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

juanraortiz · 10-26-2009, 02:32 AM

Which one do you think is the best? I read bad and good reviews of the last two. And more positives from the Bigma.

And any other economic interesting tele (Tamron 200-500...)?

*jmc7104* · 10-26-2009, 06:52 AM

Dont know much about the 150 or 200/500"s but I have the 50/500 on my K20 and seldom take it off. I shoot a lot of wild-life so it goes every where with me. Also a K10 rides along in the same bag with 16/45 f4 or tamron 28/75 f2.8 mounted. The big ma is used from 50 through 500 and is relativly sharp at all focal lengths, mostly shot in the f8 range. Had this lense for over a year now and still love it. Shoot it a lot in manual mode, but highly reccomand
a tripod or steady reast of some kind. jim

*Fl_Gulfer* · 10-26-2009, 07:08 AM

You may want to read this post about the lenses, 500mm tests using 4 lenses on K20D. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The photo's are no longer there but the text is.

*Fl_Gulfer* · 10-26-2009, 07:28 AM

Here are some shots taken with the 150-500 HSM APO.
Winterbirding with Sigma 150-500mm lens !: Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000 Forum: Digital Photography Review

juanraortiz · 10-26-2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by jmc7104

Dont know much about the 150 or 200/500"s but I have the 50/500 on my K20 and seldom take it off. I shoot a lot of wild-life so it goes every where with me. Also a K10 rides along in the same bag with 16/45 f4 or tamron 28/75 f2.8 mounted. The big ma is used from 50 through 500 and is relativly sharp at all focal lengths, mostly shot in the f8 range. Had this lense for over a year now and still love it. Shoot it a lot in manual mode, but highly reccomand
a tripod or steady reast of some kind. jim

Originally Posted by Fl_Gulfer

You may want to read this post about the lenses, 500mm tests using 4 lenses on K20D. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The photo's are no longer there but the text is.

Originally Posted by Fl_Gulfer

Here are some shots taken with the 150-500 HSM APO.
Winterbirding with Sigma 150-500mm lens !: Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000 Forum: Digital Photography Review

Thank you guys for your help. I think i can forget 170-500.

CrazyNuts · 10-28-2009, 03:38 AM

I used to have the 50-500. Then I tested out the 150-500 and ended up buying the 100-300 f/4

Let me summarise it this way for you

50-500 is jack of all trades but master of none. To get USABLE pics beyond 300mm you really need a tripod, otherwise you will be frustrated with the results. Don't bother taking it out if it's overcast.

150-500 is just a waste of money. HSM is nice but IQ beyond 300mm is shocking. Very soft at the long end.

170-500 should be overlooked completely. the IQ from that is 10x worse than the 150-500.

I would recommend you get the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter. Better IQ all round, lighter and zoom is internal so the lens doesn't extend.

Mike.P® · 10-28-2009, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by CrazyNuts

50-500 is jack of all trades but master of none. To get USABLE pics beyond 300mm you really need a tripod, otherwise you will be frustrated with the results. Don't bother taking it out if it's overcast.

Sorry but I don't agree with this statement at all, I never use a tripod with the Bigma and can easily hold it at 500mm 1/180 (the pictures are more than useable).

I will say though that I also have the 100-300mm f4 and that is a superb lens .. even with the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter.

*kristoffon* · 10-28-2009, 11:17 AM

The 150-500 is a newer design, the bigma is a pretty old design already. So the 150-500 is supposed to be better.

Originally Posted by CrazyNuts

50-500 is jack of all trades but master of none. To get USABLE pics beyond 300mm you really need a tripod, otherwise you will be frustrated with the results. Don't bother taking it out if it's overcast.

150-500 is just a waste of money. HSM is nice but IQ beyond 300mm is shocking. Very soft at the long end.

That's funny. You probably got a bad sample. Everything I read so far states the 150-500 is an improvement over the bigma. Not like the big has stellar IQ at the long end either.

Jodokast96 · 10-28-2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mike.P®

Sorry but I don't agree with this statement at all, I never use a tripod with the Bigma and can easily hold it at 500mm 1/180 (the pictures are more than useable).

I will say though that I also have the 100-300mm f4 and that is a superb lens .. even with the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter.

Ditto. My airshow shots say otherwise.

CrazyNuts · 10-28-2009, 03:55 PM

I reviewed different copies of all 3 lenses. Maybe my expectations are a lot higher than most, but I wasn't satisfied untill I saw the results from the 100-300mm f/4. I found this lens more usable in all conditions as well, compared to the other lenses on offer.

If the 100-300mm didn't exist, I would definitely keep the 50-500mm but I still feel the other two lenses are a waste of money.

In AU, the difference between the Bigma and my 100-300mm was only $300, but the IQ between the two is worlds appart.

I guess when one is spending around $2000 on a lens, you expect it to perform like a $2000 lens. What's the point of having 500mm reach if the acceptable image range is only between 100 and 350mm anyway?

Oggy · 10-28-2009, 04:25 PM

A few of mine from Shoreham with the 150-500 -

The 150-500 is far from a waste of money but it does take e bit of effort to get a good picture. Stopped down a bit at 500mm it's just fine.

CrazyNuts · 10-28-2009, 04:44 PM

I got to admit

there is NO WAY I got that clarity and sharpness out of the two 150-500mm lenses I tested in the shop.

*kristoffon* · 10-29-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by CrazyNuts

I guess when one is spending around $2000 on a lens, you expect it to perform like a $2000 lens. What's the point of having 500mm reach if the acceptable image range is only between 100 and 350mm anyway?

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...

Mike.P® · 10-29-2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by kristoffon

The 150-500 is a newer design, the bigma is a pretty old design already. So the 150-500 is supposed to be better.

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.

Some taken with the Bigma and K10D. (Hand held in dodgy light)

EricT · 10-29-2009, 10:32 AM

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.