[inhaliburton]

Hi there,

This is my first post on this board. Very informative, in fact, the best I've seen for the info I'm seeking.

I have a Sigma 150-500 which I have been using for a week. At first I was less than impressed. Shots seems not too sharp, perhaps not in focus, low contrast and saturation.

The last few days things have been picking up. More keepers. I've been mostly shooting in the 300 to 500 mm range.

I've been experimenting somewhat and have found that I am getting good results when sharpened, adding contrast and saturation in Nikon Capture NX2 and printing in Qimage Ultimate on my Canon iPF 5100. The results are very good.

I am able to return this lens for a full refund in seven days. I've been doing some reading on the 50-500 lens. There have been times when I wish I could have widened out to shoot our 2 Westies in order to get them both in the frame.

I wonder about the 50-500's IQ compared to the 150-500. Does anyone have both, or have the 50-500? I wouldn't want to lose any IQ goinig to the 50-500.

Your experience and opinion will be appreciated!

Regards, Paul.
in Wellington, ON Canada

[mike from ebbw]

Hi Paul and welcome to Birdforum.
By 50-500 I assume you mean the EX version.I have had this lens for a while now and have found the image quality to be excellent.I cannot compare it to the 150-500 as I have never used one but Sigmas EX range of lenses are their highest quality range.I found it to be excellent throughout the range from 50-500mm which is unusual for a zoom lens.Hope this helps.

[AndrewA]

Paul,

I have used both and feel the image qaulity of the 50-500 (non OS) version is superior to the 150-500.

http://andrewa.zenfolio.com/p250444475
Taken with 150-500

http://andrewa.zenfolio.com/p4953641...d3fa#h2c8e15be
50-500

http://andrewa.zenfolio.com/p7793993...a51a#h23f87d0c
50-500

http://andrewa.zenfolio.com/p1654756...8189#h3dbe8189
150-500

http://andrewa.zenfolio.com/p5122973...cec8#h3221cec8
50-500

I find the focus a bit hit and miss on the 150-500 when its right its great but quite often it seems to back focus as far as I can tell.

Rgds
Andrew

[RMWD]

Hi, strangely enough I found the opposite. I owned a 50-500 for 4 years and never found it sharp. By comparison the 150-500 os I have used for 6 months is very sharp indeed and has produced excellent sharp images. I generally use it at 500mm all the time except for birds in flight when I drop it tp 300mm. I leave the d90 in A mode f8 and use iso 800 most of the time.

Recently bought a 300mm f2.8 which is brilliant but only about 20% sharper I would say.
Use your lens optimally and if it is a good one it will be sharp.
Rich

[inhaliburton]

Originally Posted by mike from ebbw

Hi Paul and welcome to Birdforum.
By 50-500 I assume you mean the EX version.I have had this lens for a while now and have found the image quality to be excellent.I cannot compare it to the 150-500 as I have never used one but Sigmas EX range of lenses are their highest quality range.I found it to be excellent throughout the range from 50-500mm which is unusual for a zoom lens.Hope this helps.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

The lens I'm considering is the SIGMA OS 50-500MM F4.5-6.3 NIKON DG HSM located at this link:

http://www.henrys.ca/59779-SIGMA-OS-...ON-DG-HSM.aspx

I was in their Kingston store this morning and they will have one in on Friday at which time I'll return the 150-500 and get the 50-500 for a try
out.

Regards, Paul.

[inhaliburton]

Originally Posted by AndrewA

Paul,

I have used both and feel the image qaulity of the 50-500 (non OS) version is superior to the 150-500.

I find the focus a bit hit and miss on the 150-500 when its right its great but quite often it seems to back focus as far as I can tell.

Rgds
Andrew

Hey Andrew, you are a birder for sure! Lovely pics, sharp, excellent colour saturation.

I didn't know Sigma also makes a non-OS version of the 50-500. I'm hoping the OS version is sharper then the 150-500.

I agree with you on the 150-500 being hit and miss re focus. I took a batch of waterfowl at Kingston harbour this morning. Will be looking at them closely shorty. I want to have a variety of pics taken with the 150-500 so I can compare with the forthcoming 50-500.

Thanks for your post and links.

Regard, Paul.

in Wellington, ON

[inhaliburton]

Originally Posted by RMWD

Hi, strangely enough I found the opposite. I owned a 50-500 for 4 years and never found it sharp. By comparison the 150-500 os I have used for 6 months is very sharp indeed and has produced excellent sharp images. I generally use it at 500mm all the time except for birds in flight when I drop it tp 300mm. I leave the d90 in A mode f8 and use iso 800 most of the time.

Recently bought a 300mm f2.8 which is brilliant but only about 20% sharper I would say.
Use your lens optimally and if it is a good one it will be sharp.
Rich

The first 150-500 that I tried in the store would not focus at all. I just kept hunting. The pulled another one from a box and it's working just fine. Going by my experience, Sigma's QA is 50%.

