Sigma 150-500 f4.5-6.3 apo dg os hsm

[pjs2]

Has anyone seen played with or used this lens. I have seen it in one site only . Sigma site dosen't even mention it. They do stock a 50-500 f4.5 but not a 150-500 4.5 I'm thinking it may have been a typeo on that site.

[I @ M]

This one has been around for a little while now - http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150-500mm-f5-63-apo-dg-os-hsm-sigma - and there are a couple of members that come to mind as owning one.

I think that you might be right about the aperture number being a typo on one site.

[Speedway]

Sigma make both the 50-500 f4.5-6.3 and the 150-500 f5-6.3 the 50-500 (Bigma) has been around for many years the 150-500 OS (optical stabelized) is fairly new and the newest is the 50-500 f4.5-6.3 OS. I got the 150-500 OS in Feb 2010 and am very happy with it, I use it for birding and motorsport. A very worthwhile lens for the price.
Keith.

[peterb666]

It is a f/5-6.3 maximum aperture. The baby brother of the 150-500, the 120-400, starts at f/4.5.

I have had my 150-500 f/5-6.3 for 9 months now and it is fabulous value for money. I use it most for surf photography and shooting the moon. The occassional bird shot too but I don't have enough patience for those things.

[peterb666]

I think the 150-500mm does all right...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/5796207104_28db0e0562_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5796207104/)
Maroubra 01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5796207104/) by peterb666 (http://www.flickr.com/people/23034038@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/5795650239_f54e34d912_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5795650239/)
Maroubra 06 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5795650239/) by peterb666 (http://www.flickr.com/people/23034038@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5198/5796208164_3851ed646e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5796208164/)
Maroubra 05 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5796208164/) by peterb666 (http://www.flickr.com/people/23034038@N05/), on Flickr

[pjs2]

Thanks for the feed back and the photo samples(petertriplesix) folks. I thought after having trouble finding it that it was a typo. I think that this will be my next lens, only hearing good things aboot it. Even if I have to invest in a teleconverter as well it will still be much much cheaper than a canon. Now I just have to find someone to buy one off.

[davearnold]

I have had it since December last year, it does take a bit of getting used to get the best out of it.


It is a bit of a "bright sunny" day only lens for me, for birds I shoot at around 1/1000, F8 and ISO no greater then 400 for best results and really needs some form of support, at least a fence post or similar, prefably a monopod, and better yet a Tripod.


Below is a shot I took on the weekend.

[I @ M]

Even if I have to invest in a teleconverter as well

I would strongly recommend that you don't buy a teleconverter to use with that lens.

Teleconverters are best used on lenses that have maximum apertures of F/2.8 or F/4 and if you read the chart here -- http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-teleconverter-compatability-chart -- it will show you a few things that highlight the reasons why not to.
Very small maximum aperture and lack of autofocus with that lens.

[ving]

like andrew said... do not use a teleconverter with this lens. you wont wreck the lens but you will not like the photos produced.

[kiwi]

if you need a TC at 500mm you are way too far away anyhow....."get closer and save $" is my motto

[peterb666]

Unless you have excessive amounts of money to buy something like a f/2.8 400mm prime, steer clear of teleconverters. If you have that sort of money, just go out and buy a 800mm prime.

Agee with Kiwi, use sneaker zoom - very effective in extending the focal lenght without compromising quality.

[pjs2]

Thanks folks. Scratching TC off the list. Will be mainly using this lens for footy photo's but if I can get shots like davearnolds and peterb666's I'll be a happy camper. Do any of you have a reservations whatsoever about buying this lens. Did you after buying this one wished you had bought a different one. And if so what was the other lens you where pondering.

[arthurking83]

Slightly slow focusing, but not an issue that's life threatening I say! :D

Just be aware that this is a slow lens. slow lenses focus more slowly.

Note that when a reference is made to focusing is slow, it's not really that slow.. especially not like the old days such as the old Sigma 70-300 f/4- f/5.6 Macro lenses of old.. they were slow .. zzzzzzzzzzz.... zzzzzzzzzz.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-zzzzzzzz....etc.
It basically never ended back in those days.

