Sigma 50-500mm new OS version - worth the extra?

<p>The Sigma 50-500mm OS is the updated version of old Bigma. However it is 'much' more expensive than the previous one, $500 as I can see?</p>

<p>I tried to search the information here but most of the discussion is about the old bigma. Now that I want to get a super tele for my D3 for birding, I have to make the decision. Is the new bigma worth the extra? Or should I pick the 150-500 OS instead?</p>

<p>I think in Nikon there is no similar range of lens. 80-400 VR focuses not fast enough and perhaps is going to be replaced by a new version; some prime such as 300mm/F4 is not flexible enough... And some really good Nikon super tele is super expensive which is completely beyond my budget.</p>

<p>Of course any comment is appreciated. Thanks!</p>

<p>This is probably not the answer you want to hear, but if you have money for the D3, I would put better lenses in front of it. Moreover, for bird photography, I prefer a DX body such as the D300/D300S. You are right that Nikon does not make any 10X tele zoom that goes down to max f6.3, Nikon's AF is designed to work with f5.6 or faster lenses.</p>

<p>I have used the older Sigma 50-150mm (Nikon mount) quite a bit, but it is a rather heavy lens and not particularly suited to handheld photography. It will always benefit greatly from the use of a tripod anyway. For that reason, OS seems to me to offer relatively little improvement at a stiff price.</p>

<p>While I've not tried the new 50-500, I tried the old version on a crop sensor camera shortly before upgrading to a D700 (I wanted to retain the range I had with a 70-300 on a crop sensor). I specifically chose the 150-500 OS instead because of the image stabilisation - less because of the need to keep the final image sharp (and, honestly, I've not found the OS system on my 150-500 all that brilliant at letting me extend shutter speed) than because the OS makes it vastly easier to frame the image. The 150-500 is so enormous that I can't imagine using it when I didn't want the range; the 50-500 is worse.</p>

<p>IMO you'd have to be very sure you wanted to toggle between 50 and 500mm instantly for it to be worthwhile, compared with pairing the 150-500 with something less unwieldy (I carry a 28-200, or a some primes, depending on light, and only pull out the bazooka when need it).</p>

<p>FWIW, I'm reasonably happy with the 150-500, but it's no 500 f/4 VR. I've had trouble getting sharp images wide open. Stopped down, it's a cheap way of getting to 500mm, but you get what you pay for compared with the big primes. I'm not aware that the 50-500 is noticably better optically, but I could be wrong (the lack of OS was a killer for me when I was shopping, so I stopped considering it). Besides, 86mm filters are expensive enough without having to dig out a polarizer for the 50-500.</p>

<p>HTH.</p>

<p>I owned the 50-500mm Bigma and sold it after I discovered that my 70-300mm VR images were noticeably better at 300mm (cropped to 500mm equivalent) than the Bigma was at 500mm.</p>

<p>Concerning the focus speed of the 80-400mm - it seems that most that say it is too slow are those that don't use it, have not used it much or do know how to use it properly. While it is certainly not as fast as Nikon's fastest focusing AF-S lenses, on the D3, it focuses adequately for fast paced photography of just about every kind. Please refer to the link below if you have any concerns as to its abilities for birding:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=840110">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=840110</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Concerning the focus speed of the 80-400mm - it seems that most that say it is too slow are those that don't use it, have not used it much or do know how to use it properly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, of course most who say its AF is too slow do not use it. Why would people use equipment that doesn't meet their needs?</p>

<p>I tried the 80-400 at a camera store when it first came out 10 years ago. Its AF was so slow that it reminded me the type of AF I got from my 1988 N8008 when AF was in its infancy. At that time (year 2000) I already had my 500mm/f4 AF-S and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S. I certainly was not interested in taking a major step backward in terms of AF speed.</p>

<p>To me, a 50-500 10x zoom lens is a solution looking for a problem. As Andrew said, unless you can justify the need of having both 50mm and 500mm at the same time and in the same lens, a 150-500 makes a lot more sense.</p>

<p>Thank you for the valuable reply. Yes, FX may be not as good as DX for a tele but I want to use it for now, while my D200 is a bit old and it perhaps gets replaced in the future. :P</p>

<p>So on a pro body such as D3, the AF performance of certain lens can be better? Anyway, 80-400 should be replaced soon I guess according to the rumor... an AF-S version is always expected.</p>

<p>For now, I think I would lean to 150-500mm as you suggested. Thanks!</p>

<p>IMHO a D300 with a 500mm prime would be a much better solution. I use a 500mm f4 P + 1.4TC on my D700 with a Gitzo 1327.</p>

<p>Have a good look at the Tamron 200-500 before you buy the Sigma.<br>

I just bought one after comparing various reviews. You need to accept that it's a 'cheapish' lens (i.e. not a £5000 Nikon prime) but then so is the Bigma. My first excursions with the Tamron suggest it's good enough quality with my D200 for what I want it to do..<br>

