Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG APO HSM lens

DaveS2

DaveS2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
486
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Following on from another 'Thread' :

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/sigma-120-400mm-apo-dg-os-hsm.515320/

I'm considering the purchase of a Sigma 50-500, as a step up in focal length from my Tamron SP 70-300 Di VC lens.

While the 70-300 seemed adequate when I was using a crop-sensor EOS 7D, now having moved up to a full frame EOS 5D Mklll, the missing 1.6x crop factor seems significant.

The Canon 100-400L was a serious contender, but it is quite an old design lens, offering only a 2 stop stabiliser, and personally, I don't like the 'pump action' zoom.

I then looked at the Sigma 120-400, and the Sigma 150-500, and while one member here has posted a very acceptable image, taken with the 150-500, it is marked down by most professional reviewers on image quality fall off at the long end. As also is the 120-400.

My attention then turned to the Sigma 50-500, and although significantly more expensive than the 120-400 and 150-500, it does seem to get much better reviews, especially on image quality.

Also, looking some of the images produced with it a 500mm, on Wild About Britain, they do seem to support what the reviewers are saying.

So, my question is, has anyone here had experience of this lens?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Duplicated post.
 
Last edited:
Won a mint second-hand Pentax copy on ebay a couple of weeks ago for half the price of a new copy. Not used it much yet as it has been pretty miserable and raining a lot down here! :( Just messing about with it, though, I have realised that you need a very solid technique (in more ways than one) to get the best from it at its long end, namely a sturdy tripod and mirror lock-up shooting - the latter makes a huge difference and I was surprised how much vibration a slapping mirror makes at 400+mm (never having used a lens over 200mm before)! Mind you, that is on a crop body, so it would be the equivalent of 600+mm! I haven't shot any wildlife, only landscapes and chateaux etc that don't tend to move about very much, but the images up to about 450mm are superb....500mm is slightly softer when viewed at 100% but nothing to worry about! It is pretty big and heavy, though, so I wouldn't want to be carting it about all day on a hike in the woods!
 
Just looked again at your title...isn't the EX f4-6.3 an older version? :confused: The one I bought was an f4.5-6.3 50-500mm DG OS APO HSM.....the EX doesn't get as good a write up as the newer OS HSM version!
 
I had an older 50-500 non OS EX and at the time i thought it was the bees knees, however we shoot a lot of avaiton and it was obvious to me the more popular canon 100-400L was far superior in image quality and also the pump design was easier to go quicly from 100 to 400. I always found my sigma lens a little stiff to operate and was hard to get from 50-500 in one shift because the amount of twist required was more than my wrist could rotate.

A friend of mine has just bought a 50-500 OS to go alongside his 100-400L because when shooting at airports he would struggle to fit a whole aircraft in the frame at 100mm but he soon found the image quality disapointing after having his 100-400L for so long.

Hope that helps with your decision
 
I've had two copies of the Non-OS the first APO and the newer DG HSM versions. The older version was spot on sharp wide open on 500mm taking in mind it was full with dust, unfortunately it was quite slow. Haven't really played with the 2nd version as I've got it just last week and I haven't got the chance to play with it. One issue with the older version is that they are quite prone to dust, but as mentioned above that's not really an issue and it's mainly below the front glass that can be easily cleaned...
 
Sorry Mike, my mistake, I did mean the OS version.

Thanks for your input guys, its all very useful feedback, and much appreciated.

I've not made any firm decisions yet, and am still very much in the process of weighing up all the options, reading professional reviews, and getting feedback from end users like yourselves.

My gut instinct tells me to go with the Canon L series, although the f/2.8 variants are way above my budget. However, I had a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8 EX lens, and the image quality was superb, so I know what a Sigma lens can produce. At least this particular model.

One thing that does stand out, is that Sigma don't offer an EX version of the 50-500.

I guess the main issue for me, with the Canon 100-400L, is that it is now a very outdated design, in terms of image stabilisation, using a very early variant of this, which only offers a two stop benefit.

It does seem strange that Canon have never moved to update this lens,

My initial thoughts were to go with the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, and add a 1.4x teleconverter to it when needed, and accept the one stop loss, when doing so. However, it seems that this lens can't be used with a teleconverter.

Oddly enough, the 70-200 f/4 version can, but this would only provide 280mm with a 1.4x teleconverter. A 2x Teleconverter would of course give 400mm, but at a cost of two stops.

Life is never simple is it :thinking:

Dave
 
Last edited:
i have the 50-500 os havent had a lot of time to use it the plan was to get one this side of the year and put it to good use next year well thats the plan any ways lol i looked at the 100-400 canon but the push and pull put me off i did hear they suffer a lot more than the sigmas for dust and also lens creep and a lot said they just could not get on with the push and pull i hear its a marmite thing you love it or hate it , i am told there isnt a lot in the 150-500 and the 50-500 sigmas iQ wise it took me ages to find a decent 50-500 os for under £700 considering you can get a new one from wex for £999 and some are getting on for 4 years old as the 50-500 os came out in 2010 i think ps its a heavy lens
 
DaveS2 said:
I guess the main issue for me, with the Canon 100-400L, is that it is now a very outdated design, in terms of image stabilisation, using a very early variant of this, which only offers a two stop benefit.

