Sigma telephoto lenses
Jan 31, 2017 13:39:41 #
I'm new here, so please bare with my, maybe stupid question:
I am looking for a telephoto lens in the 500 or 600mm range. The Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary costs almost as much as the Nikkor 200-500mm, which I regard a better lens for my D3300 Nikon. However, I managed to find a new Sigma 150-500mm still brand new (old stock) for almost half the price of the new 150-600mm.
Is the 150-500mm a bargain or is it so much worse than the latest lens that it would not be worthwhile ?
Thank you in advance...
I am looking for a telephoto lens in the 500 or 600mm range. The Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary costs almost as much as the Nikkor 200-500mm, which I regard a better lens for my D3300 Nikon. However, I managed to find a new Sigma 150-500mm still brand new (old stock) for almost half the price of the new 150-600mm.
Is the 150-500mm a bargain or is it so much worse than the latest lens that it would not be worthwhile ?
Thank you in advance...
Jan 31, 2017 13:45:29 #
Shakes69 wrote:
I'm new here, so please bare with my, maybe stupid... (show quote)
First things first. The Nikon is $400 more than the Sigma. I suggest you read some reviews.
Jan 31, 2017 13:57:59 #
What is the difference now , I recall the Nikon was around $12 $1300 when it was first out
and the Sigma around $100 less and the sport a little more
and the Sigma around $100 less and the sport a little more
Jan 31, 2017 14:02:15 #
I have the 150-500 Sigma in Pentax mount. It's not so good past 400 mm. I can make most of them work with a lot of sharpening but I end up with some artifacts. I have the 200-500mm Nikon. It's very good. Adorama has an used one for $1149. I would go for it. http://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%20846995.html
Jan 31, 2017 14:10:21 #
IBM wrote:
What is the difference now , I recall the Nikon was around $12 $1300 when it was first out
and the Sigma around $100 less and the sport a little more
and the Sigma around $100 less and the sport a little more
Im kind of recalling seeing the Nikon for $1700 recently, and thinking boy that went up fast , but about every
Shot I have seen comparing same shot with ,Sigma and nikon , the Nikon had the best colour , the Sigma
Colour had a kind of unreal cartoon look to them , they just were not as good in my opinion, some one else may
Be able to explain that better than me, I can tell which of two same pictures which is which with these two almost
Same zoom capabilities ,
Jan 31, 2017 14:13:49 #
I have a lot of sigma lenses they preform nicely. I do not have this lens but there are many reviews on it. So you should be able to see a lot of information on line. I am including a link you might appreciate about this lens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U8VEwVaqK8
Or just do a web search on the lens. It is a really big and heavy lens and not a pro lens so don't know if the image quality would really meet your expectations. GOOD LUCK. hope this helps you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U8VEwVaqK8
Or just do a web search on the lens. It is a really big and heavy lens and not a pro lens so don't know if the image quality would really meet your expectations. GOOD LUCK. hope this helps you.
Jan 31, 2017 14:27:45 #
Here in SA, one can pick up the Nikon 200-500 for just under R20 000 and the cheapest Sigma 150-600 Contemporary for R14 500, Sport @ R28 000. I suppose the old Sigma 150-500 compares with the Contemporary 150-600, although I can't find any comparison between these two lenses online. Seeing that I can get a new 150-500 still in the box and brand new, just old stock, marked down to R8 000, I was hoping to get a comparison from the forum, maybe someone who uses both? If the 500 is much worse than the 600, I'd rather save a "bit" (R5 500) more and buy the Nikon
Jan 31, 2017 14:36:47 #
I would buy the Nikkor lens. I have friends that shoot with the Sigma lens 500 and 600 and anything past 400mm is soft. I have never seen or tested any Sigma or Tamron lens that is as good as the Nikon or Canon lens. For wildlife I would recommend a prime lens if you can afford it. You will be better off to use a 400mm prime F4 or 300mm Prime F4 with an extender. I am not familiar with Nikon or their lens, but I can assure you that using their lenses is far better that either Sigma or Tamron.
Jan 31, 2017 14:41:09 #
I kinda have the same gut feeling about Sigma/Tamron vs Nikon,but wanted to make sure: R8 000 is way less than R20 000...
Jan 31, 2017 15:08:07 #
I have to agree that the Nikon is the best of the bunch. The cheaper Sigma isn't a bad lens, but there are some compromises. The Sigma Sport version is more expensive because it is a better built lens, more rugged, and weather sealed. If that is important to you, it may be the way to go, even though it costs more than the other two. Still, even though the Nikon 200-500 is more than the cheaper of the Sigmas and is a bit "shorter," it's a stellar lens. Sometime you have to balance cost vs. quality of the product, and sometimes, cheaper ends up costing you more in the long run.
Jan 31, 2017 15:55:21 #
Shakes69 wrote:
Here in SA, one can pick up the Nikon 200-500 for ... (show quote)
What is that In real cash ????
Jan 31, 2017 20:57:09 #
IBM wrote:
What is that In real cash ????
about $1500.00 U.S.
20,000ZAR(South African Rand)=$1,482.865(U.S. Dollars)
Jan 31, 2017 21:13:19 #
Right now the Nikon is U.S. $1396 at B&H and probably everywhere else in the lower 48.
I had a Nikon 500 F4 that I gave to my nephew. I have the Nikon 200-500 and love the fact that it is light enough to be considered a walk around/hand holdable lens. I have other long lenses I wouldn't think of using without a tripod.
I haven't tried the other brands, so I am not saying the Nikon is better. I am saying that I am very happy with it. Oh yeah, the VR is pretty incredible.
--
I had a Nikon 500 F4 that I gave to my nephew. I have the Nikon 200-500 and love the fact that it is light enough to be considered a walk around/hand holdable lens. I have other long lenses I wouldn't think of using without a tripod.
I haven't tried the other brands, so I am not saying the Nikon is better. I am saying that I am very happy with it. Oh yeah, the VR is pretty incredible.
--
Jan 31, 2017 22:52:42 #
Thanks, so far:
alandg46 mentioned his Sigma 150-500 is not so good beyond 400mm - How is the Nikon above 400mm?
IBM said to ?him? the colors were off, with the Sigma - and YES we have "funny money" here...lol
I am convinced: To pay almost half for something that does not do the job properly, is a utter waste! I mean, I'm almost half way to a decent lens (in the Nikon) and if I buy the inferior lens, it will cost me almost 3X (R8000) - I'd rather save up more and then get the Nikon!
Thank you all so much!
alandg46 mentioned his Sigma 150-500 is not so good beyond 400mm - How is the Nikon above 400mm?
IBM said to ?him? the colors were off, with the Sigma - and YES we have "funny money" here...lol
I am convinced: To pay almost half for something that does not do the job properly, is a utter waste! I mean, I'm almost half way to a decent lens (in the Nikon) and if I buy the inferior lens, it will cost me almost 3X (R8000) - I'd rather save up more and then get the Nikon!
Thank you all so much!
Jan 31, 2017 23:11:46 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.