I took these today with a Nikon D70 and Sigma 50-500. Please share your thoughts and comments.
<br>
<br>
Gull #1: 500mm f/16, 1/500, ISO 400
<br>
<img src="http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/500/234637gull_1.jpg">
<br>
Gull #2: 500mm f/16, 1/500, ISO 400
<br>
<img src="http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/500/234637gull_2.jpg">
<br>
Gull #3: 500mm f/16, 1/500, ISO 400
<br><img src="http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/500/234637gull_3.jpg">
<br>Gull #2: 200mm f/16, 1/1000, ISO 400
<br>
<img src="http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography/500/234637gull_4.jpg">
<br>

I like the first two in particular. Are these resizes or crops? Did you do any adjustment to the images otherwish, color, sharpness, etc? Heard varying things about the 50-500 and I am real curious, particularly with my current SIGMA adventures.

Thanks for sharing.

I like the first two in particular. Are these resizes or crops? Did you do any adjustment to the images otherwish, color, sharpness, etc? Heard varying things about the 50-500 and I am real curious, particularly with my current SIGMA adventures.

Thanks for sharing.

Slight crops all on with some sharpening (but I do that with all lenses). No color or levels adjustment. I've had the Sigma for several weeks. My feeling so far is that is does what I wanted it to do: give me 500mm reach with a reasonably fast autofocus motor and good optics at the long end. There is color fringing shooting a backlit subject at f/6.3 that goes away with smaller apertures.

My results at 500mm are better than using my old 300mm plus 1.4X TC and then cropping and with the faster AF I can get shots I couldn't get before. My results at 50-200 are pretty weak. I think of this as a 500mm lens that can give you wider angles in a pinch.

It is slow in turns of max aperture and this can be problematic (but not at the beach.) Also, it's heavy, but I don't find this to be a big deal.