Dave
Click to expand...

If you're photographing wildlife that moves at any appreciable speed then IS isn't always very relevant, obviously it's useful for static subjects but for BIF I'd turn it off. Those fractions of seconds it takes the IS to settle down can mean missing the shot anyway.

DaveS2 said:
My initial thoughts were to go with the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, and add a 1.4x teleconverter to it when needed, and accept the one stop loss, when doing so. However, it seems that this lens can't be used with a teleconverter.

Dave
Click to expand...

It will take other teleconverters, but if you mean the non L version I wouldn't bother. I have one and it's a bit soft over 200mm unless stopped down to F8 and I can only imagine a TC would make it much worse, not to mention losing an extra stop.

Darren
 
Thanks for your input, Rab and Darren.

From what I've read Rab, the 100-400 is a 'Marmite' lens, in that you would either love it or hate it. Ignoring the optical quality, which I don't think is in question, those that love it, do so because of the speed of zoom operation with the 'push pull', and those that don't like it have exactly the opposite thoughts.

Darren, I would agree that for moving objects, the IS is probably irrelevant. With my Tamron 70-300 IS, I always switch it off when panning.

The quandary I'm is, in just what to buy, and am a firm believer in the logic of 'buy cheap. buy twice', so cost, within reason is not a key factor hear, albeit up to say £1.6k is probably the limit.

I think that up to 400mm would satisfy most of my needs, but for me, imaging quality throughout the zoom range, is paramount, as to a degree is size and weight suppose.

For image quality, I can't really fault the Tamron SP 70-300 Di VC USD, until it gets to 300mm, when there is a noticeable fall-off in sharpness. Albeit this clears nicely when you stop down to f/8. Given that this is a £300 lens, I can't complain about that.

From a size and weight aspect, the Sigma 50-500 is quite a 'beast' at 1970g, compared to the Canon 100-400 at 1380g. In either case I think a monopod would be needed for comfortable handling, as the 5D MkIII on its own, is no lightweight.

Dave
 
dave mikeyb has just put up a Canon 400m F5.6L L in the for sale threads for £615 i dont know if you can see the thread or if its more than your willing to pay but its a prime so no push and pull and the minimum focus distance is around 0.4 or 0.5
 
As an alternative, have you considered an older non OS version of the 2.8 120-300mm lens. This can be fitted with a TC for increased focal length.

I purchased an old model with a 2x and will add a 1.4 and or1.7 to this,

Prices for the older models can start from£750 ish so not to much more.

Just another option to consider
 
Thanks Rab and Mark, but at 400mm I would consider optical stabilsation a must have, unless you are only going to use the lens tripod mounted, or with fast shutter speeds.

Another factor is, I'm one of those silly people that only buys new. I haven't even bought a second-hand car since around 1987, having had a new one every three years since then.

Then it if wasn't for silly people like me that waste money on new things, there wouldn't be any second-hand gear for people to buy ;).

However, the input from members here, including yourselves, is much appreciated, and has been very informative.

Dave
 
Dave I use to use the latest model Sigma 150-500mm up until last week, I was quite happy with it in good light, not so much on dull overcast days, as for sharpness, you can make up your own mind by clicking my siggy link, all except for the last 15 or so pics were taken using the Sigma, bear in mind 99% taken at 500mm
 
Last edited:
There are some nice examples on there Mike :thumbs:

I need to sit down and digest all the options open to me.

It is possible that I may even go for the Canon 70-300L IS, as the image and build quality is pretty much guaranteed, and 'crop' when I need an image scale that would equate to 400-500mm.

For example, the difference between image scale at 400mm compared to that at 300mm, is just 33%. Now having the 5D Mklll with its full-frame 22mp sensor, there is plenty of scope for zooming and cropping.

However, at the moment I'm in no rush to make a decision, and feedback from members here has been very useful.

Dave
 
An interesting thread.

I'm looking at the Sigma 50-500 and the Nikon 80-400.
The new version of the Nikon is out of my price range, so I'm wondering if the old Nikon version or the Sigma is the better option.

I'm on a Nikon D90, so I get the crop factor but not the pixel count.
I'd generally go mono or tri pod most of the time unless it's a quick walk about, so weight hopefully won't become an issue.
I'm also conscious of the size of the Sigma, it's going to dwarf my D90, but as I hope to upgrade the body in a year or two I don't mind this perceived imbalance!

Looking to use them for wildlife, a new area for me but one I believe I'll enjoy.
 
The old Nikon 80-400 is slow to focus and in my experience soft at 400mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top