[Cashie]

Can anyone help please, i've been looking for someone who knows this lens Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 as i am thinking of buying one, is it good enough for birding or is it just a go anywhere lens, i would be greatful for any info

cheers Cashie

[madmike]

Hi Cashie,
There is no simple answer really! If you are NOT an experienced photographer I would say don't get the lens as it can be difficult to use. I have a Sigma 170-500 which is pretty good, BUT, very heavy and slow to use. It also depends on your camera type. You will normally need to use a tri-pod/mono-pod and use it when the light is good.
I also have 80-300 zoom which is light, fast to use and on a digital camera actually about a 450mm lens.
With a 500mm lens the depth of field is VERY small, ie perhaps 20mm!
Sigma were doing a special offer on the 400mm zoom which may be worth looking at.
I bet if you get a 50-500 lens, you won't use it that much!!! But nobody listens to me these days!!

Good luck anyway,

madmike

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by madmike

Hi Cashie,
There is no simple answer really! If you are NOT an experienced photographer I would say don't get the lens as it can be difficult to use. I have a Sigma 170-500 which is pretty good, BUT, very heavy and slow to use. It also depends on your camera type. You will normally need to use a tri-pod/mono-pod and use it when the light is good.
I also have 80-300 zoom which is light, fast to use and on a digital camera actually about a 450mm lens.
With a 500mm lens the depth of field is VERY small, ie perhaps 20mm!
Sigma were doing a special offer on the 400mm zoom which may be worth looking at.
I bet if you get a 50-500 lens, you won't use it that much!!! But nobody listens to me these days!!

Good luck anyway,

madmike

I am listening to you Mike!!.... and finding your advice very interesting as I too am wondering what size lens to buy for my new Canon 300D.

I have checked Warehouse Express and can get one for either £89.99 or £99.99, presumably the dearer one is the better one to go for. I was thinking about the 135 - 400mm at £299.99 but from what you have said maybe i dont need the extra expence.

Any further advice from what I have just would be appreciated.......from anyone!!!

_______________
Val

[madmike]

Hi Valerie,
I would go for the 135-400 if the price is good. As I've said a number of time on BF, I think there is a LOT more to good bird/wildlife photography than having a long lens! A lot of good bird pics happen suddenly, often in not very good light, so speed of use of the camera is vital. Also, Digi cameras are heavy enough, but put a heavy lens on as well and it becomes a real pain after an hour or so (or even less!)
My best photos have been obtained with my 170-300 lens that's for sure!

Good luck,

madmike

[stevo]

Hi Valerie

If you want examples of picture quality for the Sigma 50-500mm then try this site suesbirdphotos.co.uk the 135-400mm is the lens i`ve used for over a year now it`s a nice lens yes it has limitations sometimes when the light isn`t so good or you`re trying to photograph a small bird,but you can get round these things by cranking up the ISO a bit & a lot of birds like blue tits etc will come closer with a bit of patience.I you want examples of the 135-400mm then take a look at my gallery.

Hope this helps

Steve.

[Cashie]

Hi Mike

My camera is a Nikon D100 & i also have an F4 with three lenses a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD a nikon 300mm 2.8 telephoto & a 28-105 the 300mm is not quite enough though, i have been taking bird photos for 25 years now & think it's time i got a super zoom or telephoto for the smaller birds, it would be used on a manfrotto 005 pro tripod or my monopod.

Cashie

[Adey Baker]

Check out the recent Tamron 200-500mm zoom which is comparatively lightweight and seems to hold the quality up as far as the 500mm end and at full-aperture, too.

Unless you're using some sort of hide you'll need at least 400mm - even stalking small birds to closer than normal requires quite a bit of magnification.

[madmike]

Hi again,
It's what you can afford I guess!
The 500 zooms are OK, and the sigma 400 is being offered at a good price.
The best would be a prime IS lens but that's about a grand or more.You pays yer money!

Good luck and we look forward to seeing the results on BF!

Cheers,
madmike

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by Cashie

Hi Mike

My camera is a Nikon D100 & i also have an F4 with three lenses a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD a nikon 300mm 2.8 telephoto

Cashie

Why not add a teleconverter to the 300mm f2.8.
I'd rather go for a long prime than a zoom, but as stated by Mike... it's how much you can afford and how much you are prepared to carry in terms of weight.

cheers,
Andy

[Cashie]

Hi Andy

I have tried two teleconverters now a teleplus & a nikon tc-14E & i'm not impressed they both gave soft images and to me that is spoiling a already good lens, so it's dig deep time.

[Andy Bright]

Originally Posted by Cashie

Hi Andy

I have tried two teleconverters now a teleplus & a nikon tc-14E & i'm not impressed they both gave soft images and to me that is spoiling a already good lens, so it's dig deep time.

The 14-E shouldn't have any real impact at all (stability?)... and will be still way ahead of a Sigma zoom.

[rezMole]

Originally Posted by madmike

Hi Cashie,

I bet if you get a 50-500 lens, you won't use it that much!!! But nobody listens to me these days!!

madmike

Why wouldn't it be used? I have a Tamron 200-500mm - and when i'm out birding - it never comes off the camera! And it very rarely gets used at less than 500mm - although sometimes i use it at the 200mm end in wooded areas.

The 50-500mm wouldn't be used as an everyday lens, however, as they are just too big and heaving - The Tamron, at 500mm with the lens hood on is nearly half a metre long!