Low light will exacerbate this issue with indecisive focus too.

Is this something to worry about? Nope! unless you want to spend up a lot more on much higher end gear.
It's been many years since I've played with a Canon 100-400mm(on a 350 or 400D, I think?) and I reckon they feel about the same(ish).. but we are talking about a long time ago with the Canon gear, and the Sigma lens was played with on my D300, which focuses quite well.

Anyhow I reckon it's worth the money too. :th3:

[kiwi]

It's not a lens I would buy for football, better off with a 70-200 with 1.4tc

Too slow re aperture

[Speedway]

I use mine regularly for football and find it good.
Keith.

[JM Tran]

another often overlooked alternative but harder to find, is the well respected Sigma 100-300 F4, myself and many others regard it as one of Sigma's finest tele zooms for its sharpness and bokeh. With a 1.7x tele it will make it a constant F5.6 and at 170-510mm, a decent constant aperture from all focal lengths but will lack the OS.

its not the best solution but it gives you another choice. Hopefully Sigma will release an updated version of it some time in the near future with OS included, as it has been with a number of their lenses.

[kiwi]

keith, that shots very very soft, not a good example of the lens i hope

[camerasnoop]

I have used the Sigma 50-500 f4.5 - 6.3 EX HSM for sports work, and whilst it is possible to get some good shots, it is not always easy. On a Canon xxD body, the focus can be hit-or-miss. This may have improved with the later versions of this lens. On a 1-series, this improves, but it is still not up to even my Canon EF28-300 f3.5-5.6L. There's very little difference in speed between those two lenses. I've even found the focus to be more inaccurate on the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 than on the Canon 28-300, but that's another story.

I haven't used the 150-500 or the older 170-500 Sigmas. Really though, you might be better off trying the Canon 100-400 f4-5.6L unless you absolutely must have the 500mm end. It will still struggle a bit in low light at the long end, but I'm betting it will out-perform the Sigma at 400mm.

[geoffsta]

Personally it depends on the camera body you are going to put it on.
If you put this lens on an entry level DSLR, you are never going to get a sharp image. (Too slow) Mid range camera body is not too bad.
On a full frame camera, and the right person behind it, it will be just as good as any big expensive lens.
Forget the TC with it.

[kiwi]

With respect Geoff, there is no way it will be as sharp as say my Nikon 400 prime. My 120-300 wasn't close wide open at 300

[geoffsta]

Personally I think that the 400mm prime would be too limiting for the normal home user. Yes the 400 is an excellent lens. And if I was a pro sports TOG, or birder, it would be the most valuable lens in my kit.
But as a hobbiest, one must weigh up the pro's and con's. A bit over $1,000 for the 150-500mm verses $9,000 - $11,000 for the 400mm (Fleabay)
Is it going on a top of the pro range Canon/Nikon, or mid range body. Is the user needing high quality images to make a living. Or good quality images to show friends and family.
The 150-500mm is a good lens, and it take some practice to get it to take good sharp images. (maybe not as sharp as the 400mm) And if your not taking 8fps with AF-C or 3000 images a game to sell to some sports magazine. It would be a good lens.

Here is an example. A Sea Eagle doing its in flight business.
79232

[kiwi]

Yip, that's soft too

I agree with you re relative value, but dont assign the use of exotic primes like the 400, 500 or 600 just to "pros"

There are LOTS of pure hobbyists here than own $6-$10000 lenses that dont earn a bean shooting birds etc using them....its not for the money it's for the clarity and knowing that you are taking the best quality shots you can

There is a certain point where nothing else actually matters

[camerasnoop]

Yip, that's soft too

I'd have to agree with that and the same applies to the other images above. There is a point where the end result doesn't justify the expense. Obviously our individual tolerances for that point are all different.

BTW, shooting a bird on a blue sky is not the same as shooting sport where the action moves across a more varied and contrasty background.

