Sigma Long Lenses
Posted 11/02/2012 - 05:48
Link
fritzthedog wrote:
Actually I have the 120-400 and it is as sharp as a tack. An extremely good lens and I have read comparisons that claim it is the sharpest of the 3. I have not owned the 50-500 so have no personal comment to make but I have owned the older version of the 150-500 and have to say that came nowhere near the standard of the 120-400 but the newer version is supposed to be improved..
As for prices telling you all you need to know - if you take SRS as an example - one of our favorite suppliers - the 150-500 is £599 and the 120-400 is £689 - the 120-400 is often more expensive than the 150-500.
Carl
Hi Carl.Actually I have the 120-400 and it is as sharp as a tack. An extremely good lens and I have read comparisons that claim it is the sharpest of the 3. I have not owned the 50-500 so have no personal comment to make but I have owned the older version of the 150-500 and have to say that came nowhere near the standard of the 120-400 but the newer version is supposed to be improved..
As for prices telling you all you need to know - if you take SRS as an example - one of our favorite suppliers - the 150-500 is £599 and the 120-400 is £689 - the 120-400 is often more expensive than the 150-500.
Carl
I think the empirical evidence is out there. I am on a few birding forums as well as other photographic forums and the comments always seem to be the same. It's not that the 120-400 is not capable of sharp shots - it clearly is - but the 150-500 and more so the 50-500 edge it and perform under more varied conditions. Of course hitting that sweet spot in the range is always going to help !
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Posted 11/02/2012 - 21:03
Link
Bizarrely, given my previous comments in this thread, I took the Sigma 150-500mm for a walk this morning and it briefly displayed some of the non-contact symptoms hitherto exhibited by the 100-300mm. Only briefly, mind, and most of the shots were OK. I then took the 100-300mm for a stroll and it was generally reliable. Samples below...
[IMG]http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp41/simonarron/Simon%20Arron%20-%20wildlife/fox7.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp41/simonarron/Simon%20Arron%20-%20wildlife/mandarin1-3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp41/simonarron/Simon%20Arron%20-%20wildlife/fox7.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp41/simonarron/Simon%20Arron%20-%20wildlife/mandarin1-3.jpg[/IMG]
Posted 18/02/2012 - 15:01
Link
At the risk of hijacking the OP's thread, would any of these long sigmas be suitable for sports. After a lot of deliberation, about a year ago, I got a sigma 50-150 F2.8 for my kids sport (swimming and football). It's OK for the swimming, but I find it a bit short for outdoor.
I'm quite keen on the Pentax 60-250, but worry that the autofocus would be too slow. Also interested in any of the above sigma's (especially at the current prices), definitely long enough, but would they be fast enough for sport, including swimming?
any thoughts appreciated
I'm quite keen on the Pentax 60-250, but worry that the autofocus would be too slow. Also interested in any of the above sigma's (especially at the current prices), definitely long enough, but would they be fast enough for sport, including swimming?
any thoughts appreciated
Posted 19/02/2012 - 07:10
Link
Michael, at the risk of being an accessory to hijack, the Sigmas work perfectly well with aeroplanes and racing cars etc (see sample images on the first page of this thread). I guess it depends how quickly your kids run or swim!
The 150-500 is only f5-6.3, so you might be better sticking with the 50-150 f2.8 for indoor use, if the light is tricky. I haven't tried a 60-250 f4, but have seen them used at motorsport events.
The 150-500 is only f5-6.3, so you might be better sticking with the 50-150 f2.8 for indoor use, if the light is tricky. I haven't tried a 60-250 f4, but have seen them used at motorsport events.
Posted 19/02/2012 - 08:59
Link
Hi Michael, my 60-250 is rather slow in the autofocus department as is my 50-135.
They do however take fantastic pictures, for motorsports it would be a case of pre focusing on a partuicular spot / corner until the car came into shot. Although I have not used them for action shots as I prefer my sigmas.
