Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2009, 01:32 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 574
Sigma 50-500 vs 150-500 vs 170-500

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...)?

10-26-2009, 05:52 AM   #2
Site Supporter
jmc7104's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rock Island, Illinois 61201
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 437
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
10-26-2009, 06:08 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Fl_Gulfer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida Gulfer
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,052
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.
10-26-2009, 06:28 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Fl_Gulfer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida Gulfer
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,052
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

10-26-2009, 03:31 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 574
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jmc7104 Quote
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
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
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.
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
Thank you guys for your help. I think i can forget 170-500.
10-28-2009, 02:38 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 180
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.
10-28-2009, 09:20 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Mike.P's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,758
QuoteOriginally posted by CrazyNuts Quote

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.
10-28-2009, 10:17 AM   #8
Veteran Member
kristoffon's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 532
The 150-500 is a newer design, the bigma is a pretty old design already. So the 150-500 is supposed to be better.

QuoteOriginally posted by CrazyNuts Quote
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.

10-28-2009, 10:20 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Jodokast96's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Erial, NJ USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,132
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike.P Quote
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.
10-28-2009, 02:55 PM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 180
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?
10-28-2009, 03:25 PM   #11
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 235
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.
10-28-2009, 03:44 PM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 180
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.
10-29-2009, 08:33 AM   #13
Veteran Member
kristoffon's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 532
QuoteOriginally posted by CrazyNuts Quote
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...
10-29-2009, 09:23 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Mike.P's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,758
QuoteOriginally posted by kristoffon Quote
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)











10-29-2009, 09:32 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IQ Takumar 500 f/4.5 vs Sigma 170-500 KevinR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 10-11-2010 09:51 AM
SIgma 50-500 or 150-500 mikejustice Photographic Technique 1 12-18-2009 01:55 PM
Sigma lenses 150-500, 50-500 ? lesmore49 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 03-21-2009 06:49 AM
SIGMA 135-400 or 170-500? bonovox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 10-21-2007 06:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top