Sigma 150-500mm OS Lens (1 Viewer)

john-henry · Mar 26, 2009

All I seem to hear about the Sigma 150-500 lens, mainly from people who haven’t got one or used one, is it’s ‘soft’ at 500mm wide open, well it is compared to the high end lenses (those costing several times as much) but on the other hand it’s not a bad lens for those who can’t afford these. It’s got a useful zoom range, good auto focus and an image stabilising system that works well.
It’s not my intention to try to persuade anyone to buy this lens but to give a more realistic opinion on its quality by someone who’s using one.

I’ve been using one for the past few weeks and it’s not so soft that you can’t get some decent images out of it at 500mm by stopping down to f8 or f11. The improvement in quality is immediately seen and the 4 stop OS system makes up for the lower shutter speeds to help hand-holding.

Considering the price of this lens it’s great value for money for someone who doesn’t want to carry several lenses around or can’t afford to spend a fortune on professional quality equipment, and still get good enough quality to make decent A4 prints.

The photos below give some idea of the quality throughout the zoom range of the lens, all hand-held, taken in Raw, converted to 16bit Tiff then Levels and USM applied (mainly 70% with a Radius of 0.5 applied twice) in PS7, cropped to 7”x 5” at 300ppi then cropped smaller again at 100ppi and Saved for Web at about 80%.

Mallard 2166 150mm, 1/400th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Canada Goose 2310 200mm, 1/640th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Rook 2032 250mm, 1/125th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Canada Goose 2308 300mm, 1/500th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Rook 2054 400mm, 1/160th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.67EV

john-henry · Mar 26, 2009

A few more images.

The Green Woodpecker was taken from at least 70yards away and turned out better than expected for this distance.

Chaffinch 2359 400mm, 1/400th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Jackdaw 2012 500mm, 1/500th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Jay 2024 500mm, 1/250th @ f8, ISO 400, -0.33EV
Canada Goose 1911 500mm, 1/200th @ f11, ISO 400, -0.67EV
Green Woody 2319 500mm, 1/400th @f11, ISO 400, 0EV

Fozzybear · Mar 27, 2009

Have just bought a 150-500 today, a big treat to myself after a few rough weeks with a hard time at work and a week of bad headaches (now cleared up... thank God!). Although the weather is pretty rank at the moment and it's difficult to test the lens out, I did take a few shots at my back door. I found the lens is back-focusing a bit but I 'should' be able to correct that with the D300's af fine tuning. Where the focus was there was a pretty reasonable amount of detail though, it seems as though it might be as good as my 70-300VR, which would be fine with me if true. Of course I need to get the AF sorted and put some practice in to work out getting the most from it, from my initial results I need to do some work!

It was dingy, raining on and off and pretty blustery but I thought this one didn't come out too bad - was taken at ISO3200, 1/250th at f/11 on a tripod and the left foot is in focus rather than the head (I did focus on the head though - will spend some time playing with AF fine tuning...) but still not bad for all that I thought. Sharpness is much less than my old 300mm prime, but since that lens has awful colour fringing (some of which I cannot correct and looks awful) I'm hoping this will work out ok... especially after spending all that cash on it!

The second shot is one I took the other day with my Nikon 70-300VR, slightly different angle but not much further away. Cropped in a bit more than the first shot I think though.

mikfoz · Mar 27, 2009

That extra 200mm makes a lot of difference, Fozzy. Congrats on the new lens. Get out there and get snapping!

mikfoz · Mar 27, 2009

Roy C said:
I agree with Stu here Mike,you are not comparing apples with apples. The 50-500 is a EX lens which according to Sigma gives 'superior optical performance' over a non EX lens. Also ISO 400, 1/750 sec at f11 is not typical of the shooting conditions you are likely to incur in the UK. Stopping down to f11 to get sharp shots is not a good advertisement (not that I think the bigma needs to be stopped down this much).
From what I read the 150-500 has not got the same optical performance as the bigma.

I'm not sure that's true - it depends what you read. The 150-500 is a newer lens and I've heard pretty good things about it next to the bigma for quality. The point I'm making here is that Sigma seem to get bashed by pro-lens snobs on a regular basis when they produce cracking lenses. While I can't wave around a 150-500 I can throw in a shot from the bigma. It produces good shots at f6.7 as well but I stopped down that day because I could, and it was bright. Check my gallery out for others in lower light, wide open and still sharp.

The only reason I got a bigma was because I wanted the wider range for motorsports. if I were just birding I'd have got the 150-500. Surely one of the reasons the bigma is more expensive is that it has this wider zoom range which takes a lot more glass and engineering.

Fozzybear · Mar 27, 2009

mikfoz said:
That extra 200mm makes a lot of difference, Fozzy. Congrats on the new lens. Get out there and get snapping!

