Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sigma 50-500mm Questions  
User currently offlineMia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6
Posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

I was advised by my step-father that this lens got great reviews. I was planning on buying the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L but the Sigma offers greater range and a cheaper price. Anyways, can anyone give me a quick review of this lens? I read a few and they basically said that for the price, it is great. How slow is it? Heavy? Do I need a tripod? How are the pictures in lower-light (e.g. a cloudy day)? Thanks...


MIA777
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

I have used the 170-500 quite a bit and was very happy with it. I would suggest using a monopod with this lens (both the 50-500 and the 170-500.)

FOr the price you get a very nice lens. I do see the difference now that I use a Canon IS L lens, but I think that is mainly due to the IS feature.

Tony


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

I've considered the 50-500 early this year and decided on the 170-500 because of the weight of the 50-500.
Were I to choose again I'd probably choose the 50-500 instead.

The 170-500 is good, very good. The 50-500 is better optically and has faster AF (the 170-500 isn't bad either).

For the price they can't be beat, they're a good deal better than any Nikkor or Canon you can get for the same money. Yes, the best Canon and Nikkor lenses are better but you're paying 2-3 times as much if not more so that's to be expected.



I wish I were flying
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Do remember that the auto focus on these lenses is MUCH slower than that of Canon lenses. Having said that, if you work on your skills you won't have much problem and will be happy with the lens.

Tony


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

I've never been happy about the logic of these super-zooms. Convenient, perhaps, but at what price? Quality aside, the size and weight are a huge penalty. Sure, 500 is a nice length, but a decent 300 prime with a good convertor will give you 600mm for less size and weight and probably better quality. As you go down the scale, the lens makes even less sense. At 50mm you can buy a prime very cheaply that will fit in your pocket.

Zooms certainly have their place, but all zooms make some compromises in quality and all carry a size/weight penalty. IMHO with anything beyond a 3x zoom the penalties outweigh (quite literally!) the benefits.

However, a single all purpose lens does seen to suit some people better - just make sure you consider all factors, including ergonomics, before you buy.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Do remember that even slow autofocus is faster then most people can focus manually. That is a big, heavy lens. While I doubt I would use it much on the 50mm end, the 500mm side would be handy. I would scrap it for a 80-400 or 100-400 or something similar.

Unless you are a bird watcher, I heard that it is popular with those guys.


User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Has anybody had the chance to use the Sigma 80-400 yet? I'd certainly be interested to see how its quality compares to the Canon 100-400L.

Tim


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

even slow autofocus is faster then most people can focus manually

While most bench tests will confirm this statement, I find that in real situations this is not always the case (and I'm using, for the most part Canon L USM).

Consider - aircraft sitting on the tarmac - pick camera up, point at it, and yes, the AF will probably lock more quickly than you can manually focus. But then think about tracking an approaching aircraft - once the general focus is established, the differences required are very minor as the aircraft gets nearer, requiring only small adjustents. I find the AF can sometimes result in losing focus completely for a brief period (perhaps as result of the key contrats area moving off the sensor) and taking another moment to re-aquire. Yes its pretty fast, but I find tracking using manual focus is more likely to result in the subject staying in focus all of the time = less missed shots.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMdundon From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

I used this lens with a Nikon D100/F5 combo and didn't like it at all. It is notoriously slow on the D100 and I found the vignetting at 500mm to be far too noticeable for my tastes. The size of it was also an issue as it is very hard to wield without a tripod/monopod.

In the end, I sold it and purchased the 70-200VR which I will augment with a converter. After comparing shots made of same daily traffic to ORD over my house, the Nikon glass is superior for my uses. Yes, the Nikon was vastly more expensive, but I am vastly happier with the results. I advertised the Sigma and it was purchased very quickly by a bird/wildlife photographer. I didn't lose any money on it, so you could buy it used for $500 or so and resell it if it's not to your liking.

Regards,

Michael


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Has anybody had the chance to use the Sigma 80-400 yet? I'd certainly be interested to see how its quality compares to the Canon 100-400L.


The Sigma 80-400OS has been temporarilly withdrawn while problems with the OS module are ironed out.
Optically it's supposed to be excellent.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineMia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

Thanks a lot for your replies. I would actually prefer something smaller, like someone mentioned above, 80-400mm. I am mainly attracted to it because of the relatively low price...

Can anyone suggest some good x (anything less than 100)-400mm lenses (non L, or non Canon for that matter)?

Thanks,

Ryan



MIA777
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

I'm still loving my Sigma 170-500mm.

Took a while to get used to it but works great:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Watt


Lack of sharpness ain't a problem with that shot, don't you agree?

Cheers

Gary Watt


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

I agree Gary but this topic is about a different lens, the 50-500. Cheap plug tssss tssss...

Luis Big grin


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3091 times:

Colin, I was making a generalization. I have had the exact opposite experience on approaching a/c or moving targets. The Nikon, or should I just say the Nikons I have used, focus just fine when tracking moving targets coming straight at you, and moving passed you while panning as well. I usually always select the focus zone, and focus mode as well, and do not rely on the camera to choose the focus area as I have heard many Canon users do. That could just be preference on my part.

As to the merits of the 50-500 Sigma, it is an EX rated lens, and from what I have seen it should work fine in normal daylight. Expect less then optimum results in lower light levels. As expected.


User currently offlineMia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3082 times:

Thanks a lot, I think I will go for this lens!


MIA777
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3080 times:

Jeff - I'm not really in disagreement, just pointing out that AF is not always the best way to go, or perhaps put another way, people shouldn't be afraid of switching to MF in some situations. But certainly I would not rate the D60 or even the 10D's AF very highly - not a patch on say the EOS 3, Iv or 1D.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hey Luis

I agree but there is no harm in plugging a shot that, despite it's fantastic quality, it's not doing very well.

But who cares about hits........Braathens liked it  Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers

Gary


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Sure it only makes good, some airlines and companies also like my photos Big grin

Luis


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sigma 50-500mm V/s 170-500mm posted Mon May 8 2006 10:22:40 by Deaphen
Sigma 50-500mm Lense Opinions posted Tue May 2 2006 13:40:40 by Pauara
Canon 100-400 Is And The Sigma 50-500mm posted Thu Oct 20 2005 05:07:51 by LOT767-300ER
Canon L Lens 100-400mm Or Sigma 50-500mm? posted Thu Dec 12 2002 07:05:15 by Tsentsan
Sigma APO 50-500mm F4-6,3 posted Wed Feb 6 2002 19:19:54 by AviationIvi
Sigma APO 50-500mm F4-6,3 EX posted Wed Aug 15 2001 14:20:10 by Ulvar
Thinking About A Sigma 50-150 F2.8 posted Sat Nov 18 2006 17:51:58 by 9V
Sigma 50-500 Or Canon 100-400L Is posted Mon Jul 10 2006 07:52:38 by Franzloew
Sigma 170-500mm posted Thu Sep 22 2005 09:46:17 by EGFF
Sigma 50-500 EX - My Review posted Mon May 16 2005 04:17:53 by Mikec