APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

I bought this lens after owning the Tamron 200-500 for several years. I was getting frustrated with the very slow AF on the Tamron. After testing the Sigma for a while I sold the Tamron. The Sigma wins out on AF speed and having IS. There seemed little difference in IQ on the Canon 50D I was then using and, if anything, the Tamron was slightly sharper but not enough to make me want to keep it.

I have now had the Sigma a while. First problem I had was the zoom lock got stuck (it will no longer lock) might have been my fault for forcing the zoom when it was locked, but it now is broken. However, this doesn't make any difference in use and I have just got on with it.

Next problem I had is the lens hood doesn't always attach properly. One day in a bird hide I managed to dislodge it and it fell out the window where I couldn't retrieve it. The cost of a new one from Sigma is ridiculous for a small bit of plastic so I bought a metal screw in one. this works OK but only at the long end. At 150 it gives vignettting and so I might have to bite the bullet and get a replacement Sigma one.

Now, as I said, I was using a crop sensor camera (Canon 50D) and was never totally happy with the results. I decided I would go full frame and bought a Canon 5D Mk3 and was worried that I would be losing out on reach. But actually the new combination gives overall better results even when additional cropping is required.

I find the lens fairly easy to carry around - I just carry it with the tripod mount. It is heavy and I wouldn't want to carry it for miles but the odd few hundred yards is fine. And I have carried it around a few nature reserves for a couple of hours without any problem.

As with the Tamron the results are better in good light, but with the Sigma it is possible to get shots that were impossible with the Tamron.

The lens is better at f8 or above and better if you have enough light to turn the IS (OS) off.

Here are some recent shots with the 5D combo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/8893027418/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/8893027892/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/8876777474/in/photostream/

The above are all quite big crops and are hand held. This one is taken from a hide resting the lens on a ledge

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/8683605622/

This shot was taken at 1/100th sec on a tripod.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/8745624562/

Recently I went out with a friend who has the Canon 100-400 lens. We swapped for a while so he used my Sigma on a 7D and I used the Canon on the 5D. It was difficult to see any difference in quality (we were both hand holding). Now it was a fine sunny day and we were shooting deer not birds, so we didn't have to crop much. But overall it put me off buying the Canon (which I had been considering) as there seems to real advantage for me. Having said that the 7D/Canon 100-400 did give good results in my friends hands so if I was starting from scratch that may be a good combination.

Here are some older shots with the 50D for comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/7067850433/in/set-72157605429740294/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/7047382781/in/set-72157605429740294/

Now none of the above photos are going to make the cover of National Geographic. As a hobby photographer who is more interested in taking reasonable quality record shots of wildlife I see it is overall it is a tricky choice to find a long lens that doesn't cost and arm and a leg to buy. For me the Sigma wins out over the Tamron 200-500 and the Canon 100-400. No doubt others will disagree but the AF speed, the IS and the extra length of the Sigma are the deciding factors. The IQ is, off course, important but under the right conditions (good light/solid support/fast shutter speed and f8 or more) there all three lenses seem to be capable of taking decent shots.

Update: Birds in flight. I recently went on a trip to the Farne Islands and took some shots of birds in flight. I have had limited success in the past with this. The Tamron AF was far too slow and the Sigma on the Canon 50D was better but still not great at holding the AF. On the 5D3 I got a lot better results due to the AF and AF tracking systems.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/9160471114/

I took a lot of shots of course and the hit rate was sill fairly low, but I think that is down to my tracking skills.

Overall the camera body you are using seems to make quite a difference to the performance of the lens - which I guess is fairly obvious but something I didn't really consider too much before.

I have been using this lens for last 8 months and I am happy so far. Not very good lens for photographing bird in flight though.

It requires little post processing for excellent result.

I own this lens and the Nikon 300mm f/4. The Nikon (used with the Kenko 1.4 teleconverter) is certainly the better lens in terms of speed, build, sharpness and overall quality.

But the 150-500 still has a place in my bag. The zoom makes it versatile, especially in the woods where a bird may land right beside me or 50 yards away -- I can still get a shot either way.