Thanks Mike. Not sure how much snapping I'll get tomorrow if the weather forecast is right, but Sunday should be good. Took some handheld snaps of the field mouse and blackbird in my back garden a little while ago, very dark by then and I was down to around 1/25-60th of a second so will be interesting to see how they look (recharging the battery at the moment). Played a bit with the af fine tuning but not sure yet if it's any better or not. Need some sunshine and and to set up my tripod in front of a good subject to really try that properly.

john-henry · Mar 27, 2009

Fozzybear said:
Thanks Mike. Not sure how much snapping I'll get tomorrow if the weather forecast is right, but Sunday should be good. Took some handheld snaps of the field mouse and blackbird in my back garden a little while ago, very dark by then and I was down to around 1/25-60th of a second so will be interesting to see how they look (recharging the battery at the moment). Played a bit with the af fine tuning but not sure yet if it's any better or not. Need some sunshine and and to set up my tripod in front of a good subject to really try that properly.

Just a thought before you fine tune your focussing, if you are using a tripod with the OS on it will throw the focus out, expect you already know this though.

Fozzybear · Mar 27, 2009

Yup, got OS turned off when on the tripod. Worst case the shop I bought it from said that any problems with it I can exchange or they can send it to Sigma to be calibrated. Too early to know though... bit dark for test shooting at the moment.

This is a shot I took earlier of the mouse at the bottom of my garden - ISO 3200, 1/40th of a second, f/8, 500mm, taken at a distance of about 35-40ft.

Fozzybear · Mar 28, 2009

Definite improvement with an adjustment to the af fine tuning. Need to experiment more with the settings but with the slightly brighter light (albeit still raining and dull/cloudy) and a bit of practice results are getting better. Took this handheld shooting through my double glazed kitchen window (knew the blue tit wouldn't stay there if I opened the door!) and cropped in about 1/3 to 1/2. Even so, detail and focus are not at all bad bad. I under-exposed the shot so noise is high and the detail would be better if I hadn't shot through two layers of grubby glass but am feeling a bit more that this could be a good lens. Colour fringing is certainly well controlled, I had to look very closely to see any here.

I had a LOT of focus correction dialed in though, I may need to get the lens calibrated but really need to do some in-depth test shooting in bright sunshine really to work out out properly... hopefully will get some sun tomorrow.

HokkaidoStu · Mar 28, 2009

mikfoz said:
While I can't wave around a 150-500 I can throw in a shot from the bigma. Surely one of the reasons the bigma is more expensive is that it has this wider zoom range which takes a lot more glass and engineering.

The old 80-400 OS was more expensive than the Bigma.

I believe the newer Sigma zooms (the 120-400/150-500) are budget lenses, plain and simple. Just my opinion and I may be wrong. I have seen great shots online with the Bigma, but the newer ones? Nah. Nothing I've seen online makes me want to buy one. And I'm no lens snob. I have other Sigmas and also Tamron stuff and am happy with them.

stevo · Mar 28, 2009

HokkaidoStu said:
The old 80-400 OS was more expensive than the Bigma.

I believe the newer Sigma zooms (the 120-400/150-500) are budget lenses, plain and simple. Just my opinion and I may be wrong. I have seen great shots online with the Bigma, but the newer ones? Nah. Nothing I've seen online makes me want to buy one. And I'm no lens snob. I have other Sigmas and also Tamron stuff and am happy with them.

This is why is it in this weeks Amateur photographer mag it says in the review

As you would expect this Sigma zoom lens gives the fully profesional performance for which it has clearly been designed(sigma 150-500mm)

Steve.:-O:-O:-O:-O:t:

Fozzybear · Mar 28, 2009

I was quite surprised at that, I'd heard it could be pretty good if you got a good copy but didn't think it was supposed to be outstanding. I'd always thought Geoffrey Crawley knew his stuff with lenses so reading him rave about it's optics was interesting. It was that review that started swaying me towards buying one... and a God-awful couple of weeks put in the final push.

Can't really give any definite impressions since I've only shot a few experimental photos with it so far and some of those were through glass (well it was raining!

), however it's capable of reasonable detail but needs a lot of sharpening approaching 500mm, and although colour fringing is very low it can suffer a bit from a touch of blooming around some parts of the image, especially highlights (which I saw on shots not taken through glass so it's not that causing it).

I'm not sure I'll be able to crop in as well as I could with the Nikon 70-300VR, which held up detail amazingly well with heavy cropping, but with 500mm to hand should need to do so less.

mikfoz · Mar 28, 2009

I still maintain that people who are using the superduper fast prime expensive lenses would be the first to admit that using any big telephoto lens takes some serious getting used to and fine focussing skills are essential. Give yourself a week, Fozzy, before expecting consistent results. Only reason I hit the ground running is because I'm used to using a 500mm mirror so if anything the bigma was easier to get results from. I can't wait to take it to the British Grand Prix in June. Using a prime there would suck.

By the way, worried about cropping? Heres a 100% crop of a Chaffinch with no software tweaking and directly from a camera processed JPEG (yes, I know it's not the same lens but I'm trusting the review here) - detail a problem?

