I'm cravin' the Sigma 150-500mm OS

[NateS]

After viewing many, many shots with this lens, I'm craving it pretty bad. I think I'm going to hold off on another $400 purchase that I had planned and save some more for the 150-500.

Please post example shots if anybody on here has them (not to be confused with the 50-500....that lens doesn't interest me at all for some reason).

 

[Techuser]

One more asking for it
I dont even own a DSLR yet but that is the lens I will get they day I buy one =)

one that doesnt have many samples around is the 120-400 OS

 

[AtlPikMan]

Have you guys looked here Flickr: Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

 

[NateS]

Have you guys looked here Flickr: Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Yeah, I spent like 2 hours in that link today..lol. That's why I'm craving it so bad. I would just like to hear some first hand experience about it from people on here (if there are any). Seems like a lot of people have success shooting this big sucker handheld at 500mm....that's some pretty good OS if so.

 

[icassell]

photoSIG » Lens: Sigma 150-500 mm F5-6.3 APO DG HSM OS

 

[AtlPikMan]

Some first hand thoughts NikonCafe.com

 

[KmH]

The Bigma 150-500 mm is well worth the money.

This is from my D90 at f/5.6, 230mm, 1/1000, ISO 200

All 4 SOOC from RAW to JPG, reduced to quality level 5 about 500kb:
#1

#2 through 44 are f/6.3 1/80-0 500mm ISO 200
#2

#3

#4

 

[benhasajeep]

The Sigma Bigma (50-500) was the lens to get out of the 2 long range offerings from them. It's had a very good following from its owners.

I owned the original 170-500 Sigma (Nikon flavor) and sold it on ebay after about 6 months. It had lens creep issues. I should have sent it back and paid the little extra for the 50-500. Or at the least sent it back for a different lens. But it was well known to have a creep problem. Also the body was plastic and felt cheap. I didn't think it would withstand much if any abuse. Was not happy with it.

Now they have updated the lens by going 20mm wider and of course adding the OS and HSM. It also has a bit more glass in it. 21 vs. 13 for the old. And weighs 1 1/4#'s more. Looks like they did a decent job updating it. But it also moved it closer to the 50-500 price range (does not have OS). There was a larger gap in pricing between the two previously.

 

[NateS]

The Sigma Bigma (50-500) was the lens to get out of the 2 long range offerings from them. It's had a very good following from its owners.

I owned the original 170-500 Sigma (Nikon flavor) and sold it on ebay after about 6 months. It had lens creep issues. I should have sent it back and paid the little extra for the 50-500. Or at the least sent it back for a different lens. But it was well known to have a creep problem. Also the body was plastic and felt cheap. I didn't think it would withstand much if any abuse. Was not happy with it.

Now they have updated the lens by going 20mm wider and of course adding the OS and HSM. It also has a bit more glass in it. 21 vs. 13 for the old. And weighs 1 1/4#'s more. Looks like they did a decent job updating it. But it also moved it closer to the 50-500 price range (does not have OS). There was a larger gap in pricing between the two previously.

So, the 50-500 is the better lens? In what way? Is it that much sharper, cause everywhere I've read, the 150-500 is a much better buy because you can hand hold it at longer focal lengths (because of OS) which is very hard to do with the 50-500. I'd love to hear what makes the 50-500 the better buy.

I was also told by somebody that the 150-500 has a HUGE issue with sample variation and that a lot of people have a hard time getting a sharp copy (moreso than other Sigmas). Anybody else ever hear of that?


KmH - Thanks for those photos. It's good to know that this lens can double as a outdoor sports lens. Were those handheld...with or without OS?

 

[benhasajeep]

So, the 50-500 is the better lens? In what way? Is it that much sharper, cause everywhere I've read, the 150-500 is a much better buy because you can hand hold it at longer focal lengths (because of OS) which is very hard to do with the 50-500. I'd love to hear what makes the 50-500 the better buy.

I was also told by somebody that the 150-500 has a HUGE issue with sample variation and that a lot of people have a hard time getting a sharp copy (moreso than other Sigmas). Anybody else ever hear of that?


?

At that time the 50-500 was definately better than the 170-500. In terms of build, and immage qualities. But, I am not sure now as the 150-500 is a serious update over the 170-500 (it's a whole new lens!). So, now the 150-500 may be a better lens than the 50-500. But I don't know, first hand. The 170-500 scared me away from Sigma. Again the new 150-500 is a new beast than the older 170-500. I was just saying I was extremely dissapointed with original version. And the 50-500 had a very good following of those that did purchase it.

 

[NateS]

So, the 50-500 is the better lens? In what way? Is it that much sharper, cause everywhere I've read, the 150-500 is a much better buy because you can hand hold it at longer focal lengths (because of OS) which is very hard to do with the 50-500. I'd love to hear what makes the 50-500 the better buy.

I was also told by somebody that the 150-500 has a HUGE issue with sample variation and that a lot of people have a hard time getting a sharp copy (moreso than other Sigmas). Anybody else ever hear of that?


?

At that time the 50-500 was definately better than the 170-500. In terms of build, and immage qualities. But, I am not sure now as the 150-500 is a serious update over the 170-500 (it's a whole new lens!). So, now the 150-500 may be a better lens than the 50-500. But I don't know, first hand. The 170-500 scared me away from Sigma. Again the new 150-500 is a new beast than the older 170-500. I was just saying I was extremely dissapointed with original version. And the 50-500 had a very good following of those that did purchase it.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm also considering the Tamron 200-500. Looks like a lot of people say it is sharper than either of the Sigmas and it weights less and is slightly smaller. Of course, it doesn't have OS or similar.

 

[KmH]

KmH - Thanks for those photos. It's good to know that this lens can double as a outdoor sports lens. Were those handheld...with or without OS?

OS Mode 2 on a monopod. I have made images with the lens handheld but for spending 8 hours at the soccer complex with a camera lens combo that weighs 7 lbs it goes on the monopod. I don't let my other photographers shoot handheld either.

Handheld, while sitting OS mode 1:

 

[Dao]

So, the 50-500 is the better lens? In what way? Is it that much sharper, cause everywhere I've read, the 150-500 is a much better buy because you can hand hold it at longer focal lengths (because of OS) which is very hard to do with the 50-500. I'd love to hear what makes the 50-500 the better buy.

Take a look at this comparison.

Sigma 150-500, Sigma 120-400, Canon 100-400, Sigma 50-500

 

[FrankLamont]

I wouldn't go with the 150-500mm. I used to crave it, but... if you can afford the Canon 100-400mm, it's definitely worth it. Of course, you shoot Nikon, so maybe the 200-500mm.

But of all the 'cheap zooms', yes I'd go with the 120-400mm OS... a stop faster aperture and on a crop factor body it would be 600mm for a Nikon (1.5x). More than enough.