Sigma 150-500mm (1 Viewer)

alex berryman · May 27, 2011

Hi All,

Following on from my enquiry about the Sigma 170-500mm I have decided that it is not the lens for me, as I really need a lens which can deliver me with better images. Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 150-500mm and have any test shots available that I could see?

Alex

jimthomson · May 27, 2011

http://www.lenstip.com/184.11-Lens_review-Sigma_150-500_mm_f_5.0-6.3_APO_DG_OS_HSM_Summary.html

Here's a review of the lens.

eagle golden · May 27, 2011

Hi whats wrong with the 170 500, sigma lens, I have one and I get some briliant shots with it, and it is not OS just G APO,

nickdavis · May 27, 2011

well... its the best lens i think avalible for that price, maybee look at the nikon 80-400?
It's ok quality wise and a little slow AF but as an ameture new to telephotos i loved it. It can be very slow in low light, but the OS helps a little. Maybee look at a second hand 120-300 f2.8 if possible? but it will be a great first telephoto if your just getting started.

Kev23 · May 27, 2011

Hi Alex,
I've had this lens for 2 and a bit years now. I paid £600 for it and have say I've had value for money. Is it as sharp as a Nikon or Canon equivilent? Of course not considering they are 10 x as expensive. But it can deliver images that, to me, are more than acceptable. Some arguments against it are it's "softness" and it's weight.. I'll post some images so that you can decide yourself if the soft/sharp level is satisfactory to you.. as for the weight, not a problem to me as I can walk around for a good 10hrs with it around my neck and not suffer at all (I am pretty fit though!) It is useful having the zoom range but only really if your subject is really close.. I wouldn't expect any decent landscape shots at 150mm.

The "sweet spot" is at f8, I never go to f6.3 this unless light levels are very low and then I'm not expecting the image to be very good, more for a "record" shot. I suppose you could say that this is the lens' weakness as it's sometimes hard to get enough shutter speed at f8. I'd probably do better if I were to use a tripod I guess! All the images I'll post are handheld. I do post editing with photoshop elements 8; usually just some sharpening and light level adjustment. (which I've done with the ones attached)

I also find that under-exposing is more preferable with my set-up (I use a Nikon D90) as it gives a faster shutter speed and i find it easier to improve the image by lightening it. Usually -3, sometimes -7 if required.

If i've left out any info, let me know!

Kev

Kev23 · May 27, 2011

Should've mentioned, all the images are taken fully extended at 500mm.. a few people have rendered this lens useless at this range... I disagree!

Here's a flight shot as, although not super-quick to pick up and focus on a moving target, it does ok once locked-on..

eastwood · May 31, 2011

Quote from Kev23: (all the images are taken fully extended at 500mm.. a few people have rendered this lens useless at this range... I disagree!)

X2.
Although images may not be stunning, they are more than usable. Mine are all taken at 500mm too. (with this lens, I find a lower keeping rate than those shoot with a prime lens though).

1. Just reized and sharpened lightly.
2. Crop from original 1, resized, sharpened lightly.
All others are taken at 500mm, cropped.

Fowl Mouth · Jun 1, 2011

I love mine, and will continue to do so until I can swing for a real monster some day. Check my gallery, almost everything shot in the past 2 1/2 years is with the 150-500 OS. Not as sharp as I'd like, bokeh lacks the smoothness I long for, AF lacks a limiter switch, but all in all for the price nothing comes close, IMO. Great for travel where portability and focal length are two primary concerns.

Musoman · Jun 1, 2011

Couldnt agree more with you guys. As long as the particular lens is a good one ( some people reported dodgy ones )
Also, some poor shots can also be down to the user. Its not always the lens

Mine seemed fine, and i ended up with shots as good as anything else out there. I paid £500 for a used one

As stated, f8 is the widest sweet spot. Also, the lens isnt a true 500mm. It was tested ( and reported ) to be something like 470mm, give or take. I cant remember the exact figure though, but 470 is close.

Photo samples shot with 150-500

Aegea · Jun 2, 2011

Musoman said:
. Also, the lens isnt a true 500mm. It was tested ( and reported ) to be something like 470mm, give or take. I cant remember the exact figure though, but 470 is close.

I think it suffers from focus breathing like a lot of big zooms. I measured one 150-500 that I had as being around 430mm at 20 feet.

Musoman · Jun 2, 2011

I've never read any reports stating the true max FL was any thing like as bad as 430mm. Sounds like a fault maybe ?

Aegea · Jun 2, 2011

Musoman said:
I've never read any reports stating the true max FL was any thing like as bad as 430mm. Sounds like a fault maybe ?

You may well be right. It had enough problems with focusing that I returned it within a week. But my feeling is still that it was really a 470-480mm lens at best and Sigma was optimistically rounding up the specs.

(It was actually the second 150-500 that I'd tried. The first simply refused to focus at all over about 200mm. I believe Sigma did recall some of these lenses to fix focusing issues.)

Musoman · Jun 2, 2011

470/480mm was about the true FL that i had read about.

There certainly were some bad models, as a few people have mentioned sending them back.

mdb2 · Jun 13, 2011

I agree with what has been already said + You must wait for the os to settle a Little. brighter days are much better than dull days. Not great with extender! Just posted two pictures on the ID section on warblers you can check them out. it's the old adage of you get what you pay for. Which with hind sight is a little unfair. Verdict great walkabout lens for the money. Regards. Mike

alex berryman · Jun 21, 2011

Thank you so much for all the info. I am now certain that this is the lens for me. I currently use a Tamron 70-300mm which is sharp enough for me but it just lacks the reach as I'm a bird photographer and 300mm is just not enough!

I'm actually a fan of MF so I can get the eye perfectly focus, so any reported problems with the AF won't bother me.

How does the OS system work on this lens?

Alex

mdb2 · Jun 21, 2011

I can only tell you it works well on my sample, a little noisy maybe, but it delivers. regards mike

Sigma 150-500mm (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

hooked on birds

Woodlarks DO exist...

Attachments

Woodlarks DO exist...

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Just a guy with dogs

PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter

Attachments

Well-known member

PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter

Well-known member

PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread