Sigma 50-500 or 150-500

Considering either lens although I don`t actually have a need for the 50mm end of things as I would use another body with a shorter lens. However, how does IQ compare with both of these? I would welcome some thoughts please.

Thanks Cedric

I have the 150-500mm and I'm well pleased with it.

Others who have had the opportunity to try both lenses say that the IQ of the 50-500mm is better.

The 50-500mm lens is obviously much larger and heavier than the 150-500mm lens.

I've recently got the 150-500 which has been performing rather well on it's initial trials. If your not likely to use the shorter focal lengths, I think this would be the better option for you. It's lighter & Cheaper, and physics suggests the optics should be easier to produce in a well corrected form. (Longer focal ranges are more complicated to correct)
IQ from the images I've seen in galleries seems to be good for both.

BTW as my initials are MAK I'd like to know where the K10 has got to. I didn't know I'd inherited anything.

Hi Mike

Sorry another MAK (Daughter) and she doesn't have a beard.The 150-500 is heavy enough especially trekking to sites.

With your pseudonym I hope you are not tied up with the bad goings on at Coryton.

thanks

Cedric

I have the older non OS version of the 50-500mm and after a days use I am always surprised by how often I use 50mm.

I thought perhaps there must be another MAK (though my beard went years ago). I'm sure your daughter will make better use of it than I would, the K10 doesn't offer any advantages over my K7 that I'm aware off.

Agreed the Bigmos is heavy, having only used mine handheld so far, it's rapidly become noticeable waiting for a gold finch to take wing - naturally he kept me waiting for over 5 minutes keeping to a single (much photographed) pose, then left whilst I was taking a rest - but the Bigma is heavier still...

No not involved at Croyton (thank heavens!) I'm at the other end of the county in a refinery too small to show on any of the news reports of dwindling refineries.

Ditto.

I don't find it that heavy to carry either. Admittedly I don't sit for ages waiting for a bird shot, but I really am quite comfortable with it.

Wonder how much the Royal Enfield is worth? The argument seems to be heading in the direction of the 50-500.

Mike next time at your refinery (end of the month) I will look out for someone without a beard.

Actually managed to use mine on Saturday when we had a 2 hour window of sunshine.

500mm



Kitesurfer at Mudeford Quay by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

50mm



Mudeford Quay by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

If your visiting Harwich give me a PM & I'll try to have the bigmos available to play with. But I'll be out on the 22nd & 25th as I'm working the weekend at the Croft BTCC race.

I had the 150-500 and really loved it, but ALWAYS had to take wider lenses 16-50 + 50-135 with me and the 150-500 is a Big and Heavy lens to keep Lens changing with. So I sold it and bought the Bigma (not really much bigger or heavier and just as good IQ), I can now if I want go out with just the one lens and get "almost" all the shots I want.I bought a BushHawk shoulderpod which is great and makes carrying and holding the camera/lens steady much easier.

Thanks everyone, Mike P, there`s nothing wrong with those pix.

MAK I will try and remember to drop you a PM later in the month.

Im a 150 500 shooter and have also used the 50 500 as well. I didnt detect any difference especially at the long end.

Please look at my photos on Flickr - I've even done macro with it!

Some very nice work there Alistair, thank you.