sigma 50mm-500mm

E

eos97

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Edit My Images
No
Hi All

I am after a bit of advise, I have a nikon d70s and a d90 and i am looking for a lens for wildlife photography.
I have been looking at some second hand sigmas 50-500's as these fit into my budget which is about £600 ish, are these lens's any good for wildlife or is there something else I should be considering

many thanks in advance
Mark
 
Considered an excellent lens for wildlife, it lacks IS and is slow at f6.3 but can give good results. There is a new version out now with IS. I have the 150-500 and am very pleased with it.

http://SPAM/c3whur/feb/Img_1520.jpg
 
I had one a few years ago and they aren't a bad lens at all. For me the only downside was that they are a heavy lens and needed good support, I never had much success handholding it.
 
Nice picture, is the 150-500 as heavy as the 50-500?
 
Last edited:
i have the 50-500mm sigma (but on a canon :canon:) and i picked it up for less than £500 on ebay a couple of years ago. I rarely use it, but it does produce some good results when i do.

the only downside for me is that when i'm walking around with it, the lens will not lock in place (except when totally retracted), so that means it slides out to its full length all the time which is a bit of a pain.

shame you're not a canon man... you could have had mine for £450! :naughty:
 
I have a 150-500mm on a Canon 7D. If you get a good copy they are great. I the first one I got was soft.
The one I have now is OK but I only use it on a tripod with cable realase.
This shot was taken with it.

1/30 sec F8 ISO 400 403mm -4/3 EV

4894734157_80fbc47d85_b.jpg
 
Dont overlook the older 170-500mm (ones with the furry coating) those are really good also.
Dont get the smooth plastic coating version though.
 
I have a 50-500 and it is a great lens. Very heavy though and handheld at 500 is a lottery on sharpness most the time. I tend to use it on a monopod which solves that mostly.

At the moment I am thinking of swapping it for a 100-400 L just to get that IS to help with the handheld stuff. I would miss that extra 100 reach though.

All in all a great lens I would recommend.

Something else to consider is the fact that the 50-500 is an EX which is Sigma's version of the L series so its good glass. The 150-500 is not an EX, still good lens but not quite an EX/L class of glass.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested to know how this performs in lower light, as the images here all seem to be in perfect day light.

I was hoping to hire something over my 70-300VR to use for rutting season..
 
Rocket said:
I would be interested to know how this performs in lower light, as the images here all seem to be in perfect day light.

I was hoping to hire something over my 70-300VR to use for rutting season..
Click to expand...

Your looking at 5.6-6.3 at the top 300-500 end so its not the best in the dim lighting. Although often I under expose to get the speed right and correct it in post editing so not a big issue for me.
 
Rocket said:
I would be interested to know how this performs in lower light, as the images here all seem to be in perfect day light.

I was hoping to hire something over my 70-300VR to use for rutting season..
Click to expand...

Surprisingly enough it didnt really hunt as much as I thought it would in lowish light situations - this was on a D300S.

However, one issue with the lens is that it does not like high contrast scenes (eg a black raven against white snow) as it seems to suffer from high chromatic aberration in those situations.
 
Thanks for the feedback. Don't want to hijack the subject, but very helpful..Might go for 300 2.8 prime and add a teleconverter...:thinking:

razor777 said:
Surprisingly enough it didnt really hunt as much as I thought it would in lowish light situations - this was on a D300S.

However, one issue with the lens is that it does not like high contrast scenes (eg a black raven against white snow) as it seems to suffer from high chromatic aberration in those situations.
Click to expand...

Rusk Your looking at 5.6-6.3 at the top 300-500 end so its not the best in the dim lighting. Although often I under expose to get the speed right and correct it in post editing so not a big issue for me.
Click to expand...
 
Rusk said:
Something else to consider is the fact that the 50-500 is an EX which is Sigma's version of the L series so its good glass. The 150-500 is not an EX, still good lens but not quite an EX/L class of glass.
Click to expand...

The 150-500 and 120-400 were the first lenses not to receive the Ex designation after Sigma decided to change their policy and only award it to fixed aperture ones; in exactly the same way as the current 50-500 OS Non Ex.

It's nothing to do with glass quality!
 
Gonetae said:
I think the EX designation is still used to signify better quality of optics.
From Sigma's site

"EX (EX Lens)
The exterior of this lens is EX-finished to denote the superior build and optical quality, and to enhance its appearance."

A totally unbiased 50-500 EX owner......honest ;)
Click to expand...


Never let the truth get in the way of a decent rumour! ;)
 
To the OP..given that for wildlife you'll be using the lens at 500mm most of the time, & that you'll want to stop down from f6.3 for best sharpness, you really need OS if you ever intend to handhold.

I have the 150-500 OS & can vouch for the usefulness of the stabiliser system. Without it I would be even more frustrated with our lousy summer!
 
Id also consider the Tamron 200-500 which gets nods to a bit better IQ from most users that have tried both of like forums.. dpr, photodo, FMiranda, etc.
 
If you could stretch your budget a little more,or hold out for a while the tamron af 200-500 f5.6 scored better than the sigma in a recent camera mag,at the moment I have seen it for £740,Canon fit or £710, Nikon fit.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
i have had a 150-500mm in nikon and it was great the os works great, i now have a 50-500mm os and thats even better, but then it is about £500 more,
my advice try et a 150-500mm if you cant afford a 50-500mm os.
Click to expand...

The first one of the two images is great, very impressed. I may well consider getting one of these lens for when I go on safari. As it has a great zoom range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top