[Craigbob]

So I came across this lens, a sigma 100-500 f5. 6-8 on one of my Facebook groups.

Sigma MF 100-500mm F5.6-8 APO Zoom-Tau Multi-Coated ? Pentax-Fremdobjektive

As I have a Bigma, I am wondering if there is any comparison of that to this? It's roughly 30 years old, and obviously a film based lens. But for the price being asked it might be a steal.

Any idea what this is worth, it includes an original hard case as well.

[boriscleto]

Even though I don't like to link there...

What the hell did I just buy? Sigma 100-500?: Third Party Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[cyberjunkie]

Generally white Sigma zooms are not great (I guess the more so if they have stretched zoom range), but the link provided by boriscleto seem to prove that the performance is not that bad.
It fringes a lot wide open, it's unwieldy and excessive, but it could be worth trying.
Some old super-tele zooms are not so bad. Most are, though
I own an example that is frankly avoidable (Vivitar Cosina-made 100-500mm), while another one was impressive in its time and still good today (Tamron SP 200-400mm).
The latter is HUGE, was very expensive, and was calculated for the best optical performance, no objections about size.
The former is lighter and somewhat smaller, and the original project stretched the range beyond the limits, without special glasses.
I have a personal fascination for huge cannons. I'm embarrassed by the number, and by the fact that I still buy a new one every now and then, even if I don't have much chances to use them.
I had wetlands with plenty of birds not far from where i lived, and I enjoyed to go birding with a tripod, a long zoom and a huge prime.
Today I live in another continent, in a big city, and I don't even have a car. Given the weather/traffic conditions I am fine with a scooter.
If I didn't buy a crazy, separable Komura 7/500mm two days ago I might even give this monster a thought
Your latest acquisition - Page 924 - PentaxForums.com

Unlike vintage long range zoom, which most of the times are rather disappointing, old long teles still have a place.
There are a number of them that would allow to hunt wild animals with a camera, without sending you bankrupt
If fringing is easily correctable, and the focusing is right, the sharpness is often good enough.
The old Pentax-K 4.5/500mm, the Pentacon 5.6/500mm, the Enna MC 4.5/400mm and also the Novoflex triplet in follow-focus mount, are all nice optics that can give plenty of satisfactions.

@craigbob
If you ever decide to acquire this lens, please post a few shots at 100%.
I am curious to see how it performs.
The low res pictures you often find online are not the best way to tell if a lens is good or not...

[Craigbob]

While I am still thinking about it, it would have to be shipped from England where it currently resides to California where I am.

Considering that I just spent the same amount of money on a 100mm macro WR, he's asking for the 100-500 AND I have a Sigma 50-500 already, I really can't justify it to myself let alone my wife. Let alone the extra $75-100 for shipping.

Hope it finds a good home.

[cyberjunkie]

Considering that I just spent the same amount of money on a 100mm macro WR, he's asking for the 100-500 AND I have a Sigma 50-500 already, I really can't justify it to myself let alone my wife. Let alone the extra $75-100 for shipping.

From what you write I get that the price is too high.
As a "user" lens it should cost less, and a "collector" lens... well, who collects white Sigma objectives?

[Craigbob]

From what you write I get that the price is too high.
As a "user" lens it should cost less, and a "collector" lens... well, who collects white Sigma objectives?

It's only "too high of a price" because I just bought a DFA 100mm f2. 8 WR Macro for $270.00. If I hadn't have won that eBay auction I would be all over this lens.

The price is only about $275.00 + shipping from Great Britain. So call in $350 - 400 total (depending on shipping and exchange rates).


Add to the fact that I have a Bigma that essentially duplicates this lens in a smaller size and has autofocus. So I really can't justify it.

[WPRESTO]

I'd say it's almost guaranteed to under-perform your 50~500mm SIgma.

[cyberjunkie]

The price is only about $275.00 + shipping from Great Britain. So call in $350 - 400 total (depending on shipping and exchange rates).

Add to the fact that I have a Bigma that essentially duplicates this lens in a smaller size and has autofocus. So I really can't justify it.

I believe that such non-AF film-time zooms should cost a little less to make sense.
I paid somewhat more for my Sigma 120-400mm, but not so much more... and it has good AF, OS (which should outperform in-camera shake reduction at the extreme end), is lighter, etc.
I'm more than fine with my 120-400mm. Considering its specs it is relatively affordable, and it's also quite sharp. From what I read it should slightly outperform the Bigma, but I can't say for sure, cause I've never tried the 50-500mm.
I would love to, cause it is such a versatile lens! The weight/size gets a bit in the way, though I have seen plenty of nice pictures shot handheld.
Comparatively, the old monster you found has only one advantage: build quality. "White" Sigmas seem to be sturdy and not as "plasticky" as later AF zooms.

[Craigbob]

It went to a buyer in Alaska, so I'm happy it found a home. My 100mm 2.8 WR macro arrived today and so I'm happy about that. Now I just need some time to shoot with it.

[alarwiida]

So no one has actually owned and know the price of this item?

[Craigbob]

So no one has actually owned and know the price of this item?

It was going for about $275.