sigma lenses

[paul holder]

hi i have a d200 . for nature& wildlife is the sigma 150/500 any good

[Jaedon]

I can't speak for that lens.. but I regularly use the Sigma 50 - 500 F4 - 6.3 as well as the 70 - 200 F2.8 and I have never had a complaint about either of them.

The image I posted here was taken with the 50 - 500 My Best RWBB to date

Hope this helps.

[Martin Brazil]

I have been debating buying one of the Sigma 500s myself for a while now as it seems to be the cheapest option for that long reach.
The quality of your Black Bird photo seems fine to me Jaedon and has reassured me that I will be doing the right thing in laying out my hard earned on one of these lenses. I would be well interested to see more of what your lens can do, especially at the longer end of the range, any chance of posting up some shots ?

[mjs1973]

I have mixed feelings about these types of lenses. At best, I think lenses with this type of a zoom range are just an OK compromise. They are not great, but they are not horrible either. But for the price, you can get a decent long lens.

I can't speak to the 150-500mm lens, but I do have the Sigma 170-500mm. My 170-500mm is my most used lens, but it does have it's limits. Shooting wide open results in images that are pretty soft. In order to get the best out of it, it needs to be stopped down. That means that I'm generally shooting around f/9 or f/10. This causes painfully slow shutter speeds for shooting wildlife. Another problem is causes is that it adds more DOF to my images. It makes it harder to get a nice out of focus background, if that's what you're after.

A good support is a must for a long lens. The AF is not fast so I'm generally using MF. This really isn't a big deal for me and I don't know how the AF of the 150-500mm compares.

If a long zoom range lens like any of these are all your budget can handle, then go for it. If you can swing for some better glass, even if it isn't as long, I think you will be happy you did in the long run.

If image quality is what you're looking for, you should be able to get it with a lens like this, but you will have to find that sweet spot, and work around the limitations of the lens.

[Martin Brazil]

I understand what your saying Mike but what are the alternatives to get a longer reach than say 300mm ?

[Loupey]

I wonder if a 200mm f/2.8 prime with a high quality 2x teleconverter might produce comparable (perhaps even better?) image quality.

I know the Canon 200mm f/2.8 is a steal at around $700. Don't know if Nikon or Sigma makes a similarly priced 200mm.

My 300mm f/4 with the 2x TC are staple fare for me.

I've had excellent results with my 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC.

[Dylan8i]

im planning on getting a tc for my 70-200 2.8. still nto sure if i want a 2x or a 1.4x. im probably going to try the 2x first and hope i get acceptable or excellent results.... glad to hear you did loupey. i decided to go this route instead of the 80-400. its more expensive, but the lowere range (70-200) is a much better faster lense, and the upper (200-400) should be equivical or slightly better.

[racedraper]

I bought a 24-70 2.8 lens all i can say is you get what you pay for. my lens fell maybe 6 inches , not a big or hard fall at all and also most snapped in half also I dont like how it is wobbly when its at 24mm, likes to move around alot in side . I sent it back cause its still under the year warranty. so i will see how they are with that part. might just try Tamron. or also just find a local photo store that rents them, i am lucky enough to have a real cheap one here. I can rent a 400mm 2.8 for only 40 bucks a day.

As for the 50-500 "BIGMA" its a nice size but they are a slow lens. I traded a fellow photog at a track for his bigma for my 70-200 2.8 and that time we both had the D200. I really didnt like it at all, slow not very sharp, yeah it has 500mm but with the crop factor its not worth it. plus like other said get a TC 1.7 and loose only 1 stop.

[Jaedon]

I find with the Bigma I am shooting at F8 for the clarity and sharpness I want. Wide open it is a bit softer than I like so it's very rare that I shoot wide open. When using the 50 - 500 I am almost always shooting at ISO400 to get the faster shutter speeds I need to shoot hand held.

Now the 70 - 200 on the other hand .. I shoot wide open constantly and the clarity is remarkable. I have compared it side by side with the Canon 70 - 200 L and even with both images on the screen side by side at 100% you cannot find (or at least I cannot) much difference in the quality of the image.

I definitely do not find the AF slow in either of the lenses. They are WAY faster than the kit lens and as fast ... if not faster... on my E510 as my friends Canon lenses on his 40D and 5D. Granted he is a studio shooter and a bit slower himself when shooting wildlife.... so the comparison is a little unbalanced. With either lens the AF is fast enough to capture race cars at 150+ MPH and focus on a humming bird when need be. That being said I am also a big fan of MF as well so I set it to AF +M allowing the AF to get me close.. then fine tuning it manually when necessary.