[WhoDo]

I'd have to agree with that and the same applies to the other images above.
Looking at the sample images, they are ALL shot at full stretch 500mm (precisely). My experience with Sigma lenses, including a borrowed Bigma, is that you need to back off from the max at either end to get the best results for sharpness. Given the price of these for the average shooter, like me, they are an excellent compromise. I see no problems in using the lens in the 170mm - 450mm range for maximum clarity. You're still going to get pretty darn good images over distance at a much easier to swallow price point.

I don't know about anyone else but $1.5k plus is well beyond my limited budget as a hobbyist, regardless of how "serious" I am about that. I'd sooner move up to a better sensor (Pentax K-5, Nikon D7000) than spend that money on a single lens. Maybe when I've got my better sensor then I can consider saving for more reach in a prime. Until then, the choices are very, VERY limited. JMHO.

[geoffsta]

The good thing about this thread for the threadstarter, is now he/she can weigh up the pros and cons. Whether they can afford or justify high quality verses good enough for their needs. Whether they just use it at 500mm or bring it back to 150mm or in between. Fixed focal length lenses are always going to be quicker, sharper and a whole lot better. As you Darren display in every image you post.
But it all comes down to dollars and cents and justification in the end.

[kiwi]

Absolutely. I never stop telling aspiring sports shooters to start witha sigma 70-200 HSM 2.8 as it represents great value for money, same applies here without doubt.

But the results here

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?91267-How-much-have-you-invested-in-camera-gear

Suggest to me that there are plenty of us here at AP who do spend the big bucks on big pro lenses, and the IQ across the range is why

[rellik666]

I purchased this lens on Sat and used it for the first time yesterday. I already have a 70-200 2.8 and T/C. This was bought purely for birding and at less than $1000 ($939 from DCW with local 2 yr warrenty). I am intially very happy with it.

It is a mssive lens compared to what I am used to. It is heavy and cumbersome. I had it on a monopod, but struggled with shots into the air.

Anyhow, with my first proper go, I am pretty happy with it. My best shot from yesterday.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6179858366_740a22f7ce_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pommi/6179858366/)
BIrds-6 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pommi/6179858366/) by australianminiadventure (http://www.flickr.com/people/pommi/), on Flickr

Roo

[camerasnoop]

I agree that value for money is not a quantitative measure, but rather a qualitative measure. I often see people on this site saying that the 150-500 is a great lens. I don't think is from looking at the images, but of course it is still better than many other lenses around the place. It would certainly be better than the OP's 55-250. I doubt it would be better than the 100-400L. Even the EF400 f5.6 would be better in terms of sharpness and AF speed. Investments are best made in glass IMHO. Bodies become obsolete fairly quickly these days. At some stage you are going to question why you spent lots of money buying a heap of so-so lenses when you could have bought a top-quality lens first up and just enjoyed it, but....each to his own. :p

[davearnold]

I got a lot out of how to use mine properly here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=514846), a lot of reading but some great tips and some very impressive images.

[Speedway]

It's alright saying you must have a $2000+ lens to do what you want but many of us can't afford and most likely never will own these high priced lenses and I get tired of people telling me you can,t do that with that cheap lens, I find this a very elitist attitude. I and a lot of people I have taken photos for with my inferior lenses are very happy with the shots.
Keith.

[kiwi]

I dont think anyone said that Keith, I think I and other people have said that the sigma zooms lenses are bloody good value for money, and it's an important consideration for most.

Its not elitist, I just "needed" an expensive lens for what I do and simply the alternatives just didnt cut the mustard (for me).

The fact is that a $1000 lens cant and wont in general match the iq of a $10000 lens, youre right - does the generic public notice or care - no, not most of the time.

do "we" care ? I think so.

[camerasnoop]

You're entitled to express your opinion Keith. I've seen some great work from you and so I appreciate your skills and value your opinion. However the photo you posted above is not your best, and I'm sure you'd agree. That is just me expressing my opinion. No disrespect intended.

[geoffsta]

Took a photo of a mates son playing sport a while ago with the bigma. Printed it out on A4 photo paper with my reasonablely good printer, then took it over to him.
The next day the boy went to town, bought a fairly good frame, then hung it proudly above his trophies in his bedroom.
Yes a more expensive lens may have been better. But when weighing up between divorce or a kids smile, I think the smile wins.