[rick ward]

hi paul l have the 150-500 sigma told to keep away from the 50-500 but l see a new one is coming out so might be good the 150-500 is lens of the year its heavy, l got round that by getting a wooden/plastic file handle and fitting a thread to screw into tripod gear and its a better hand hold,leaves your right hand to do the biz rick york

[stevo]

Although i`ve got a Canon set-up I use the sigma 150-500mm lens just recently the focus has been off after a year of using it & getting sharp pics.On my camera f8 works best & you need plenty of light.

Steve

[michael23]

I have read somewhere (cant remember where) may have even been on here, that the 50-500 os is sharper at 500mm@ f6.3 as the 150-500 is @500mm f8, which is a great bonus for shooting wide open, but I would say that you give the lens a thorough testing, focus wise to make sure you have a sharp copy, I would plump for the 50-500 os myself. Hope this helps.

[inhaliburton]

Originally Posted by rick ward

hi paul l have the 150-500 sigma told to keep away from the 50-500 but l see a new one is coming out so might be good the 150-500 is lens of the year its heavy, l got round that by getting a wooden/plastic file handle and fitting a thread to screw into tripod gear and its a better hand hold,leaves your right hand to do the biz rick york

Hi Rick,

You say there's a NEW 50-500 OS (other than the current 50-500 OS lens) coming out? Any details?

Regards, Paul.

[AndrewA]

Hi Paul,

The new 50-500 is the one with OS it was introduced about 6 months ago. The previous version didnt have OS.

Rgds
Andrew

[inhaliburton]

Instead of returning the 150-500 Sigma, and getting the Sigma 50-500, I'm going to get the Nikkor 300mm f4 and either the 1.4 or 1.7 tele. That way I can compare the Nikkor prints to the ones I've printed of the 150-500.

In the morning on the way to Toronto, I'll takes some pics with the 150-500 at 300, 420 and 500-ish and compare with the Nikkor 300 f4.

I'm finding with the Sigma 150-500 lens it's necessary to sharpen, add saturation and contrast in Capture NX2. They look dead otherwise.

Regards, Paul.

[swainsons]

Originally Posted by inhaliburton

Instead of returning the 150-500 Sigma, and getting the Sigma 50-500, I'm going to get the Nikkor 300mm f4 and either the 1.4 or 1.7 tele. That way I can compare the Nikkor prints to the ones I've printed of the 150-500.

In the morning on the way to Toronto, I'll takes some pics with the 150-500 at 300, 420 and 500-ish and compare with the Nikkor 300 f4.

I'm finding with the Sigma 150-500 lens it's necessary to sharpen, add saturation and contrast in Capture NX2. They look dead otherwise.

Regards, Paul.

The 300mmf4 with 1.4 x TC will knock the socks off the Sigma, why even bother, juts get the Nikon lens and live happy thereafter.....

Regards

[Aegea]

Originally Posted by swainsons

The 300mmf4 with 1.4 x TC will knock the socks off the Sigma

Though I've never used the Sigma 50-500, I have tried the 150-500 and currently use the 300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC. The Nikon is simply better, and Sigma's QC is suspect. The first 150-500 I got refused to focus at all. The second was quite sharp at times, but was either erratic in focusing or had a back focus problem - I never sorted out which it was before I sent it back and got the Nikon.

An additional point to consider is that the effective FL of the 150-500 is less than 450mm for close subjects (20 feet or so), and the 50-500 may well be similar.

[scottthehat]

i have had the 300mm f4 and its a craking lens sharp as,i have also used it with a 1.4x and its makes a little difference in image quality, and the af is slightly slower with the tc.
i have the 50-500mm os and its cracking,af speed is about the same as the 300mm, image quality from the 300mm f4 will beat it(but thats what you would expect from a prime, with the 1,4x on its about the same iq, except the siggy af seems slightly faster.
if i go out anywhere the 50-500mm os is always on one of my d300s, as its got everything, and it is sharper wide open than the siggy 150-500mm.

[inhaliburton]

I ended up with a lens that wasn't on my list. I went to Henry's downtown store in Toronto where I had been dealing with "Alfred." He's been there for 20-ish years and is a Nikon person with tons of experience.

I took street shots with 3 different lenses outside the store at various focal lengths starting with the Sigma 150-500. The results were pretty good. I think I got a good copy.

Next I took the same shots with the Nikkor 300 f4 lens. Sharper and more contrast for sure. However, I found that I couldn't get a "keeper" while panning or with a moving subject. What I needed was VR.

At that moment the Nikon Rep appeared and suggested I try t he 70-200 2.8 VR II lens along with the 20e III teleconverter. I took the same shots again and compared them with those taken with the other lenses. I ended up going with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII along with the Nikkor AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III.