I was actually surprised at that fact i could take as many pictures as i can - i suspected i would only be able to use it in very good light, but that hasn't been the case. I do end up underexposing by a couple of stops sometimes - to keep the shutter speed over 1/500th sec, but usually manage to brighten up the photos later, without losing too much detail - it's amazing what you can do with software nowadays!

I still feel that i don't have enough length for all situations, but the 500mm offered by the Tamron is a massive bonus over the 70-300mm lens i used to use! (Anyone want to buy a Nikkor 70-300mm lens???)

I would suggest that if you are looking at the Sigma 50-500, you consider the Tamron as well. It's a great lens. And together with the new 18-200mm Tamron zoom, would give you all you need (or the slightly older 28-300mm).

For examples of pictures taken with the Tamron - check out my gallery, but remember, i've only been taking bird pictures for a few months!

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...0/ppuser/18597

[rka]

Has any side by side comparison between the Sigma 50 - 500 and Tamron 200 - 500 been done? People that have either lens seem to be very satisfied and the pictures posted are generally both good.

[johnmoonie]

This is a subject of continued interesting debate, between many of us who cannot afford or justify purchase of the 500mm prime lenses. I think most agree that 500mm is desirable for majority of bird photography. The tamron lens has recently added to the debate which was previously was the sigma a good lens or not, suffering in unfair comparisons with lens costing 3x more. I've the tamron lens and am happy that it allows me to take what I think are quite acceptable photos, which I could not have got with my 70-300mm lens. The 70-300mm lens is faster and easier to use if you can get a big enough image. This important thing is to be realistic with your expectations, and enjoy your photography. Learn as much as possible the camera and lenses abilities and make the most of your opportunites and technique. Remember £10k of equipment does not guarantee good pictures, you still have to push the shutter.

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by johnmoonie

This important thing is to be realistic with your expectations, and enjoy your photography... Remember £10k of equipment does not guarantee good pictures, you still have to push the shutter.

Agree 100% - my lens cost £249 and I'm getting a lot of pleasure from it

[adrianf]

I've got a Sigma 50-500 which I use on a Canon 300D and to me, the comments above are spot-on.
There is more to a good photo than just a good lens. Santa brought my lens last xmas so I'm just getting used to it. It certainly is a lot sharper than the old 600mm mirror lens I used to use. The only rules I've come across so far are 1. Use a good tripod, 2. try to get as close as possible to the bird to fill as much of the frame as you can, and 3. decent light is essential for the best pictures. These apply whatever lens you use!
The light doesn't have to be dazzling but murky even light will produce murky pictures. But then again, I've even got some good shots in the rain when the light was reasonably bright.
Since I now have a digital camera I try to get shots of any subject. I've learnt not to be dissapointed if the risky shots don't come off but it's great when occasionally they do. My advice - just get out there and take photos and enjoy your hobby! (whatever the lens).

[rezMole]

There's probably little to choose between the 50-500 Sigma and the 200-500 Tamron. I just went with the Tamron because it was a "new" lens, and is suposedly "tweeked" to digital. It would have been nice to try both out first - but i couldn't find a camera shop near me that had even one of them, let alone both!

Of course, a Nikon prime would be better - but i'm not in a position to spend "silly" money on a lens!

I agree with most of the above - but would dispute the need for a good tripod. If the shutter speed is fast enough, camera shake isn't a problem. Afetrall, you can't stick the camera on the tripod, set the lens at 500mm and the shutter speed at 1/60th and expect a good picture - even the slightest movement of the bird will result in a blurred shot. I find that if the speed is fast enough keep a moving bird sharp, camera shake won't occur.

The only exception is a "still" bird, but how many of those do we come across. Yesterday i spent an hour taking pictures of a nuthatch in Heaton Park (Manchester). The light wasn't good, and the bird wouldn't stay still. I took about 40 pics - and i got just a couple of half-decent shots. I hand-held for some and used a monopod for the rest (even this proved awkward!)

At least mistakes don't cost anything!

[kennygee]

RezMole

I share your frustrations with the nuthatches in Heaton Park! Its my local haunt and theyr'e definitely winning so far, but its good fun trying

Cheers

Ken

[Youngbirder18]

Hi,

I don't know if anyone here is interested, but i'm selling a Nikon Fit 50-500 for £500 ono. More info here

[greypoint]

Having thought about a 50-500mm, the size and weight really put me off as most of my bird photography tends to be on walks along the river bank and I wanted something to keep on the camera most of the time. So I compromised and got an 'as new' 135-400mm - not too heavy, not bad AF, pretty sharp results on the D70 - easy to handhold and in all honesty 500mm does'nt give a massive amount more than 400mm - nothing is ever long enough when the birds are on the far side of a lake! I've only had the 135-400mm a week or so but it seems like a winner.

[jimtfoto]

I have a 50-500 for my Canon 10D and find it an excellent lens. Indeed, it is rarely off the camera. You'll get used to the weight after a while, but have that tripod ready.

cheers,
jim

[Snappy]

I use a Sigma 50-500 EX on a 20D and 1Ds MKII and the extra length does make a difference I have also successfully coupled it up with a 1.4x Kenko Pro to make an 1120mm lens on a 20D see the images in my gallery. My other lens is 400mm Canon L but 400mm is not long enough for small birds.

[LCN]

Originally Posted by Cashie

Can anyone help please, i've been looking for someone who knows this lens Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 as i am thinking of buying one, is it good enough for birding or is it just a go anywhere lens, i would be greatful for any info

cheers Cashie

I am not a pro by any means. I had a Canon 300mm IS, and just did not like my results so I switched to the Sigma 50 500mm last week and it is a new world. The lens is big and heavy but I will put up with it for the image and price.