sharper than the 150-500 providing you intend to use mostly on a tripod/monopod. I don't know by how much, but I was reasonably happy with the 50-500mm when I owned it, never tried the 150-500.

If I were to buy again it would be the 150-500 though for the OS since I use mainly handheld.

The newest one, 50-500 OS is the best option, but you pay for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I'm leaning towards the 150mm OS version due to the cost and ability to handhold. The only thing that worries me slightly is how much difference there could be in IQ.

Cheers for the replies.
 
the 50-500mms are optically sharper than the 150-500mm but the 150-500mm is great value for money. i have had 2 150-500mm and i now have a 50-500mm os is it worth the extra money over the 150-500mm to me yes as i use the 50mm alot and at 500mm its sharper wide open.
also the non os 50-500mm is great if you dont mind takin a monopod around,
if you need any sample pics i have lots.
 
I've been using the 150-500 for a couple of years, as said the 50-500 OS is reckoned to be a tad sharper, but then it does cost a fair bit more. The 50-500 non stabilised has a good reputation, but you have to balance that with the OS versions.

This from my 150-500
Img_1666.jpg
 
Thanks guys.

I've seen some cracking pictures from the 150-500mm so I think I'll go for one of them.

Now the question of whether wait for one to come up for sale in the classifieds or to buy from fleabay or one of the HK suppliers like DigitalRev. I'll have to look into warranty info if buying from HK.

Cheers for all the input.
 
Again cracking pics Scott.

The problem is that there's nowhere around here that sells them for me to go and have a try.
 
Bigvin - it was shots like these that convinced me that the 150-500 is capable of producing the IQ I was looking for.

Of course, there are compromises & a fairly steep learning curve, but then you pay a lot less:thumbs:

OS is really very good, you can get usable shots below 1/100th:eek:

There is a wealth of pics to check here. Keep an eye out for "gabebalazs" shots especially.

Personally, I have yet to see evidence that the 50-500's are that much better & I certainly wouldn't go without the OS.

HTH
 
Comfortably Numb said:
Bigvin - it was shots like these that convinced me that the 150-500 is capable of producing the IQ I was looking for.

Of course, there are compromises & a fairly steep learning curve, but then you pay a lot less:thumbs:

OS is really very good, you can get usable shots below 1/100th:eek:

There is a wealth of pics to check here. Keep an eye out for "gabebalazs" shots especially.

Personally, I have yet to see evidence that the 50-500's are that much better & I certainly wouldn't go without the OS.

HTH
Click to expand...
well having ahad 2 150-500mm 1 nikon mount 1 in pentax mount i can assure you the 50-500mm os is defo sharper, and i will even say that the older sigma 170-500mm is sharper wide open at 500mm(have had 4)
heres some from a 170-500mm only downside was no os for nikon but was fine with pentax as sr is inbody.
the 170-500mm is as good as the 50-500mm.
SJB10933.jpg


IMGP7174.jpg


SJB10042a.jpg


SJB10943.jpg
 
Last edited:
The truth is, Scott, I've seen good shots from all of these lenses.

I spent a long time researching the 150-500, so I've probably seen more from that, for that reason.

What I have yet to see is evidence that the 50-500 IQ is a marked improvement. I've certainly read it a lot, but I'm yet to be convinced, by real world images. It would surely be a remarkable achievement if a 10x zoom was better:shrug: FWIW I've started to check images & I have an open mind:thumbs:

If someone really needs the short end it's obviously a great option to be able to cover such a range, but if not there's a chunk of cash to be saved.
 
Well thanks for all the input gents.

I've decided to go for the OS version. Whether that be a 50-500 or a 150-500 depends on if one comes up for sale whilst I save up the extra money needed for a new 50-500.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top