Sigma 50-500 for Nikon

Haven't owned a Sigma, or done much with lenses other than those by the camera maker. The old model Nikon 80-400 hasn't really performed the way I had hoped or in the general role I had envisioned. I really don't want to spend what the new model Nikon costs, and am looking at the (now discontinued) Sigma. The very wide range of focal lengths is appealing, though extended it is pretty enormous. Any users with experiences, pro or con? Usage would be largely wildlife, with the opportunity to have a 50mm "Normal" at the low end. Thanks!

Sandy, the second version of the 80-400mm AF-S VR is indeed expensive. Apparently you care about quality, and a 10x 50-500mm zoom is not going to be the best.

 

I would look into the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR. If that is still to expensive, check out those Tamron and Sigma 120-600mm zooms.

I would look into the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR.

Thanks! There is no such thing as a free lunch. I was pretty sure I wouldn't like the compromises required to achieve that range of focal lengths.

I will revisit the 200-500 there is a rental at the only real camera store in town.

Renting on the internet can give you much better prices if you want to use the lens for more than one day. Check the LensRentals page for super telephotos. They have a very good reputation, and my experiences with them were excellent.

Sandy I know the 50-500 is dated but still a good lens but unless your getting a super deal I would look at the newer 150-600 Sigma and/or Tamron lenses. I used a first generation Tamaron 150-600 on the Nikon pD7500 3 weeks ago and was surprised at the build quality and autofocus speed. I own a 600mm vr and a 200-400mm vr both f4 and both quick autofocus. The objective optical reviews of the new generation 150-600 long lens are good and certainly they are easier to schlep. I was happy with the images. Good hunting. Edited October 8, 2017 by 2Oceans

Probably the best current long lens for value is the Nikon 200-500mm VR. If you are looking for something that is decent and cheap, I'll suggest the older Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO (the one that takes 77mm filters, not 72mm.) The lens sells for ~$250 on ebay. Pluses are it is decent--certainly better than the 50-500mm or 80-400mm. The downsides are no VR and it has the older AF (not AFS.)

Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 HSM APO macro - Review / Test Report

 

 

Kent in SD

Thanks, Kent!

when the head of sigma passed leadership to his son, unlike what usually happens, the son put a major emphasis on improving quality. in decades past, they often did not address known design or manufacturing flaws. all that has changed now.

 

from sigma, i have two dx zooms, one long fx zoom, a fx micro and two ART fx primes which i am very happy with. much happier after re-calibrating the focusing which is important at f1.4. fortunately, the lenses that cannot be calibrated did not need to be.

(also, sigma will re-calibrate for free up to 5 years after purchase, $50 after that.)

 

reason for mentioning is that nikon also has had focusing issues, too, but no tool for you to fix it. i have read nightmare stories about nikon doing nothing about rear focusing lenses.

 

sigma and tamron are coming on extremely strong. for that matter, my korean samyang 12mm is quite amazing, too. optics are better in many cases than nikon.

 

i would not buy older sigma lenses and highly recommend most of the newer ones. the models from years in between, it seems to depend on the model and i have no idea were you can get info on them except a trusted camera store. you could check older issues of NPhoto magazine which does excellent lens reviews.

 

for newer lenses, i like these folks: LenScore™ Digital Camera Lens Rating but lately, it has been from time to time.

this seems to be the case. it came out right after i bought the sigma 150-600 sport. :confused:!

Probably the best current long lens for value is the Nikon 200-500mm VR."

My recollection (from some years ago) with the 50-500 "Bigma" (I handled one on my Eos 300D; f/6.3 indoors is very dark through an APS-C pentamirror) is that it's slightly optically inferior to the 150-500 Sigma, unsurprisingly. It is, obviously, enormous as 50mm f/4 lenses go. I find VR/OS very useful on a lens that long, since it helps aiming.

 

The 150-500 was getting on for a paperweight if you wanted more than 400mm out of it - it was respectably sharp (if slow) well below that, but I needed f/11 to get anything usable even on a relatively lenient D700. Amateur Photographer did a comparison against a 500mm prime at one point, and it really wasn't close. The 50-500 is obviously a different lens, but I think I remember comparisons showing it was compromised a little by the flexibility.

 

The -600mm Sigma Sport zoom (less so the "consumer" version) is well-regarded, and the 200-500mm Nikkor is very good (its VR is phenomenal), although possibly better stopped down a little at 500mm. It does teleconvert, although not necessarily all that well.

 

Executive summary: Like the 18-200mm, I think the time for the 50-500 has passed. On a 6MP body, yes. On a 12MP body, maybe. On a 24+MP body, I'd probably leave it alone. For film, I wouldn't like to say.