SANParks.org Forums

Just no ways I see fit going through all
these endless threads on photography!

Sorry mods, but need your help!! And
would appreciate comment by formites.

My kit parade is such that I seriously lack
a 500mm lens. Since fixed focal lenses are
better a single zoom would fill the gap for
the moment until better financial rain clouds
come spilling over me!!

Sigma!!!!

Here and there and everywhere I read/hear
promising remarks about these lenses!

Already I own a 55-200 lens. As I mentioned
I need too reach 500!

How does the 175-500 Sigma compare with
50-500 Sigma??

Might have my figures slightly wrong but need
to start looking. Need to focus on something so
to speak.

I have a 50 - 500 Sigma . Very good lens , but man , it's heavy and cumbersome

Thanks Okie, but what to expect???
Say for instance and take all lenses,
intermediate from 50 - 500, need I say
how cumbersome?? There's a price tag
to everything.

I'm not a Sigma man (don't like the bokeh) but from what I read and see the 150-500 is the one to go for. Lighter, faster and way sharper.
The Bigma (50-500) is actually closer to a 70-470 in many samples, slow focusing and depending on the one you get not very sharp.

I have the Sigma 150 - 500mm HSM OS, can't compare to Nikon / Canon prime lenses, but for the bucks it's fast enough, light enough and sharp enough.

I'm not an expert , I take pics for my own pleasure . The Bigma is heavy , and not for taking quick handheld shots . I use all kinds of rests , monopod , tripod , beanbag . Vat maar dooierus wanneer ek kan . And I try to learn by using different things all the time , but it goes rather slow at my age .

Hah, I like the Bigma bit. So ironical!!!
One big bag full o' little bits...

Fact remains,.!!!! that bag needs to be
full 'o surprises!!??




MMMMhhh my focus gets sharper!!!

Its not the focus HE . Its holding that heavy weight steady for a long period of time . Reminds me of my army days way back when . Marching around all bl...y day , holding your rifle out at arms length Can tear your shoulders out of their sockets

Just think okie, made a good photographer
of you, those days did!!! At least you did learn
how to aim in the right direction!!!

Hey , I was a good shot too
And not bad today either

DQ and I obviously do not read the same sources.

By far the majority of reviews and tests conclude that of Sigma’s 500mm zooms the 170-500 is generally considered the worst, with the 150-500 next in the quality stakes and the 50-500 generally considered to be the best. That said there is not a major difference in either the quality or the weight of the 150-500 and the 50-500. The big benefit of the Bigma is its versatility as a wildlife lens.

Having personally only shot with the previous Bigma which did not have image stabilization I found that I could get great shots as long as I had proper support or fast enough shutter speeds. All the Sigmas provide less than 500mm focal length at max zoom when focusing on an object closer than infinity. I have however substituted my Bigma for Canon 100-400 and overall I find this a much easier lens to use.

From personal experience, stay away from the 170 - 500 Sigma. I have owned and used this lens for many years, as well as a 70 - 300 Sigma on the lower zoom scale (both non IS). I recently replaced the 70-300 with a Nikon 70-300VR and am never likely to use the 170 -500, nor Sigma brand again. While both lenses gave me many great memories, neither gave me great pictures, which I only realised after I had "upgraded" to Nikon glass.

My experience is that the difference in picture quality between the two is tantamount to the difference between looking through Zeiss binoculars and the bottom of a coke bottle .....well, maybe not quite as bad

While I have seen many great pictures taken with various Sigma zooms all over this site, and many are better than great, my personal confidence in the brand was severly knocked when I finally realised the great pictures I had missed over the years, purely because of a poor quality (or maybe just a bad example) lens acquired several years ago.

My confidence in my pictures (focus, colour and clarity, not necessarily framing) has returned as the improvement in the quality of the pictures with the Nikon-branded lenses is almost incomparable.... Heaven only knows why it took so long for me to realise WHERE the source of the problem lay (the bank manager could have helped earlier, but he, also, had no idea of the extent of the problem )....

aha... at least I still have the memories, even if most of the pictures from those times were lousy

Now he does..... Like mine.
I went the Canon way, same difference. But I am glad I went the more expensive way. It pays off in quality, in keepers, and in enjoyment due to fast focus and such.

My advice? Save up for really good glass. (Says he, while dreaming still of the Canon 500mm... *sigh*)

for serious birders, try the lens below:



Then when your bank manager says "no" to the $2million + loan needed, you have a better chance of a loan for some of the others on the list below .... or do you?

http://regality.hubpages.com/hub/10-Most-Expensive-Camera-Lense

Big difference between the old 170 - 500mm and the newer / better 150 - 500mm HSM OS Sigma.