Still shocked about the Sigma 150-500 and the D7100

[grafxman]

The sigma 50-500 has a variable mfd starting at 1meter (3.3 feet) at 50mm and ending at 3 meters At 500mm

It would be one hell of a macro lens if it focused to 1.63 feet at 500mm lol

Anyways there is no lenses out there at any price range that will do all great. Low min focusing distance and super telephotos dont go together great, for top quality wildlife or bug macro work a sigma 150 or tamron 180 is nice

You seem to be saying that there is no way the Sigma 50-500mm will focus any closer than 3 meters. I took the attached photo with the front of the lens at the zero inch mark on the tape measure. As you can see it focuses to under 48 inches at 500mm. If you are saying that the Sigma 50-500mm won't focus any closer than 3 meters at 500mm then obviously you don't own one and therefore don't know what you're talking about. Apologizes if I misunderstood your post.

 

[matthewo]

Ok we'll it does better then advertised. I did a quick search and found the wrong specs i guess.

Still a far cry from 1.5 feet. Also Mfd is measured from the cameras focal plane mark not the end of the lens, so add another foot or so.

I guess my main point was to say no way it focuses to 1.6 feet because the $1700 sigma 180mm macro produces 1:1 at 1.6 feet. 5 feet is believable 1.6 would put it well under 1:1

 

[grafxman]

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:

 

[coastalconn]

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:

Lol, i would only be in a state of delirium if someone handed me a 500 or 600 F4 and said "Merry Christmas".. I wouldn't get too worried about what others think, I certainly don't. . I'm curious, at 500mm and closest focusing distance how many inches accross is the image on your crop body?
Other than shooting a Canon 500 f4 m1, I have never shot any of exotics.. I have been lucky enough to shoot just about everything else that could be considered a "wildlife" lens.... I can't wait to see how the new Tamron compares...

 

[robbins.photo]

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:

I get where your coming from - for me it's all about "bang for your buck". I do plan on purchasing something in that range a little further on down the road, in say 4-6 months perhaps, and I will be looking at a variety of lenses. The Sigma 50-150 mm, The sigma 150-500 mm, the Tamron 500 mm and their new 600 mm offerings, etc.

I'll end up making my final decision much like I do with all my camera equipment, I'll look at what all is available both new and used, compare the features they offer against the prices I can get them for, and then end up buying whatever gives me the most value based on my budget and my planned uses for the lens.

I already have lenses that will cover a shorter focal length and really my interest in a big telephoto is more on the long end than on the short end. If I can get a 50-150 mm for a decent price that will probably have more influence on my decision than anything else, my own thought process is I'll take a look at the prices differences at that time and decide if the extra money is worth having the 50 -500 as opposed to 150-500.

 

[grafxman]

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:

Lol, i would only be in a state of delirium if someone handed me a 500 or 600 F4 and said "Merry Christmas".. I wouldn't get too worried about what others think, I certainly don't. . I'm curious, at 500mm and closest focusing distance how many inches accross is the image on your crop body?
Other than shooting a Canon 500 f4 m1, I have never shot any of exotics.. I have been lucky enough to shoot just about everything else that could be considered a "wildlife" lens.... I can't wait to see how the new Tamron compares...

It's 4 inches with the 7D and 6.5 inches with the 6D. FWIW a Luna Moth, the Tiger Swallowtail butterfly and many others have a wingspans greater than 4 inches.

 

[grafxman]

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:

I get where your coming from - for me it's all about "bang for your buck". I do plan on purchasing something in that range a little further on down the road, in say 4-6 months perhaps, and I will be looking at a variety of lenses. The Sigma 50-150 mm, The sigma 150-500 mm, the Tamron 500 mm and their new 600 mm offerings, etc.

I'll end up making my final decision much like I do with all my camera equipment, I'll look at what all is available both new and used, compare the features they offer against the prices I can get them for, and then end up buying whatever gives me the most value based on my budget and my planned uses for the lens.

I already have lenses that will cover a shorter focal length and really my interest in a big telephoto is more on the long end than on the short end. If I can get a 50-150 mm for a decent price that will probably have more influence on my decision than anything else, my own thought process is I'll take a look at the prices differences at that time and decide if the extra money is worth having the 50 -500 as opposed to 150-500.

Be aware that Sigma once made a 50-500mm lens that was unstabilized so be careful you don't get that one.

 

[robbins.photo]

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:

I get where your coming from - for me it's all about "bang for your buck". I do plan on purchasing something in that range a little further on down the road, in say 4-6 months perhaps, and I will be looking at a variety of lenses. The Sigma 50-150 mm, The sigma 150-500 mm, the Tamron 500 mm and their new 600 mm offerings, etc.

I'll end up making my final decision much like I do with all my camera equipment, I'll look at what all is available both new and used, compare the features they offer against the prices I can get them for, and then end up buying whatever gives me the most value based on my budget and my planned uses for the lens.

I already have lenses that will cover a shorter focal length and really my interest in a big telephoto is more on the long end than on the short end. If I can get a 50-150 mm for a decent price that will probably have more influence on my decision than anything else, my own thought process is I'll take a look at the prices differences at that time and decide if the extra money is worth having the 50 -500 as opposed to 150-500.

Be aware that Sigma once made a 50-500mm lens that was unstabilized so be careful you don't get that one.

