Sigma AF 50-500mm?

<p>Thinking of grabbing this Sigma AF 50-500mm for surfing in Mexico. It'll be used on FX and DX bodies. Thoughts, or alternatives? Any problems/issue with 1.4 or 2x tele's on the Nikon 70-300 on FX and DX? It'll be my first non-Nikkor and I haven't really kept up on the reviews of third party glass. Thanks.</p>

 

<p>No Nikon TC will work with the 70-300VR, and reported results with Kenko TC are poor.</p>

<p>Thanks Charles. How about tele's on the Nikon 80-400?</p>

<p>There have recently been a slew of threads regarding the "BIGMA" 50-500mm. My alternative recommendation for anyone considering this lens is the Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC on it.</p>

<p>You can pick up a used 300mm f/4 for around $1000 and the 1.4x TC is about $500. Much better IQ than the "BIGMA", but you lack the ability to zoom.<br /> RS</p>

<p>Hi there, Have both Bigma and a Nikkor 300 f4, had a Nikkor 80-400 as well but kept the Bigma which IMHO is superior. Used a Kenko Pro 1.4TC on all three, fine with the 300, focus hunt with the Bigma on occasions - terrible focus hunt with the 80-400 which contributed to my getting rid of it. Used all three on my D3, D700 and previous D300 and 200 - I found the different bodies made no difference to the usage characteristics with the TC. I use the Bigma ONLY in bright conditions. </p>

<p>IMHO you are better off not using a TC on any lens with max of f5.6, focus and quality issues. I am looking at a af-s 300mm f4 + tc as I can no longer manual focus a 500mm f4 p very well.</p>

<p>I wouldn't use a 500mm, f6.3 lens to shoort sports. It may be ok if you have a still subject, such as a bird sitting on a tree.</p>

<p>My experience with the Bigma is the total opposite of Andrew's. I found IQ to be fair at best at 500mm for the Bigma and IQ of the 70-300mm VR superior at 300mm (when upsized to 500mm equivalent). If you are serious about IQ, stay away from teleconverters.</p>

<p>Your best bet for an affordable long lens option aside from Richard's suggestion is the 80-400mm which (I don't know which is better), when used with the focus limit switch on, is excellent for surfing (that is about all I use mine for). It delivers colorful, contrasty, sharp images at a very affordable price (under $1000 used). </p>

<p><em>There have recently been a slew of threads regarding the "BIGMA" 50-500mm. My alternative recommendation for anyone considering this lens is the Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC on it.</em></p>

<p>Thanks Richard, I searched and they were old posts. But I found Elliots gallery. I have the 300's and wish for a zoom.</p>

<p>Andrew, I'm hearing of people getting good and bad copies of oth the 50-500 and the 80-400. Dealers luck.</p>

<p>Thanks Elliot, Richard. The gut is saying 80-400 as well.</p>

<p><em>I wouldn't use a 500mm, f6.3 lens to shoort sports. It may be ok if you have a still subject, such as a bird sitting on a tree.</em></p>

<p>I don't understand this without taking the time for explaining. Surfing in sun is different than badminton in a gym.</p>

<p>A slow long lens is difficult to focus. f6.3 is difficult to focus and AF will be slow. That is problem for shooting sports.</p>

<p>I guess I'm silly for assuming it will have the snap and behave like a 300/2.8 eh?</p>

<p>Garrison - </p>

<p>It will definitely not have the snap and "instant focus" of the 300mm f/2.8. It will be more like the 80-400mm...but will hunt more because of the slow f/6.3 aperture at 500mm.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>thanks Richard, sorry but i was being sarcastic. cheers</p>

 

<p>The Nikon teleconverters need AF-S (there's no Nikon teleconverter with a pass-through for an autofocus screw). The 80-400 therefore won't teleconvert (except with a Kenko converter that <i>does</i> have a screw) - and it'd probably be too slow for reliable autofocus anyway. I've also heard that its autofocus speed isn't the best.<br />

<br />

I've not been entirely satisfied with my 150-500 Sigma, at the long end, but I admit that it's convenient. Others seem to have had better experiences. I've heard that the new 50-500 might be slightly better (the pre-OS one was worse), but I wouldn't expect miracles. With the 50-500 you're paying a lot to have the world's most unwieldy slow 50-150mm lens on the camera - and bear in mind the cost of huge filters.<br />

<br />

In your position, unless I could afford a big telephoto (a Sigma 500 f/4.5 or used 500 f/4 AF-S is the budget choice, a 500 f/4 VR or 200-400 f/4 is ideal) I'd probably find the Sigma to be the best option - stopped down to f/11 - but I wouldn't expect miracles at the long end. If you can live with 400mm without teleconverting it, the Nikkor 80-400 has consistently good reviews.<br />

<br />

I'd not buy until shortly before you go, because there are rumours that Nikon will be replacing the 80-400 with an AF-S version - but then, there have been rumours of that for some time, and events at Sendai might have thrown the release schedule even if it was coming.<br />

<br />

Good luck. I'll look forward to seeing your images!</p>

<p>If you can live with 400mm without teleconverting it, the Sigma 120-400 might also be an option at half the price of the Nikkor 80-400 , this one does focus much faster than the Bigma and also does'n deliver half bad images either....<br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks Andrew and CPM. It's a bit of dilemma. I keep going back to the 200-400 since it was released but it's just too much $ for how little I'd use it. Maybe I'll just forget the zoom idea and carry on primes and a tele. Cheers.</p>