50-500 Sig v 150-500 Sig: Any opinions on 50-500 vs 150-500 Sigmas as far as toting around for a little birding/landscape/action. I am leaning towards the 50-500. Do many of you shoot...

planwhap Loc: michigan/florida

Any opinions on 50-500 vs 150-500 Sigmas as far as toting around for a little birding/landscape/action. I am leaning towards the 50-500. Do many of you shoot it, I've not seen many comments on it. I use a T2i, and have 18-55.55-250,75-300 and a niffty 50, also a Mono and a Tri. As a super novice I would like some input on the 50-500. If I win todays 600m lottery , I will buy a--ah--er-mm ahh-hmmm :thumbup:

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Having used both I stayed with the 150-500mm. The smaller zoom range had less overlap with other lenses I already had, the price saved me $600, and the lens appeared sharper at the 500mm end. Three pluses made for a pretty easy decision, for me anyway.

planwhap Loc: michigan/florida

MT Thank you for the input. I have been leaning towards the 150-500 a lot of it based on your input and examples.The 600 difference is another reason- unless I hit the Lottery.
Thanks again for the response.

zuzanne Loc: Crawfordville, FL

I just got the 150-500 and I love it. You will really want that monopod or tripod as this is a heavy sucker. My first day shooting with it I hand held it, next day my arms ached. I looked at the 50-500 but after reading reviews about it I knew that I would be happier with the 150-500. Plus I have the Canon T3i Camera with the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm lenses that came with it.

zuzanne

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

zuzanne wrote:

I just got the 150-500 and I love it. You will really want that monopod or tripod as this is a heavy sucker. My first day shooting with it I hand held it, next day my arms ached. I looked at the 50-500 but after reading reviews about it I knew that I would be happier with the 150-500. Plus I have the Canon T3i Camera with the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm lenses that came with it.

zuzanne

Zuzanne, IF you had continued to hand hold that Lens, your arms would be so buffed by now that you would not need the pod. Plus, women with buffed/toned arms are really HOT!!
You might consider going back to hand holding that lens.

planwhap Loc: michigan/florida

Zuzane,thanks again for the input, looks like I am going with the 150-500,I am waiting until the lottery is announced tonight before I call and order : ) I am getting excited now, and I will be tortured after I order whatever I order and just waiting for the big brown truck !!

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I have the 50-500mm and I bought the extended capability so I can cover more ground without having to take more glass on the road with me. The 50-500mm is a bit larger and heavier than the 150-500mm and if I had it to do over again I'd take MT Shooter's advice and get the 150-500mm. In fact MT Shooter gave me that advice and I choose not to take it duh. Either way they are both fine lenses.

planwhap Loc: michigan/florida

Pepper, Thank you for your info on the 50-500, I had thought about the range it would cover vs the 150-500 and as you, I too thought about not having to change lens so much and have almost everything covered but I realize I have enough to cover what I need for now until I get to know how to use it all . I do want to be able to crank in some far away scenes. Again, thanks to all for your input.
Who knos, maybe someday I can get both.( and another body :)

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

I used the 50-500 for almost two years; it was an OK lens but suffered at full extent from excessive softness.
Testing the 150-500 the overall impression is of greater sharpness across the range and certainly out toward the 500mm end of the scale.
Sharpness on the 50-500 could be improved by stopping down two stops or so.

bioteacher Loc: Brooklyn, NY

I am also interested in the 150 to 500, but I was wondering if at 500mm will the auto focus work or will I have to use manual focus at the longer lengths. Most cameras need between f/4 and f/5.6 for auto focus to work. At 500mm, it is f/6.3.

Eaglespotter Loc: SW Michigan

I've had a 150 x 500 for a little over a year now. It's my go to lens in the field. I use it on my D90 & D7000. LOVE it. Not 100% @ 150mm or 500 mm. 200mm to 450 is sweat @ f9. Needs lots of light. Take your time. The AF w OS is a tad slower then shorter lens. Don't get me wrong @ 150 and 500 it's OK just sharper at the "sweat spot". I"ll be renting a D600 this coming weekend to try with this lens. For the $ you can't beat it.

Tresed47 Loc: Pennsylvania USA

I have used the 150 - 500 Sig for four years. Great value for money but:
- It is very soft at 500 MM and also when wide open. I try to zoom in to less than 400 - 450 mm and stop the lens down to f/8 or less. The sharpness is then acceptable
- Partly because of my camera body I find the auto focus to be too slow to consistently track birds in flight.
- I use it extensively handheld for birds and even with extension tubes for butterflies and dragonflies (it is actually very sharp for close-up focus)

Canikon Guy Loc: Baltimore, MD

planwhap wrote:

Any opinions on 50-500 vs 150-500 Sigmas as far as toting around for a little birding/landscape/action. I am leaning towards the 50-500. Do many of you shoot it, I've not seen many comments on it. I use a T2i, and have 18-55.55-250,75-300 and a niffty 50, also a Mono and a Tri. As a super novice I would like some input on the 50-500. If I win todays 600m lottery , I will buy a--ah--er-mm ahh-hmmm :thumbup:

You have a Canon T2i, look into the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
It is a better lens than the Sigma, and it will work best with a Canon camera.
The Canon L is faster, better optics, better build quality.
It is sharp from 100 to 400mm at the best aperture setting F/8 - f/11.

Some sample pics.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympic707/8677468926/sizes/o/in/set-72157631521929865/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympic707/8676361377/sizes/o/in/set-72157631521929865/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympic707/8124879587/sizes/o/in/set-72157631857535860/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympic707/7975204735/sizes/o/in/set-72157631508883180/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympic707/7402364748/sizes/o/in/set-72157630181302138/

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

I owned the Sigma 50-500 lens and found it was a bit soft and did not have sharp focus on the far end. If MT shooter says the 150-500 is sharper on the far end, I think that is one endorsement you could take to the bank.

Believe it or not Loc: West Virginia

MT what do you think of the Sigma 120x400mm lens for a Canon T3i????