Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3

wessyfiesta

wessyfiesta

Suspended / Banned
Messages
561
Name
sam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi i'm looking into buying the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 for the canon Can anyone tell me if they have one or used one, and the pros and cons of the lens Thanks Wessy
 
Great lens for the money. Like any long lens it's large and heavy which will take some getting used to.

For the best results at the long end it's best to stop it down to f/8 ish for sharpest results when the light allows.
 
Thanks for the advice the photos are stunning, will there be any photo distortion if i use it on the canon 60D, as this is meant for the full frame sensor, as i have read in previous forums.
 
I have one also, not having many other long glass to compare it to but It does seem good value for money.

It is quite heavy, but as long as you can handle it it's fine, maybe a monopod for long sessions using it?
 
wessyfiesta said:
Thanks for the advice the photos are stunning, will there be any photo distortion if i use it on the canon 60D, as this is meant for the full frame sensor, as i have read in previous forums.
Click to expand...

Thanks, it will be OK my 400D and 7D are cropped sensors :thumbs: as said by others it is heavy
 
I've also considered this lens for a bit of nature photography, it seems to be a lot of reach and a versatile lens for a fair price.

the flickr group http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma150-500/pool/ has some good examples of what the lens is capable of.

does anybody have any experience of how fast/accurate the AF is on a 5D2? will it even AF on a 5d2 at the long end?
 
I've used one for three years and got some great shots with it, winning a Wildlife Trust Reserves category with one of my shots. Yes it's heavier than the Canon 100-400, but it has more reach and can match it for IQ. I've recently bought a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which with a 2X TC gives me 600mm, length is everything for birds.

These are some shots with the 150-500, AF is pretty good BTCC cars do tend to shift, birds aren;t that slow either, the last one was a grab shot from a boat :)

IMG_5215.jpg


IMG_4316.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
I have this 150 - 500mm lens and have used it on my 50D. It is fairly big and quite heavy but not too heavy to hold. However, the real problem I found is that when using the lens at 500mm, you are at F7 and if you haven't got very good light it results in under exposure or longer shutter speeds which obviously reduces image quality - a real problem for fast moving wildlife shots!
 
Thanks for all the answers, dont know which lens to go for now,will keep looking at pic reviews.:)
 
In my eyes its out of

50-500 os
150-500 os
Or
120-300 2.8 with 2xtele

There all good value for money and plenty of people here to prove it,
But again its all down to price and what your happy to pay.

Best of luck!
 
Last edited:
I bought the 150-500 OS a few weeks ago and now I've got used to the weight it's terrific. The IQ at the long end is very good when you consider the price, the OS is very good on it, makes it so much easier when tracking the subject. In good light its about comparable to my 100-400 L and that's a cracker. The 150-500 OS is a great lens and the price is great too if you get it here http://panamoz.com/index.php/lens/s...m-for-canon-digital-and-film-slr-cameras.html
 
If you read the reviews, it will probably say "the 120-400 is a cracking lens until you go above 340mm then it begins to soften around the edges.
Says that the 150-500 is best used at 450 ,so just back of a fraction from the top end.:thumbs:
Love my 150-500 :thumbs:
 
Just picked up on this thread I've been toying with getting a sigma 50-500 for about 6 months but just not had the funds! However the 120-300 with converter sounds also a good option will you still be able to use it at f2.8 with the converter??
 
artyman said:
I'm afraid not, using a 1.4x will lose you 1 stop ie you get a 168-420 f4 or with a 2X convertor 240-600 f5.6
Click to expand...

Ken, how have you found the OOF rendering with the 120-300 and x2? From your photos on here it looks to be well controlled and relatively smooth- unlike my shots from the 150-500 and those I have seen from the 50-500. I often end up finding the OOF areas distracting with my 150-500 as the 'bokeh' is rather ugly.

Also how much heavier does the 120-300 feel when compared to the 150-500?
 
I haven't found the bokeh on my 150-500 particulalrly distracting, nor with the new setup, though I haven't really had it long enough to give a definitive answer.
 
artyman said:
I haven't found the bokeh on my 150-500 particulalrly distracting, nor with the new setup, though I haven't really had it long enough to give a definitive answer.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ken. What about the weight, a big step up or ok?
 
After along consideration about the 150-500mm lens, i have opted for the Sigma 120-400mm F4.5/5.6 DG OS HSM.
Thanks for all the comments and photo's much appreciated
wessy. ;)
 
wessyfiesta said:
After along consideration about the 150-500mm lens, i have opted for the Sigma 120-400mm F4.5/5.6 DG OS HSM.
Thanks for all the comments and photo's much appreciated
wessy. ;)
Click to expand...


I'm sure you would have enjoyed either, I've been in the same boat and last night ordered the 150-500mm, decided that 1/3 of a stop difference was less important than the extra 100mm.

I look forward to seeing some of your results :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top