Sigma 50-500mm vs Sigma 150-500mm lens

Maxie

Senior Member
What are the advantages and disadvantages between these two lenses? Besides cost. In other words, if money wasn't a factor, which is always is, nevertheless, which would you choose?
 

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
Other than the obvious 100mm at the short end I have read they are very close in performance. I have the 50-500 and find it to perform very well. Some reviews advise the glass is a little better in the 50-500.
 

pedroj

Senior Member
I have the 50-500...I have taken some nice portrait type images at about 70mm and surfing images at about 400mm and found at the long end "500" was a little soft...I bought it for surfing images and found that it wasn't as good as my Nikon 300mm F4...

On bright days it's good but It hunts on cloudy days...I haven't used the other lens..
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
I have read quite a bit about the 2 lenses in question, in magazines and online reviews, and forums.
From what I can gather the 50-500 is a bit sharper, but the 150-500 has stabilisation.
I was planning to buy the 150-500, because out of the 2 it would be better for using handheld.
I may still buy one eventually, but I am also tossing up about the Nikon 300f4 + TC. which is highly regarded by many.
I have a couple of other purchases to get out of the way first though, before I finally make a decision.
 

Maxie

Senior Member
Wow, I'm really surprised by the answer. The Nikon 300f4 really sounds like a good lens. I bought one on ebay but never received it. Still hoping to get a refund from ebay. I then purchased the Sigma 150-500mm and it was shipped to the wrong address, still not sure why. Should have it by this Thursday, if all goes well. I've been trying to get a replacement lens since the middle of November after selling the 200mm Nikon lens. It really has been a nightmare for me trying to get a lens for the past month.
 

Maxie

Senior Member
How much difference does the stabilization make? In other words, outside of the shooter moving around as if it were on a tripod and compensating for the camera only. Is it that noticeable?
 

pedroj

Senior Member
Shooting surfing for several hour at a time I found with the Sigma's almost 2 KGs too heavy to handhold..

I'm not sure how heavy the 150-500mm is...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
How much difference does the stabilization make? In other words, outside of the shooter moving around as if it were on a tripod and compensating for the camera only. Is it that noticeable?

The weight difference is only a couple ounces, but cost was the determining factor for me. Both current models have OS. How much difference does stabilization make? Unless you're prepared to shoot constantly at high ISO to get your shutter speed over 1/250 then it makes all the difference. This lens can run soft at the extremes - max focal length, min/max aperture. It has a sweet spot starting around f/8. I use mine predominantly for wildlife, and mainly for birding. I use it handheld 95% of the time as I'm looking for birds in flight. Without the OS I would probably be throwing out most of my shots at 300mm and up. Most of the bird shots on my Flickr account (linked below) were shot with it. I'm extremely happy, and Sigma has a great warranty on these things. My focus motor went after 14 months and lots of use, and it was a 9 day, no hassle turn around with them to get it repaired. If you're buying used that point may be moot.
 

BooBoos

Senior Member
I did a lot of research on the Sigma 150-500 and 50-500.I decided to go with the Nikon 300f4 w/1.4TC. In the research I did I heard the auto focus will focus, then it loses focus. If I was still considering these lenses I would look at the Nikon 80-400, even though we would lose 100mm on the long end.In fact, when Nikon finally gets around to revamping this lens I will certainly purchase one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The only time I've had the focus hunting experience BooBoos speaks of is in low light conditions, or when I'm trying to grab a single bird in a dull sky that's just a little too far out. That said, if you know you're going to be living at the far end of the lens then a lens like the 300 f/4 with an optional teleconverter is a great alternative. After almost two years with mine I am currently weighing my next step, which will either be the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (a fantastic lens, but 50% heavier at 6.5 lbs) or sucking it up and waiting on a "right priced" Nikon 300 f/2.8 (but still heavy at 6.39 lbs). With a 2x converter both will give me more reach at the same light levels. Unfortunately, they may blow out any idea I have of shooting handheld unless I beef up that workout regiment. LOL
 

BooBoos

Senior Member
I also have considered the 120-300 sigma 2.8 lens. I have heard and read reviews and all the info and everyone said its a fantastic lens.Definitly one to consider
 

BooBoos

Senior Member
Oh, If I do make a move on the Sigma it won't be for quite some time. I have at least three lenses in front of that one to purchase. I did hear it is an excellent lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BooBoos

Senior Member
Rumors I have heard over the past couple years is that the sigma lenses tend to lose focus. Now, as I have said its a rumor. I do not own any sigma lenses but this is what I have heard.
 

stmv

Senior Member
I debated between which long zoom to get between the sigmas and the Nikkor, I ended up buying a nice clean copy of the Nikkor 80-400 VR,, and have been very pleased with the results, I put the Kirk tripod color on which makes it very stable, and makes an excellent hand grip. I have been using the lens 95% as a hand carry, and it really works with the VR on.

Then, I heard thru here how great the 300 F4 was, so.... bought one of those used too,, and yes, it does edge the sharpness of the 80-400 some,, but you loose the flexibility. I still need to buy the TC, but darn its pricy and the used value stays high, so,, most likley going to get that new.

I was very impressed with the build quality of both these lens (especially once replaced the Nikkor Collar on the 80-400), both lens are built like tanks,, which I cannot say the same for
the sigma lens I own (they seem to develop squeeks over time and focus hunting).
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Does anyone have problems with the 150-500mm with auto focus??


Thx bert

My only autofocus problems with the lens were with a teleconverter and low light. It's not a bright lens, so it will hunt in low light situations. My take is that you get great bang for the buck only when there's a bit of a sacrifice, and that's it here. If you look at the bird shots in my Flickr gallery you'll notice at least 90% are with this lens - and 95% of those are handheld. In other words, the vibration reduction is superb. I wish it was sharper at 500mm, but I'll take a 400mm on a DX body over a tack sharp 300mm on an FX any day of the week for birding. My autofocus motor did go south after 14 months, but in 10 days Sigma repaired it and had it back to me. Great warranty service.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
This is a very interesting topic. I bought a 70-200 vr2 last year and always intended to get the TC-20e III. As I've now gone FX I was pretty much pushed into it and it arrived yesterday. I tried a few tripod test shots and I was impressed so I need to try it for real now. This is an expensive way of getting to 400mm @ f5.6 unless you use the 70-200 for other things as I do.

My wife is after a 4-500mm lens and I've considered the sigmas and the 300/4 TC options. I keep leaning back to the latter, although I've seen some impressive shots with the sigmas.
 
Top