I would find both of them hard work for football, if you wanted to extend your range from the excellent Sigma 50-150 then there is either the Sigma 70-200 or one of the longer sigmas, and at the SRS price the 150-500 is an excellent buy. Simons pictures with the 150-500 are excellent.
I don't have the Pentax DA*200 or DA*300 which I believe are a bit faster to focus but may restrict you too much, unless you had 2 cameras and had your 50-150 on one.
Regards
George
They do however take fantastic pictures, for motorsports it would be a case of pre focusing on a partuicular spot / corner until the car came into shot. Although I have not used them for action shots as I prefer my sigmas.
I would find both of them hard work for football, if you wanted to extend your range from the excellent Sigma 50-150 then there is either the Sigma 70-200 or one of the longer sigmas, and at the SRS price the 150-500 is an excellent buy. Simons pictures with the 150-500 are excellent.
I don't have the Pentax DA*200 or DA*300 which I believe are a bit faster to focus but may restrict you too much, unless you had 2 cameras and had your 50-150 on one.
Regards
George
Posted 19/02/2012 - 10:04
Link
I had very limited money to spend on a long lens so had to be realistic as to what I could afford. So after much deliberation I recently bought a Sigma 150-500 AF/OS. I tried one on an non Pentax camera in poor light and was not too disappointed with the results, so when the price dropped from £850 to £600 I took the plunge.
On the Plus side-----
Excellent value for money
AF can be very fast and quiet
Given right conditions results can be stunning
Perfect for my needs and wildlife shots
On the Minus side----
In poor light results dissapointing
Rather heavy
Not Weather/dust proof (No problems yet but kept it dry so far)
AF can be slow or non existent with poor light or certain subjects.
Regards David
On the Plus side-----
Excellent value for money
AF can be very fast and quiet
Given right conditions results can be stunning
Perfect for my needs and wildlife shots
On the Minus side----
In poor light results dissapointing
Rather heavy
Not Weather/dust proof (No problems yet but kept it dry so far)
AF can be slow or non existent with poor light or certain subjects.
Regards David
Posted 19/02/2012 - 15:01
Link
carmagw wrote:
Hi Michael, my 60-250 is rather slow in the autofocus department as is my 50-135.
They do however take fantastic pictures, for motorsports it would be a case of pre focusing on a partuicular spot / corner until the car came into shot. Although I have not used them for action shots as I prefer my sigmas.
I would find both of them hard work for football, if you wanted to extend your range from the excellent Sigma 50-150 then there is either the Sigma 70-200 or one of the longer sigmas, and at the SRS price the 150-500 is an excellent buy. Simons pictures with the 150-500 are excellent.
I don't have the Pentax DA*200 or DA*300 which I believe are a bit faster to focus but may restrict you too much, unless you had 2 cameras and had your 50-150 on one.
Regards
George
That is how I shoot sports, 50-150 on one camera and DA*300 on the other. You don't need a really quick focusing lens for most sports, and I've no doubt the 60-250 or maybe even the 50-135, would work just fine if it is relatively minor AF adjustments that are required .. most sports don't need the lens to be focusing lock to lock at the speed of light !
Hi Michael, my 60-250 is rather slow in the autofocus department as is my 50-135.
They do however take fantastic pictures, for motorsports it would be a case of pre focusing on a partuicular spot / corner until the car came into shot. Although I have not used them for action shots as I prefer my sigmas.
I would find both of them hard work for football, if you wanted to extend your range from the excellent Sigma 50-150 then there is either the Sigma 70-200 or one of the longer sigmas, and at the SRS price the 150-500 is an excellent buy. Simons pictures with the 150-500 are excellent.
I don't have the Pentax DA*200 or DA*300 which I believe are a bit faster to focus but may restrict you too much, unless you had 2 cameras and had your 50-150 on one.
Regards
George
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
633 posts
16 years
Beckenham,
Kent