[camerasnoop]

Nice story Geoff, but does it say anything about the lens? The point I have been pushing here is that there are better lenses around at a price. Some are a little more expensive and some are a lot more expensive. Some are a little better, and some are a lot better. Do you disagree?

[kiwi]

I also have iphone pics ive hung at a4 too

the discussion is this

is the 150-500 a great lens - no - a great lens is say a 600 f/4
is the 150-500 a great lens for the money - maybe
is the 150-500 a good lens for the money - definately

[peterb666]

I also have iphone pics ive hung at a4 too

the discussion is this

is the 150-500 a great lens - no - a great lens is say a 600 f/4

Why do people keep harping on about comparing one lens that is 10 times more expensive than another? That wasn't the question at all nor is it the answer.

Just to remind everyone, the thread is NOT "is the 150-500 a great lens", the question was "Has anyone seen played with or used this lens."

Those that actually do have the Sigma 150-500mm lens most likely consider it a great lens because like any tool, they have learnt to use it and get great photos while using it. A $20 Holga lens that you can buy for your Nikon or Canon is a great lens if you know how to use it.

Maybe people should restrict their comments to equimpment they actually have and recount their own experiences.

[kiwi]

I didn't realise I was harping, I thought we were having a discussion on lenses. Someone else said it was a great lens as good as a exotic, not me

But yeah, not owned one, just a 50-150, 120-300, 150 sigmas, so I can but out re the Bigma

Sorry to "harp"

[Speedway]

Sorry If I came across a bit abrupt Darren & Snoopy but I was a bit fired up after a phone call from a mate in Melbourne this morning. He was in the local camera shop looking to buy his first DSLR. A bit of background, he suffered a major stroke a few years ago and has little use of his left arm, he has been using p&s cameras for many years and has been talking DSLR for a couple of years now. Last Christmas he had a play with my 400D and liked the feel of that but had a problem with zooming. We regularly talk on the phone and a couple of months ago he decided he was going to bite the bullet and get the DSLR. I suggested he go to the local camera shop and try a few different models for feel, he narrowed it down to either the 1100D or the 600D twin lens kit. We discussed this on the phone and I suggested he get the body only and a 18-250 sigma so back to the shop to talk turkey but as soon as he mentioned the 18-250 he was told that was a useless lens by both the sales person and a customer who said he was a pro? wedding photographer. He rang me from the shop about this and I asked him to put the salesperson on, I asked him if he had ever used one. Not surprisingly the answer was no from both, they both said if he wanted good photos he should get the 70-200 f4 at least, and a 24-105. I asked them if they had noticed that he had little use of his left arm and changing lenses would be very awkward, the reply was zooming would be impossible for him too. I informed them that I had this lens on my 7D and was making an arm to attach to the zoom ring so he could operate the zoom with his right middle finger. He then just handed the phone back to my mate who then left the shop with the parting words "You have just lost a sale."
Keith.
Ps I agree that footy photo wasn’t the best as it was at full stretch which when going through my shots I have very few at 500mm. this one at 186mm is a better example.

[kiwi]

No problem Keith, I agree you shouldn't judge a lens by it's cover, latest shot looks sharp as a tack.

[camerasnoop]

No problem Keith. Superzooms get a bad rap sometimes. I have two which I mentioned above. The Bigma (50-500) and the Canon 28-300. Both are adequate lenses. Sorry to hear about your friend's experience. Salespeople are there to sell though, and they obviously try to steer people towards the best margin. That's what sales commissions achieve are designed to encourage.