Don't forget though it has no stabilisation so need so be used with tripod.</p>

<p>Leon - the AF systems of the D3 and D700 may or may not be faster than the smaller bodies (I've heard the D300 is less responsive, but I've never tried one). I should say that I wouldn't describe the 150-500 as blazing fast at locking focus, but I don't have major complaints either. It's not instant like a 14-24, but then it's got more glass to move farther. I've never tried a 500mm prime, but I'd expect them to be faster - but then I don't do that much sports shooting.</p>

<p>However, I could well believe that an 80-400 would benefit from a D3; the 80-400 is a screw-thread focus lens, which means it's limited by the power of the motor turning the screw. This is why an F5 is scarily fast compared with smaller bodies (8 AA batteries can give a focus motor a lot of power); I would assume the D3 has a motor with similar oomph, being the same form factor and having a similar excess of batteries. My D700 doesn't feel as fast as the F5 with AF lenses, FWIW. With AF-S lenses (including the Sigma 150-500), there only has to be enough power going through the contacts - there's no question of whether the body traded money and weight to give it a motor that was designed to be able to shuffle a 300 f/2.8 around - so the body doesn't matter as much for AF-S lenses.</p>

 

<p>Just to follow Chris's point, Amateur Photographer in the UK did a comparison of the 150-500 Sigma and the 200-500 Tamron a year or two back. They concluded, I believe, that the Sigma was slightly better optically, as befitted a newer design, but also noted that it was appreciably more expensive. You can buy reviews off them if you want to check it out and decide whether it's worthwhile. The extra demands of making a 50-500 might mean it's optically worse, although I've not seen a comparison yet.</p>

<p>For me, the lack of VR/OS would have put me off - as I said, my problem with the old 50-500 was in framing the image accurately. If you're a tripod (or monopod) shooter anyway, that's not a problem, but I've usually been hand-holding. It depends whether you "bird" by wandering around in the woods (like me) or by sitting in a hide, like a pro. That said, I recently upgraded to a tripod that would actually hold the 150-500 properly, partly for astrophotography. It turns out that a Manfrotto Modo can't hold a 150-500 pointing at the sky - a bit of a shame that I discovered that after flying half way around the world with the Carina Nebula on my agenda. That said, it's not in the territory where you need a Sidekick either.</p>

<p>Thank you for all the information, very helpful!</p>

<p>I just realized that there are not many reviews for the new Bigma 50-500 OS version across the network. I dug some of them and the conclusion is quite positive. It is said that the optical performance, new bigma OS is better than 150-500mm OS, and it is more expensive, of course.</p>

<p>Anyway, the 500mm/F4 is beyond my range... so perhaps I have to look at these 'alternative' solution. Hopefully there is a new AF-S 80-400 VR soon!</p>

<p>Glad to help (or possibly misinform), Leon. I've not seen any detailed lens tests; Bob's field review is informative, and didn't blow me away with the lens quality (especially at the 500mm end - I have to presume a lot of people are using these as a cheap 500mm), but it's hard to compare with the 150-500. I'd be interested in a link to other reviews, if the forum rules allow that.</p>

<p>I've decided I'm going to be saving for some big glass at some point, but I might divert via some old big glass (e.g. an original 300 f/2.8 AF or a 400 f/3.5) since I'm not usually AF speed limited. Much as I'd love to get a new 400 f/2.8 (or even an old 300 f/2), I doubt my other half would like the idea. In the meantime, the 150-500 tides me over - and builds up my biceps ready for a big Nikkor.</p>

<p>Of course, if we're talking alternatives, there's always the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. Has it actually been reviewed anywhere yet?</p>

<p>I have no experience with the Bigma, but owned the Sigma 400 5.6 APO with its matching 1.4x convertor. With the D90, I found the result of straight 400 mm stopped down to f8 or even f11 was comparable to my 70-300 at 300 wide open. The IQ with the convertor was simply unacceptable. <br>

Please see two links below on the Sigma 150-500 lens:<br>

<a href="http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm">http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.stockholmviews.com/sigma_150-500_os/sigmapage1.html">http://www.stockholmviews.com/sigma_150-500_os/sigmapage1.html</a><br>

Hope it may be helpful for your decision.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew, so here is a short list I could find using Google, besides the one Bob did here:<br>

*lenstip has a page reviewing this 50-500mm OS. But it was attached on a Canon EOS 50D. http://www.lenstip.com/244.1-Lens_review-Sigma_50-500_mm_f_4.5-6.3_APO_DG_OS_HSM.html<br>

*Carl Rytterfalk's blog has some information on new bigma. http://www.rytterfalk.com/2010/04/13/sigma-50-500-os-first-look/<br>

