Sigma 50-500 OS HSM APO - the perfect SuperZoom, or no? It's been around a while. I was offered one used, for not a whole lotta money, a while back, and turned it down, in the wake of...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

It's been around a while. I was offered one used, for not a whole lotta money, a while back, and turned it down, in the wake of a bad review. But, since, I've read some comparisons seeming to make it one of the best bangs for the buck - of ALL glass. Have I missed out on a great opportunity, or did I do the right thing?

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

I had one awhile back, took some great shots with it but it was just to long and heavy. I would only reccomend it for tripod use only.

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

I had one awhile back, took some great shots with it but it was just to long and heavy. I would only reccomend it for tripod use only.

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

Sorry about that double hit. What was the price, I paid about $2000, when it first came out.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

patman1 wrote:

Sorry about that double hit. What was the price, I paid about $2000, when it first came out.

That's okay, Pat … I see that a lot … never been able to do it, myself, though …

Well, this was used … not sure about the condition … but it was $695 … a few years, ago, now …

I know it's long and heavy … but, that's a helluva range - wouldn't you say?

Not sure about the Closest Focus - but being able to go from 50 to 500 and back again, in an instant - wow! I'd say it would be perfect for BIF - if you're into that sorta thing, eh, Pat?

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

At the time I had just purchased a new Kodak Dcs Pro14n I used it with. Heavy camera and heavy lens. Got some great zoo shots with it as well as some sporting evnts. At $695 would have been a good purchase.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

patman1 wrote:

At the time I had just purchased a new Kodak Dcs Pro14n I used it with. Heavy camera and heavy lens. Got some great zoo shots with it as well as some sporting evnts. At $695 would have been a good purchase.

I know, now … been kicking myself ever since, Pat …

Now, I'm considering a 500mm Mirror Lens, and a used 150-600 … one's cheap, the other's a better range.

There's also that Nikon 200-500 … competitive range, but not a competitive price ….

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Chris T wrote:

It's been around a while. I was offered one used, for not a whole lotta money, a while back, and turned it down, in the wake of a bad review. But, since, I've read some comparisons seeming to make it one of the best bangs for the buck - of ALL glass. Have I missed out on a great opportunity, or did I do the right thing?

I have this same "Bigma) zoom lens, but only a few year using, it broke down with motor failed. May be I got a bad apple, but it has lots of glass in it and it take a great deal of effort for the motor to move those group of heavy glasses. You know they will break down sooner or later. I prefer long prime than long zoom because of this reason!
For your cast, if it is new one, then you can try you luck, but if it's used one, think again! Good Luck!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wingclui44 wrote:

I have this same "Bigma) zoom lens, but only a few year using, it broke down with motor failed. May be I got a bad apple, but it has lots of glass in it and it take a great deal of effort for the motor to move those group of heavy glasses. You know they will break down sooner or later. I prefer long prime than long zoom because of this reason!
For your cast, if it is new one, then you can try you luck, but if it's used one, think again! Good Luck!

Oh, I see, Wing … yes, that's something I'd not really considered, but, I suppose you're right.

Did you send it back to Sigma, for repair, or no?

Well, the one for $695 is - undoubtedly - long gone, now …

But, a recent comparison of long zooms - put the 50-500 quite high up, quality-wise …

Which is what got me to thinking about it, again … so, I decided to post this, to see others' experiences.

Thanks for your input …

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Chris T wrote:

Oh, I see, Wing … yes, that's something I'd not re... (show quote)

I didn't do any thing after that, I did converted it as a telescope. After that I replaced it with a Nikon 300mm f4 AFs-D IF ED prime with a 1.4X tele converter. I won't consider any kind of long zoom any more even the new Nikon 200-500mm zoom.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wingclui44 wrote:

I didn't do any thing after that, I did converted it as a telescope. After that I replaced it with a Nikon 300mm f4 AFs-D IF ED prime with a 1.4X tele converter. I won't consider any kind of long zoom any more even the new Nikon 200-500mm zoom.

So, how is it faring as a telescope, now, then, Wing?

420mm - however - is NOT 500mm!!!

Actually, now, I look at that, reminds me of the review of the Tamron 18-400, where he says it's only 360!

What about one of those 150-600s? ... Helluva lot cheaper than a Nikon 200-500 - no?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Chris T wrote:

It's been around a while. I was offered one used, for not a whole lotta money, a while back, and turned it down, in the wake of a bad review. But, since, I've read some comparisons seeming to make it one of the best bangs for the buck - of ALL glass. Have I missed out on a great opportunity, or did I do the right thing?

I had one a long time ago, it was just a piece of crap, so I got rid of it!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

speters wrote:

I had one a long time ago, it was just a piece of crap, so I got rid of it!

Oh, okay, S … perhaps, you got a lemon?

If it was such a terrible lens, wonder why it got included in a list of the best tele-zooms ….

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Chris T wrote:

So, how is it faring as a telescope, now, then, Wing?

420mm - however - is NOT 500mm!!!

Actually, now, I look at that, reminds me of the review of the Tamron 18-400, where he says it's only 360!

What about one of those 150-600s? ... Helluva lot cheaper than a Nikon 200-500 - no?

420mm is not much different to 500mm. that is still Nikon quality!
The 18-400mm is a DX lens and the 150-600mm & 200-500mm are FX lenses. but don't forget what I said, they are still too much moving glasses in the lens for the motor to drive. I don't even think about Tamron.
You got what you paid for!

Here's my "Bigma" telescope.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wingclui44 wrote:

420mm is not much different to 500mm. that is still Nikon quality!
The 18-400mm is a DX lens and the 150-600mm & 200-500mm are FX lenses. but don't forget what I said, they are still too much moving glasses in the lens for the motor to drive. I don't even think about Tamron.
You got what you paid for!

Here's my "Bigma" telescope.

Wing - just read the Ken Rockwell review on the Nikkor 200-500 - which seems to imply it works just as well on DX DSLRs as it does on FX … just as well, as I don't have the latter. But, I do see it's the same price as both the Tammy and Siggy 150-600s … so, it doesn't make a whole lotta sense to consider the others anymore - UNLESS one needs the extra 50mm on the short end, and who can't make use of an extra 100mm on the long end? …

Your telescope looks extremely professional, Wing - did you do it, yourself, or did you have it done?