[WhoDo]

I informed them that I had this lens on my 7D and was making an arm to attach to the zoom ring so he could operate the zoom with his right middle finger. He then just handed the phone back to my mate who then left the shop with the parting words "You have just lost a sale."
Funny thing about most salespeople, Keith; they're all "experts" until they meet a real one. My sister-in-law once asked my advice about buying a new laptop computer, so I recommended a brand and model for her budget. When she got to the store they tried every which way to sell her anything BUT what she asked for, even though they had it in stock. Exasperated she asked them if they'd heard of a particular brand of Linux, which they had. She then pointed out that her recommendation came from her brother-in-law who was the current project coordinator for the development of that Linux version. The discussion ended abruptly and she was given exactly what she asked for. They were lucky she didn't do what your friend did and take her business elsewhere! At least she got a good laugh out of the look on their faces when they found out where the advice was coming from! :D

BTW, nice sharp image and well within the sweet range of the Bigma. :th3:

[kiwi]

I think its a hard call to get retail jocks, especially at a non camera specific store, to have personal experience of every lens/camera combo

Instead most would rely on reading respected reviews and regurgitating those...eg on the 18-250, http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-250_3p5-6p3_os_c16/page4.asp


(http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-250_3p5-6p3_os_c16/page4.asp)Based on that review by probably the industry leading review site would you as a rep recommend the lens, I know I wouldn't if I weren't getting Keith's direct positive experience

Thats the rub isnt it. Not an easy one.

[hakka]

I took mine to the zoo last week, first one 500mm, second one 400mm.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6155779972_6281562e0e_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6189/6158147822_301d5d26b7_b.jpg

[pod3009]

I had a Sigma 150-500 and sold it recently. It was alright, but I love getting REALLY sharp photos. While I found the lens good for postcard size images I found that blowing things up as allowed by my 10mp 40D and my 15mp 50D the photos lost their sharpness and so I was not totally happy. I'm putting a few more dollars aside and moving to either the Canon 100-400 mm L lens or (if not ridicously expensive) the new Canon 200-400mm lens with the inbuilt 1.4x tele converter inbuilt when it is released.

[twidow]

I have the old Sigma 170-500, not HSM, and I was thinking to change to 150-500, 50-500 or Canon L 100-400, but each time I read different opinions, I'm incresingly confused. What do you recommend?

[ricktas]

I have the old Sigma 170-500, not HSM, and I was thinking to change to 150-500, 50-500 or Canon L 100-400, but each time I read different opinions, I'm incresingly confused. What do you recommend?

I recommend you post an introduction and tell us what you like to use the lens for, or how the current lens is letting you down and what you expect the new lens to do for your photography. At present it is like saying "I want to buy a car, holden or ford, what do you recommend", when we have no idea what your needs are, and therefore cannot give advice with any knowledge of what your needs are.

Oh and get the Canon 100-400 :lol:

[baldrick]

For someone who is "Budget Challenged" like me I find the 150-500 good value. I bought it almost exclusively for air show work and appreciate the extra reach over my Pentax DA L 55-300. Used with my K20d (all the experts tell me that Pentax are useless at airshows - Af too slow) and they all say the Sigma is a slow lens but it`s the best combination I can afford.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6270.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6285.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6754.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6747.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG6835.jpg
Simmo

[peterb666]

An indepth review of the Sigma 150-500 lens on Nikon here... http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_150-500mm_f5-6-3_DG_OS_HSM/

[WhoDo]

An indepth review of the Sigma 150-500 lens on Nikon here... http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_150-500mm_f5-6-3_DG_OS_HSM/

Where ya bin, Pete? I've missed ya! :crike:

[peterb666]

Just taking a low profile Waz

[WhoDo]

Just taking a low profile Waz

Well, give it back when you're done with it, ok? :p

[jmrocky]

I bought this lens September last year, with the intention of taking it to Africa. The main things that interested me about it was obviously the length at the price, but also OS, as I was going to be taking most of my shots handheld (resting on something if i could). I agree about the the sharpness comments at 500mm, and in future probably won't be winding the lens out all the way if I can help it. However at that price and for my skill level it's a great lens imo.

Some birding shots, all at 500mm, handheld and cropped a little.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmrocky/7549108852/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmrocky/7549080354/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmrocky/7549093402/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmrocky/7549100544/

Sorrqy about some of the dodgy bird names, need to check my birding book ; )