Well I hadn't planned for going for a non-OS or VC version, I've had great luck with image stabilization and even though it isn't a feature I use a lot I sure would miss not having it at this point.

 

[JacaRanda]

[REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG

Canon Rumors

 

[grafxman]

[REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG

Canon Rumors

After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.

 

[JacaRanda]

[REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG

Canon Rumors

After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.

Different strokes, wants, needs, desires?

Coastal will have one in time and I will guess that he will post an honest and informative review of it as he has done before.

 

[coastalconn]

[REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG

Canon Rumors

After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.

Most people that are looking at this lens don't really worry about MFD, and at 9 feet it is 1:5 so the entire image would be 5" wide on a crop sensor. For me personally that is fine. The reason most people would but it is potentially better IQ. Also 600mm will put more pixels on your subject resulting in more detail. I also suspect this will focus much faster with Nikon cameras that have the center F8 capability.. But no one is poopooing your lens, so I'm still not really sure why you are seemingly getting so defensive? Being a birder I would be ecstatic if this was a 600 F6.3 prime, the short end will never get used by me, but at least the MFT charts looks like it is optimized at 600, which would be quite the accomplishment by Tamron. Hopefully it will be in my hands in 3 weeks for some real life shooting...

 

[Derrel]

Be VERY wary of these YouTube knuckleheads that mount a lens on a tripod inside a house and then shoot video of a lens trying to focus on NOTHING....and be extra-wary of YouTube knuckleheads that put a fricking LENS CAP on a lens, and then film the lens as it hunts back and forth. Oh My Flippin Gawd...

THAT is NOT, I repeat, that is NOT ANY way to test "autofocus"! That is about as stupid as "testing" acceleration of a car by placing it in Neutral with the hand brake on firmly, and then revving the engine up to red-line over and over.

"Vrrrooooom! Vrooooom! Vrooooom! Listen to how FAST this car is! Listen to its acceleration! "

A couple of other comments: the "newest" Nikon AF systems can now autofocus down to f/8 on some of their AF points. A lens pointing at a painted wall inside of an apartment dining room is going to give false, unrepresentative data, compared with the same tele-zoom outdoors, being aimed at REAL subject matter, with "real" details.

Some of these first-to-YouTube tester types are ridiculous, and when stuff is brand-new, these Yahoos get hits.

 

[grafxman]

[REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG

Canon Rumors

After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.

Most people that are looking at this lens don't really worry about MFD, and at 9 feet it is 1:5 so the entire image would be 5" wide on a crop sensor. For me personally that is fine. The reason most people would but it is potentially better IQ. Also 600mm will put more pixels on your subject resulting in more detail. I also suspect this will focus much faster with Nikon cameras that have the center F8 capability.. But no one is poopooing your lens, so I'm still not really sure why you are seemingly getting so defensive? Being a birder I would be ecstatic if this was a 600 F6.3 prime, the short end will never get used by me, but at least the MFT charts looks like it is optimized at 600, which would be quite the accomplishment by Tamron. Hopefully it will be in my hands in 3 weeks for some real life shooting...

Sorry if I sound defensive. I'm just relating my personal experience regarding the Sigma 50-500mm and wildlife photography. I hope you're very happy with the Tamron. However when the day comes that you see a painted bunting, the most beautiful warbler in North America, at 5 or 6 feet in dim light and your Tamron won't focus I hope you recall our conversations here. I went to the Sigma 50-500mm after missing 3 important shots with Sigma's 150-500mm because the action was too close to focus and I needed a wider lens.

 

[matthewo]

I'm sure the 50-500 is a good lens for the price.

But i would be very surprised if the brand new tamron isn't better. The 50-500 is a pretty old lens and has been out a while. Im not downing on old lenses, the 20 year old nikon 500mm p is almost as sharp and contrasty as the 500mm vr with just a bit of CA, and of course manual focus.

Im glad the 50-500 works for you, but i wouldn't say its for everyone, like said not everyone needs mfd of 5-6 feet. DOF is already a pita at 14 feet and 500mm, for small birds even at f11-f14 unless the bird is sideways its still not all in focus.

If it was up to me i would rather have an extra 100mm vs 3-4 feet less mfd.

For me, the biggest thing that turned me off of the cheaper tele zooms and made me save up for brand name prime lenses was autofocus accuracy and speed for moving birds. Contrast was a close second along with lens speed, sharpness was not much of a big deal to me, the 150-500 was decently sharp.

Just as you said, you missed a bird due to mfd, well i missed a series of interesting shots with the 150-500 due to it wouldn't focus at all, and i was all over the subject. After a few hours of shooting the 150-500 just got worse and worse at focusing. But like i said this is just my experience and if im going to spend the time shooting wildlife i want reliable autofocus that doesn't depend on how long i use the camera, how cold it is outside, etc, and im sure thats one reason the why all the nikon/canon primes cost what they do, so much extra r/d and testing to make sure they just work.

I use my 500 many times a week for many hours, even all day sometimes, it always works and i never have to worry about it. Its so reliable i almost depend on it to work like its a piece of glass with no moving parts. I know thats not a good idea, but it just has not let me down.

and its not like I wanted to spend that kind of money on a lens, but after owning probably 5 or so different lenses over 300mm, and using pretty much the whole Nikon telephoto offering, I made my choice on it