*My recent find is Jeffrey's blog http://regex.info/blog/2010-04-14/1492 , which I think it is quite good. He posted many pictures of this lens, and the actual pix from the combination (with D700). I think it is a honest review from first(second, thrid) impression to the thoughts after some experience. There is comparison between old version but those sample pictures show us a lot.</p>

<p>I am not going to draw any conclusion, but it seems that it is a quite 'usable' lens with 'not bad' result, at this price range(a bit expensive in fact).</p>

<p>However, on several sites people says they have AF issues with this lens on their D3S or D700. The AF function simply stops working! Some guy changed three lens and I hope he has a good copy now. If QC in Sigma really is this bad, or, a software bug on certain camera bodies, I have to well prepared for that, if I want to take the plunge.</p>

<p>Thanks, Leon.</p>

<p>I'm surprised there are compatibility problems - historically this has happened when Nikon (and Canon) produce new cameras, but I'd hoped it was a thing of the past. Unless things have changed, Sigma don't actually have a mount licence, so their lenses work because they reverse-engineered the protocol - and both Canon and Nikon have been known to make cameras that deliberately work only with their own lenses in the past (I've heard). It may be that the new D700 bios and the D3s have introduced deliberate breakages. Or Sigma may just have screwed up. Either way, I hope they can fix it.</p>

<p>Best of luck with whatever you choose to buy, anyway!</p>

<p>One final thing, in case it's relevant. Some of these reviews include some close-up photos taken with the 50-500 (not strictly macro, but reasonably close). You can't do this with the 150-500 - Sigma quote the close focus distance as 2.2m, and that's at the 150mm end. While showing off the 500mm end to a friend, they couldn't work out why they couldn't focus on a picture on the opposite side of the room - until I pointed out that they needed to be standing in the <em>next</em> room to be able to focus.</p>

<p>Depending on your choice of bird to point the lens at and how much you're willing to crop, this may or may not be a problem. If you wanted to fill the frame with an eagle, the 150-500 is a good lens. If you want to fill the frame with a humming bird, possibly not so much. I may be overstating the problem, though - I've done okay with pigeons, and a little cropping goes a long way with smaller birds, but I'm hardly a professional wildlife photographer and I've not been trying to turn a robin into a double-page spread...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> and both Canon and Nikon have been known to make cameras that deliberately work only with their own lenses in the past (I've heard). It may be that the new D700 bios and the D3s have introduced deliberate breakages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sigma lens compatibility is a (much) bigger problem with Canon SLRs than Nikon. In the 1990's, a friend bought a new Canon Elan body and his Sigma 400mm lens would simply lock up the new SLR. He eventually decided to sell his Sigma lens and bought a Canon equivalent. I have heard of quite a few similar issues with Canon.</p>

<p>Such problems are rare between Sigma lenses and Nikon bodies. The Sigma 30mm/f1.4 was known to casue some problems, but Sigma provided a free lens CPU upgrade to fix the problem. Also some Sigma FX lenses would trigger the auto DX crop on the D3 (and other FX bodies) and some Sigma DX lenses would not trigger the DX crop in the early days. I am sure those problems have been resolved on the newer lenses. Again, Sigma has been willing to fix them for free, but you need to send your Sigma lens back to them for a chip replacement; it is not just some firmware upgrade you can perform at home.</p>

<p>Shun - thank you; I moved from Canon, so I may have had the wrong impression. That said, Nikon have had a physical focus motor for a long time, and (other than the recent tilt/shifts) have a physical aperture lever; Canon have been electronic everything since the move to EF, which probably means there's more to go wrong. Might there be more issues with AF-S equivalent lenses like the Bigmas? Things might get worse if Nikon move to electronic aperture activation for more lenses.</p>

<p>Or the current problem may be coincidence, and Nikon may be less evil than Canon. :-)</p>

<p>Is a Nikon Super Tele beyond your budget? I picked up a second hand Nikon 500 mm f4 P which was very reasonable - looks well used but optically perfect and with my D3 and D700 is a dream, I even use a Kenko Pro 300 1.7 convertor with it and the results are excellent.</p>

<p>Could I ask how much did it cost you? And by the way, is the 500mm f4 P the huge lens? It seems to big to fit in a common bag! (I am always confused by different versions.) Thanks!</p>

<p>So to conclude, I bought a Sigma 150-500mm in the end. Recently Sigma has a quality issue with 50-500 and 150-500 so it is very hard to get on on the market. I think I can wait and have a 150-500 to use to get familiar with these huge lens, so perhaps in the future, I may know the difference between Bigma and 150-500 by myself to decide whether to upgrade or not. And of course, 150-500 is less expensive than Bigma!</p>

<p>Thanks All!</p>