IMHO the Sigma lenses are definitely the best bang for the buck. Using an F2.8 200 lens with a 2XTC is still stopping down in the long run as you are still losing 2 stops of light + you have an extra lens change to do when switching things around. Granted going from F2.8 to F5.6 or 6.3 is still better than F8 but only marginally as 1/3 of a stop will not change your DOF that much.

In the end it's all about what you feel comfortable with. Loupey is comfortable with his TC's and gets excellent results. I am comfortable with my 50 - 500 and get excellent results (although I will always be jealous of Loupey's photography) Sigma has made drastic improvements in the quality of their lenses in the past few years and so far I have enjoyed them... and would not hesitate to buy another.

I have been debating buying one of the Sigma 500s myself for a while now as it seems to be the cheapest option for that long reach.
The quality of your Black Bird photo seems fine to me Jaedon and has reassured me that I will be doing the right thing in laying out my hard earned on one of these lenses. I would be well interested to see more of what your lens can do, especially at the longer end of the range, any chance of posting up some shots ?

Almost everything I have posted on here in the past year has been from my Bigma. It has been bolted to my camera almost exclusively until I bought the 70 - 200. Check out my gallery for the shot quality... and remember .. the photographer behind the lens makes a difference too... so don't be too hard on me =p And don't worry... there will be lots more to come.

[Martin Brazil]

Loupey, checking out the prices of your set up, the 70-200mm f2.8 with 2x teleconverter, for Nikon and the bundle comes in at about $3000 if bought in England.
The 50 500mm sigma lens is closer to $1500 so that has got to be a consideration, for my budget at least.
OK, there is a trade off in that its a couple of stops slower but its also 100mm longer too. I have been looking at all the alternatives and all the combinations to get some more reach and, unfortunately having to consider the price, the Sigma seems to be the way forward for the time being.
Thanks for the reply Jaedon, I'll certainly check out your gallery, that will be very helpful.

[Jaedon]

I just had a quick look. you need to look at images before Oct 08... after that I was shooting with the 70 - 200 mostly. Anything with a race car in it was shot with the 500 and the majority of the bird shots. Heck even some of the macro shots are with the 50 - 500 and a tube.

[Loupey]

... i decided to go this route instead of the 80-400. its more expensive, but the lowere range (70-200) is a much better faster lense, and the upper (200-400) should be equivical or slightly better.

I wrestled with this concept for a while before buying the 70-200mm. I knew I'd be using the 2x TC with it a lot. But I also wanted to be able to use it without the TC for school athletic events. So I ended up buying the 70-200 and the 2x at the same time.

But I also knew at that time that I'd be buying a dedicated wildlife prime telephoto in my future.

Having the 70-200mm and 2x has been very nice. You can leave the house with just these two and shoot a variety of sports or an airshow. Put some extension tubes in your other pocket and now you can shoot all day at a zoo, park, garden, ...

[Loupey]

I know we're talking about Sigma and Nikon here, but just to show you that you shouldn't automatically rule out using teleconverters, here's a shot my son took with his Canon XS when we visited Magee Marsh a few weeks ago.

I gave him a 70-200mm f/2.8 to use with a 2x TC. He shot this blue-gray gnatcatcher using a monopod. The exif data is intact in the first uncropped shot. The second is my recommended crop.

He prefers to manually focus (imagine that ). He missed the focus on this shot by two inches, but I'm not telling him.

[billy320]

I put the 2x converter on with the sigma 500mm .......... horrible results

[Jaedon]

best results with the 2x tc and the sigma 50-500 requires a lot of sunlight and a tripod. f16 I think was the best I could get. I don't shoot with that combination unless there is no other option......I almost always find another option

[Loupey]

I put the 2x converter on with the sigma 500mm .......... horrible results

Sure, a 2x on a 500mm is hard for anyone to handle.

[A.M.D.A.]

I have a SIGMA 70-300mm, and while it generally isn't a *bad* lens, it does not hold a candle to my 300mm F4.

Resolving power on this sigma isn't very good, and heavy sharpening is needed to get some quality out of the photos. If you can, try going for a 200mm+ prime lens instead... even a 2x TC should still get good results. I find my 300mm F4 + 2x TC still provide better results than the 70-300mm alone. I don't know if Nikon has old relatively inexpensive long prime lenses, but with Pentax there are lots of them, no AF but better quality than a zoom-telephoto.

[billy320]

I was using a tripod, would a flash help any ?

[Loupey]

I dunno, what were your shooting specs (ISO, SS, f/stop)?