Sigma 50-500 vs 150-500 vs 170-500

[kristoffon]

Originally Posted by Mike.P®

The Bigma is EX glass and twice the price of the 150-500mm here in the UK.
If the Bigma was inferior to the 150-500mm then Sigma have got their pricing structure seriously wrong.

Sigma changed their naming conventions so now only constant aperture lenses get EX designation. The 150-500 is as well made as the bigma, and a newer optical design, and with less ambitious zoom. It's hard to believe it's not an improvement.

Here's a source from our owm pentaxforums: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/288381-post9.html

Also, on B&H there's a whole US$ 50 price difference between them. Check where you're spending your money.

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by kristoffon

Also, on B&H there's a whole US$ 50 price difference between them. Check where you're spending your money.

I did say in the UK

Originally Posted by kristoffon

The 150-500 is as well made as the bigma, and a newer optical design, and with less ambitious zoom. It's hard to believe it's not an improvement.

Can you point me to a comparison, I would be interested to see something in writing.


I am not saying the 150-500mm is a bad lens, just that from what I have seen the 50-500mm is not inferior to it.

[CrazyNuts]

Originally Posted by kristoffon

The point is the 100-300mm sucks at the 500mm focal length. Do you get a better picture cropping from the 300mm or straight from the 500mm lens?

If you really want 500mm I wager there's no more cost-effective option than the sigmas. I've been tempted by them for a long time. OTOH if 300mm is enough for you...

I can put a 1.4x teleconverter with my lens and will be getting the equivalent of 140-420mm.

The BIGMA have been proven not to reach 500mm, but more like 450mm so the difference is minor.

Even with a teleconvertor on, the IQ is lightyears ahead and the lens becomes a constand f5.6

[Ben_Edict]

Originally Posted by EricT

There seems to be very few tests of these lenses. Photozone has none. I found the 50-500 at SLRgear,
Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM APO (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Seems to have very strange performance characteristics, and not very good above 200mm.

Don't trust these tests. I've got my Bigma now for something like a year. It is a very capable lens and sharp at the longest end, too. The "problem", that some people seem to have, if inherent to all long lenses: the contrast breaks completely down, it the focus is off so slightly. If the focus is spot on, the contrast is there, too.

I am personally not able to get a really sharp shot with the Bigma at 1/180s handheld. But if I use a monopod or preferably a tripod with gimbal mount, the images are very sharp and contrasty indeed, if stopped down a bit (f/8 or f/11). Closing down the aperture at such a focal length is always necessary to achieve a DOF worth speaking about.

Ben

[Oggy]

Originally Posted by kristoffon

The point is the 100-300mm sucks at the 500mm focal length. Do you get a better picture cropping from the 300mm or straight from the 500mm lens?

If you really want 500mm I wager there's no more cost-effective option than the sigmas. I've been tempted by them for a long time. OTOH if 300mm is enough for you...

The pictures I took at Shoreham were a bit of a play off of the 150-500 against the DA*300. I was rather surprised to find that there wasn't really a clear winner. I was pleased with the results from both lenses.

The weekend after that, I was at another show where the weather was not as good. This was where the 300 really came into it's own. It is quite happy at F4. To get the 150-500 sharp at 500mm, it has to be stopped down to F9 or smaller.

As to the TC, I have a Tamron 1.4x, and pictures taken witheither lens are definately second division compared with crops without the TC.

I'm sure Mike (Hi Mike) would be able to tell you when the Bigma becomes sharp, but my impression is that it will ultimately give a beter IQ than the 150-500.