• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Sigma 150-500 APO DG OS - Image Quality (1 Viewer)

Nick Leech

Well-known member
United Kingdom
A couple of years ago I used to own a Sigma 150-500 lens which I used with a Canon 7D for bird photography. At the time I also had access to a Canon 400mm f5.6 and a Canon 100-400mm zoom. At the time I did some comparison tests and came to the conclusion that the Sigma lens was softer (less sharp) than either of the two Canon lenses. The comparisons were done two ways: (1) by taking photos with all lenses at 400mm and (2) by taking shots at 500mm on the Sigma and comparing the images with cropped shots taken at 400mm with the Canon lenses so as to enlarge to an equivalent size to the Sigma 500mm shots.

My conclusion was that I should sell the Sigma and invest in a Canon 400mm lens. So I sold the Sigma and have since ended up buying both Canon lenses (the 400mm prime is mainly used for wild birds; I use the zoom at zoos and such like where I need the flexibility of the zoom to access lower focal lengths). I sometimes use a Kenko PRO DG 1.4x teleconverter with the Canon 400mm prime, but struggle to get sharp bird photos with that added.

Now, a couple of years later, I am re-thinking my options. I would love more reach than 400mm for wild birds, but I cannot afford a Canon 500mm f4 lens or a Canon 600mm f4 lens. So I have been looking again at the Sigma 150-500. Looking around on the net, some people do seem to get good sharp results with the Sigma, even at 500mm. So I am now wondering whether:

a) My previous Sigma 150-500 was a "soft copy" and I might get a sharper copy next time

and/or

2) Maybe I should have done more comparison tests - perhaps the comparative softness of the Sigma at 400-500mm is less obvious under better light conditions and/or smaller apertures (eg stopping down to f8).

I am definitely keeping my Canon 400mm prime lens, but I am thinking of selling my Canon 100-400 zoom and buying another Sigma 150-500mm zoom in the hope that I might get some good results with the Siggy at 500mm.

What do people think? Especially those who have owned/tried both the Sigma 150-500 and the aforementioned Canon lenses.
 
Last edited:
Hi Nick,
I have owned, and used two different Sigma 50-500mm lenses with a Nikon D70s, and a Nikon D300 for about 6 years now. I am now toying with the idea of buying a Sigma 500mm prime, or a Sigma 300mm 2.8 plus a converter. I find that the Bigma is soft at, and towards the 500mm end. Its also not that good in difficult lighting conditions. I'm still not sure about using a fixed lens, after all the years of having the luxury of a zoom lens. I dont know if this info is of any use to you or not.
 
Jim - would you agree that you get better results by cropping photos from the Canon 400mm rather than shooting at 500mm on the Sigma zoom?
 
Nick, I also have the Sigma 150-500, I use mine stopped down to f8 to get the best out of it, but as said not the best in poor light,
Just bought the canon 400mm, but have not really tried it out as yet, but going by reports on this lens it will leave the sigma standing.
 
If I were you I'll keep both the 400mm prime and the 100-400mm, with the latter handy as a lens for hand-holding to complement the former in situations where the former's lack of IS becomes a hindrance. Same if you get the Sigma and maybe you'll even end up worse off as per the above reviews. IMHO save the cash and improve technique to get the best out of what you already have.
 
Use a sigma 150-500 on 7d. As noted I stop down to f8 to get best results. At 500 it does get soft rented a 100-400 to try and may make a change to the canon
 
I have the 150-500 f6.3, and have had some great shots with both the 50D And the 7D attached at F8 and not fully extended (just bring it in a fraction). With the canons they are a fair bit more expensive than the sigma, and are 5.6. With most lenses inclusive of canons they are better (sharper) at around F8. The sigma is a lot cheaper than the canons. F8 is as your aware more light is necessary. I have recently moved on to the sigma 500mm F4.5 which is in another league, as it should be considering the price differential. Before you spend out can you not borrow a sigma for a couple of days? or at worst hire one whereby you could purchase. The 150-500 is very good value for the money.
 
I am sort of in the same dilemma - except the opposite. I purchased the 150-500 a week and a half ago with a 30 day no questions asked return policy. For the most part I have been happy with it, but it does look soft toward the 500 end. I'm thinking of purchasing the Canon 100-400 from the same vendor and with the same 30 day return policy so I can compare results from the two lenses side by side and then return the one I don't want to keep (keeping in mind the Canon is $400 more expensive than the Sigma). I don't know- maybe I just need to work with the Sigma a lot more and learn to tweak it better and then keep my $400?? Not sure the Canon is worth the hassle - does anybody out there just absolutely love the Canon 100-400 and swear by its results that is much better than the Sigma??
 
I have both lenses and am generally happy with the results from the sigma. The Canon is sharper wide open and noticeably sharper at the edges of the frame.
The Sigma has a far superior IS system but lacks a focus limit switch which would be a very welcome addition to the lens. I'm quite fortunate in that here in Oman I get to use the sigma at f8 pretty much all the time where it gives its best results, I do know that Id be quite reluctant to use it wide open at f6.3.
If I had to choose between the two the Canon would be my choice but I also know I'd miss the Sigma
Andrew
 
Thanks Andrew! I shoot mainly birds and my best photos so far have been stopped down to at least F8. Unfortunately it is not always ideal weather where I am, but again not sure if the Canon would be much different. The extra zoom on the Sigma s nice even if it does not produce the best IQ all of the time. I have a few days to make a decision...
 
I am very pleased with the Sigma 150-500. I use with 60D and 7D and get nice sharp shots hand held with the IS. You get what you pay for, and I'm sure the more expensive fixed Canon and Sigma lenses give better results. They better do, or you wouldn't part with your £8k compared to £700 for the 150-500!

As someone said it is good value for money and the results can be very rewarding and enjoyable to look at.
 
Thank you,Steve, for your input as well. I think I will keep the sigma and keep learning with it as I do like the OS and the extra reach. I also think I will start saving up again and get the canon 400 prime someday. That way I will have the sigma zoom when needed and then a prime when I know I will be in a situation where that would be more appropriate. By the way, I glanced through your gallery-a lot of great pictures and I am seriously jealous of the waxwing shots! A local bird in my area that has so far eluded my efforts to see it...
 
7d +Sigma 150-500

I have used the Canon 7D & Sigma 150-500 combo and find it a decent combination of AF speed and image quality for general birding / photography.

I prefer the same body with either the Canon 100-400L and preferably with the Canon 400L F5.6. In my opinion and personal experience though, the push / pull / lock mechanism of the 100-400L is not as good as the internal zoom ring of newer zooms like for example the 70-300L or 200-400L.

But for the budget conscious, the Canon 7D & Sigma 150-500 is a good choice and cheaper option than both the 100-400L & the 400 F5.6.
 
I have the Sigma 150-500mm and also owned the 170-500mm before that.

170-500mm - Super for the money, mine was pretty damn sharp, even at 500mm. AF somewhat reasonable but noisy and did hunt on occasion. No OS.

150-500mm - Again, superb for the money, possibly a fraction less sharp than the 170-500 @ 500mm, but no cause for concern. AF much more refined (HSM vs screw drive from body), OS is PHENOMENAL! Not that you'd really want to, but you can shoot at 1/40th at 500mm....Insane.

I'm fairly anal about the technical side of things, and I find that the 150-500mm is good enough to keep me happy, although a touch of sharpening goes a long way ;)

Using the above on a Pentax K-5, so not afraid to shoot fairly high ISO if required.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top