HokkaidoStu · Mar 29, 2009

stevo said:
This is why is it in this weeks Amateur photographer mag it says in the review

As you would expect this Sigma zoom lens gives the fully profesional performance for which it has clearly been designed(sigma 150-500mm)

Steve.:-O:-O:-O:-O:t:

That quote doesn't really mean much.

In Japan the 150-500 is approx 50% cheaper than the older 80-400 was and about 20% cheaper than the Bigma. Why?

If it is a 'professional' lens then Sigma executives must be smoking the same stuff as that woman in your avatar. Or something stronger. Sigma haven't made these lenses cheap out of the goodness of their hearts. There must be a reason for their price point.

That's not to say it isn't capable of nice photos and I don't want to imply people who bought it have made some kind of mistake or anything. If I was in the market for a new big lens but couldn't afford to (or want to) pay double the price for say the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400 I'd probably buy the Sigma and live with its limitations.

RJM · Mar 29, 2009

HokkaidoStu said:
That quote doesn't really mean much.

In Japan the 150-500 is approx 50% cheaper than the older 80-400 was and about 20% cheaper than the Bigma. Why?

I think the price difference accurately reflects the zoom range and the extra SLD element in the Bigma.

FWIW, PopPhoto.com rates the 150-500 Excellent across the zoom range on prints up to 8x12. Unfortunately, they seemed to have recently removed all the graphics lab charts from their lens testing .

Looking at Sigma's own MTF charts for these lens, the 150-500 actually is a little sharper in the center with more contrast. It does seem to suffer from more astigmatism though at the edges. But on a cropped camera, these lens would be identical. I would say any percieved IQ differences in posted images has more to do with the human elements.

I am quite pleased with the results I'm getting on the Nikon D90 with targets under 50m. At longer distances, the 82mm objective lens is not large enough to compete with the resolution typical of the 125mm objective lens in a 500mm prime.

Regardless, I am willing to sacrifice some IQ for the walkaround handheld capability the 150-500mm provides. I only print 5x7 or view the keepers on my HD TV though.

cheers,
Rick

eastwood · Mar 29, 2009

I am only a hobbylist.
My opinion is -while this is not a stunning lens, it can definitely produce prints larger than 5X7. The beauty is, at least, it does give those enthusiasts who are on a tight budget a decent choice.
The chickadee back is a 100% crop, unprocessed. The woodpeck is cropped and resized, worked in DPP.
Furthermore, the photo illustrations by Jason and John-henry are far more than "satisfactory" only.

stevo · Mar 29, 2009

HokkaidoStu said:
That quote doesn't really mean much.

In Japan the 150-500 is approx 50% cheaper than the older 80-400 was and about 20% cheaper than the Bigma. Why?

If it is a 'professional' lens then Sigma executives must be smoking the same stuff as that woman in your avatar. Or something stronger. Sigma haven't made these lenses cheap out of the goodness of their hearts. There must be a reason for their price point.

That's not to say it isn't capable of nice photos and I don't want to imply people who bought it have made some kind of mistake or anything. If I was in the market for a new big lens but couldn't afford to (or want to) pay double the price for say the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400 I'd probably buy the Sigma and live with its limitations.

From what i`ve seen its not the lenses limitations its the users not knowing how to get the best out of it.

Steve.

stevetb · Mar 29, 2009

I've been reading this with interest. The results posted don't seem much sharper than what I've seen from the old 135-400 and 170-500.
As Stu says, I am yet to be convinced that this lens is as good as some make out. It does seem to have limitations, and the 100-400 is a sharper lens.
Fair enough, its pretty cheap, has a nice zoom range and stabilisation, but consider that you could get a 2ndhand 400 f/5.6 for a little more; now that is a sharp lens. Yep, you lose 100mm, but it makes up for it in sharpness.

Claymore · Mar 29, 2009

stevo said:
From what i`ve seen its not the lenses limitations its the users not knowing how to get the best out of it.

Steve.

Too true! I have spent a fortune on large canon lenses and pictures are still crap LoL I have seen amazing shots using £30.00 Vivitar lenses and have decided now to actually learn how to use my gear rather than upgrade hoping the expensive stuff will make me a better photographer. My best photo recently was taken on a Panasonic fx33 compact on full auto and the 1d mk2 stays at home collecting dust.
Back to basics is the new rock n roll!
Brian

mark richards · Mar 29, 2009

few photos that i took with this lens today,the wheatears were at 500mm end of lens,f8 & the blackbird was 500 with 1.4 converter manual focus f8 all with os on....

Sigma 150-500mm OS Lens (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

Attachments

It's not a competition. Watch the birdy!

It's not a competition. Watch the birdy!

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

Well-known member

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

Attachments

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

Attachments

occasional moderator

Well-known member

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

It's not a competition. Watch the birdy!

Attachments

occasional moderator

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Registered user

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread