sigma 50-500mm

Hello good people,
i'm thinking about buying a SIGMA 50-500mm..plus x2 teleconcerter to go with my Nikon D200

What is positive/negative about it?


thank you..

Husain,

First what is your purpose? This is a heavy piece of bazooka!

Asher

photodo

For what it's worth, photodo.com has a few user ratings, but no official review. Other Sigma lenses rated by them have rather low MTF ratings:

http://www.photodo.com/product_1090.html

Mike

Birds, wild life...sport (for school games).??..so what do u think?

To avoid disappointment, I would suggest taking your nikon to a dealer who has the "Bigma" in stock and take a few shots with and without the 2x converter.

From what I heard, not first hand experience, the quality can be somewhat questionable, but then again it all depends what the final result is meant to be for.

The glas is rather slow @ f4-5.6, adding a 2x makes it even slower.

All in all, it appeares to be a relatively inexpensive "nice weather" super tele.

Georg Baumann said:

To avoid disappointment, I would suggest taking your nikon to a dealer who has the "Bigma" in stock and take a few shots with and without the 2x converter.

From what I heard, not first hand experience, the quality can be somewhat questionable, but then again it all depends what the final result is meant to be for.

The glas is rather slow @ f4-5.6, adding a 2x makes it even slower.

All in all, it appeares to be a relatively inexpensive "nice weather" super tele.

Click to expand...

Georg, I believe we are discussing here the 50-500mm f/2.8 lens, not the historic Bigma (the 300-800mm f/5.6). I have not seen any images from this f/2.8 beast, but they are sure bound to be interesting... I can't imagine the DOF at 500mm at f/2.8 at a couple of meters.

Regarding the 300-800mm, I have seen many conflicting reviews, some reviewers claim it to be an amazing lens, and the sample images back this up - but on the other hand, some don't. A canon 500mm with a 1.4TC sure does seem to smoke it in terms of image quality.

But maybe this 50-500mm f/2.8 is special? Either way, it's far too large to be practical for most needs.

You know it weighs 35lbs/16kgs, right? Engadget suggests the price is also $25,000 US.

But as long as that's OK, I can't think of a better 500/2.8 optic out there!

A friend of mine has the 50-500 and a 2x Sigma TC. He stopped using the TC because the AF on the lens won't work with the TC, AF becomes really sluggish and can't lock-on. He asked me to try it myself as he assumed he was doing something wrong, but I found this combination unworkable. He also tried a cheap Tamron 1.4TC and the AF wasn't much better with that one.
Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear Husain, maybe eomone else might have a happier report.

Oh man, I feel really silly (my apologies) regarding my post above. I got this thread mixed up with the thread discussing Sigma's 200-500 f/2.8

Bradley clearly did the same thing So, yes, this is discussing the much smaller, cheaper, Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 lens, NOT the new, huge, Sigma 200-500 f/2.8.

Husain, I have not heard great things about the 50-500, and, to be honest, unless you want that zoom range, you'd be better off with two or three more dedicated lenses.

Canon's 28-300 is much much better optically (from what I've seen, sorry, no proof to post) and even then, you're in a bit of a compromise. And the Sigma has no Image Stabilisation, and a slow 500mm lens with no IS is very difficult to use in all but the best of light. Reviews such as this one say that the 500mm is rather poor beyond 300mm - so if that's where you're going to shoot, much rather get a Canon 100-400mm, or a 400mm prime (even the 'el cheapo' 400mm f/5.6L - much, much better, smaller and lighter than the Sigma). Or, staying with Sigma, their 80-400mm is also somewhat better optically, and it does have image stabilisation.

Husain Alfraid said:

Hello good people,
i'm thinking about buying a SIGMA 50-500mm..plus x2 teleconcerter to go with my Nikon D200

What is positive/negative about it?


thank you..

Click to expand...

I have one.

I call it "The Beast" because it really is a beast of a lens.

4 pounds plus to lug around, and plan on dropping another $100 if you want a decent UV protector filter on it because it uses an odd size.

The lens is fairly sharp for what it is (a 10x superzoom), not bad at all. Build quality is excellent. I have never used it with a TC.

People complain about the "lens creep" but this lens doesn't creep, it shoots out as fast as a gun if you point it down... it does have a lock though if you care about that stuff.

Focus is good and accurate on my Nikons. The HSM focuses very quickly considering the size of the lens.

I shoot entirely handheld (I don't even own a non-astronomical tripod), and I find the lens is tricky to get a clear shot with unless it is completely braced at over 300mm. Image stabilization would REALLY help with this lens, but obviously it doesn't have it.

Plan on shooting HIGH ISO even in sunlight unless this thing is on a tripod at more than 300mm... it takes me 1/1000th of a second to hold it steady when wracked out to 400+

Here is a pix I took with mine a couple of days ago, just to give you an example of what it can do (for good or bad, simply as an FYI). I popped it a bit with unsharp mask (24,5,4 in Capture NX) this is at 500mm handheld, EXIF: 1/800s f/13.0 ISO1600 on a D300.

Bonjour ken
nice little red head guy…
Thanks for the info delivered, but good you post a 100% crop?
At this kind of size any pic should look sharp…

1/800s f/13.0 ISO1600 500mm 100 percent, out of D300 camera JPEG.

What is this bird?

Asher Kelman said:

What is this bird?

Click to expand...

Not sure which way you mean it... if you are asking what kind of bird it is, it is a common house finch. If you are asking why you are seeing it, it is a quick example of a picture taken with the lens in question.

Sorry, don't mean to sound dense here, it's late and I am not tracking things very well.

I have the Sigma 50-500 and I like it. They specifically make a 2x converter for it, but it is manual focus with the 2x converter. Since the lens does not have VR, keeping it steday at 1000mm with the 2x converter would be tricky. I shoot mine hand held and feel pretty good with the results.

The Sigma 50-500 is not a bad budget alternative to get to 500mm. You might want to take a look at the Tamron 200-500 in the same price range. It is particularly good with subjects inside 150 feet - making it nice for birding. It is also very light weight in comparison to the Sigma. Keep in mind the Tamron 200-500 comes with a long lens hood and extends when you zoom, so it turns into a 20 inch long rig at 500mm.

I prefer the Nikon 300 f/4 paired with the Nikon 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters. Image quality and focus at 300mm is superior to the zooms. With the 1.4 TC you still get nice image quality. The 1.7 teleconverter gets you out to 510mm with decent image quality, but you need good light and the AF is a bit slow.

500mm hand held is always a stretch, requiring excellent technique and fast shutter speeds. I much prefer a tripod or monopod to get good results.

Eric

Eric Bowles said:

The Sigma 50-500 is not a bad budget alternative to get to 500mm. You might want to take a look at the Tamron 200-500 in the same price range. It is particularly good with subjects inside 150 feet - making it nice for birding. It is also very light weight in comparison to the Sigma. Keep in mind the Tamron 200-500 comes with a long lens hood and extends when you zoom, so it turns into a 20 inch long rig at 500mm.

I prefer the Nikon 300 f/4 paired with the Nikon 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters. Image quality and focus at 300mm is superior to the zooms. With the 1.4 TC you still get nice image quality. The 1.7 teleconverter gets you out to 510mm with decent image quality, but you need good light and the AF is a bit slow.

500mm hand held is always a stretch, requiring excellent technique and fast shutter speeds. I much prefer a tripod or monopod to get good results.

Eric

Click to expand...

I have been considering the 70-300 VR with a TC to compare with the Sigma. I like the Sigma, but I would like it even better if it had VR. That being said, if your technique is good, and on that day, you can capture some amazing shots. I handhold 99% of the time because I mostly shoot aviation subjects and find a tripod limits my movement.

How do you like the 300 F/4?

Having just rented one for a week, I'd save my money and get the 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED-IF VR.

Yes, it costs twice as much but since it's a DX, you're going to get the benefit of the crop factor on a non-full frame Nikon, which will push it out to about 350mm.

I also rented a 2x teleconverter and got pretty good results. As mentioned, it's going to lower your max aperture to f/5.6, but with VR that's not a huge issue.

And as I'm sure many of the pros here know but I just learned, you need to be shooting birds at 1/1000 minimum to get anything approaching usable results. All my sharpest photos were more like 1/2500th.

wow...

i haven't been here for a long time.

pretty good info and discussion is going on in here...

i tried the 50-500 already...and got some neat results. and now..i'm selling it.

i need to go with the new FX D700 from Nikon




thank you every one for all the explanations and trhe examples....and after all..this was helpful for everybody in this forum



cheers