The image stabilization works very well. I almost always shoot hand-held, up tall trees and so on, and that's saved quite a few shots for me, shots I would have missed with the Nikon.

l have had it out on a number of projects would recommend some sort of support to screw into tripod gear, l used a wooden file handle with threaded part at top to screw into lens part, just the job 3 plus a mate who was a model engineer rick ward york

Last year I got this lens to replace a Nikon 80-400mm. For birding the 80-400 was not a good choice, too slow (focusing) and did not work well in low light. The Sigma 150-500 is a better lens in many aspects but the Nikon (was) is a better lens regarding the general quality of the pictures. I need to do a lot of work using Photoshop CS4 to improve the sharpness and color quality of the pictures that I take with the Sigma 150-500 lens. I also have a Nikon 400 (F 2.8) that I use for birding photography and (of course) is a superior lens in all aspects. But you need a sturdy tripod and if you have to move around for birding, then the Sigma is a acceptable choice for hand held camera shooting of birds. Most of the time I use the Sigma 150-500 with a Nikon D300 and a monopod (for support) and the results are OK, sometimes good.

I'm only an amateur and could do with a little help on this lense. I'm using it with a X2 transformer and am just not getting enough light into the shots (Canon 40D). Can anyone recommend settings with this configuration that might help with the problem?

Cheerz

This Lens is nice to handle,but what lets it down is the lack of sharpness in the Birds feathers.Tried all focal lenghts and f-stops and shutter speeds but it doese'nt come sharp.

Rather than regurgitating manufacturer specs and capabilities, I figured Id simply throw a few opinions about this lens your way.

The only other telephoto that I have significant time to compare to is a Canon 70-200 1:4 non-IS. The Canon is a superb lens, with perfect scores both mechanically and optically, in my opinion.

The Sigma 150-500, which Ive seen referred to as the Bigmos, is the lens I purchased to specifically fulfill my desires for bird photography. Its both the 500mm focal length and the Optical Stabilization (OS) that make for an unusual combo of features in a sub $1000 USD lens. Ive been using it almost daily for three months now, and nearly every shot in my Gallery to date is with this lens.

Mechanically, the lens appears quite solid. Build-wise it feels and looks as good as my Canon L lens. The HSM motor is as fast and as quiet as my L, which is itself equipped with USM (Canons similar high end motor technology). Where the Sigma lags behind is a lack of a focal length limiter switch. This is regularly evident when shooting wildlife, which is inevitably almost always distant, and forces me to wait that extra second or two when I miss the focus lock on the first try. Still, the motor is far superior to another Sigma lens that I own (28-70 EX DG 1:2.8), which is loud and slow in comparison. As for the OS, it is a dream. Ive managed completely handheld shots (no bracing or resting) as low as 1/80 sec @ 500mm with admirable results:



It is definitely a large lens, weighing in at 4.2 lbs, or about 2 kg. It is balanced well, though, having most of its weight near the mount end.

Optically, Id rate this lens as good wide open and very good stopped down. I spend most of my time shooting at 500mm, and I assume most people reading this review are honestly interested in the long end anyway. When set open to 6.3 the nominal sharpness is on the side of soft. Additionally, a small amount of color fringing seems to impede sharp, contrasted edges. Both of these things can be fixed in Photoshop, but know that if you are desperate for that extra light gathering, you will need to post process. When pinched to 8 this lens really shines. Ive managed some truly sharp songbirds with this lens from about 15 feet. Color saturation and contrast is also very good, considering that it utilizes 21 elements in 15 groups!

Like anything in life there are always compromises. This lens is regularly being compared to the Canon 100-400 L, and rightfully so since it shares many virtues. Based on numerous 100-400 L bird pics available webwide, I do feel that this relatively new lens from Sigma is capable of putting up images on par with the venerable Canon zoom. Unfortunately, the Bigmos is larger, heavier, and annoyingly lacks a limiter switch. Then again, the Sigma is two-thirds the cost, which is fairly significant. If I had the money at the time, I would have considered the Canon. In the end, though, I do not regret my purchase.