Sigma 150-500??

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Anyone have any experience with this lens? It has OS and HSM, and I'm impressed with shots I've seen from it so far... Thinking about getting it for whale watching next year...
Thanks!

 

[ukcatfan]

I hope you have a good strong back.

 

[AndrewWG]

Does seem to be a beast of a lens. I may rent it before buying it someday. A bit slow too but for outdoor whale watching it should be good. If you get it, be sure to post pics to show it off.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

It is a pretty heavy lens for me and definitely not one you want to go walking around WDW with! I'd probably have to mount it on a monopod just so I don't have to start weightlifting to be able to handle it! I'm trying to find something that is better than my 70-300VR, with a little bit further reach. I just can't get in quite close enough w/ the 70-300. Zoomed all the way out the shots are soft or sometimes OOF, especially on a moving boat. (The VR has come in very handy for me however, especially when I'm on a boat, but also because of my shaky hands.) I have a friend that has a Canon zoom that goes out to 400mm and his shots are so crisp and clean you can see the water droplets coming of the whale. He paid around $1300 for his lens. I don't think Nikon has an equivalent zoom lens in that kind of price range. The best I could find would be the 70-200VR + 2x teleconverter and that would cost more than twice what the Sigma would cost.
I was originally looking at the Sigma 50-500; that one seems to have decent reviews too. Another Canon shooting friend has one of those and he likes it. Unfortunately, there's no OS, and I feel I need that due to the shaky hands.

 

[Gdad]

Nikon has an 80-400vr but it is painfully slow focus and in bad need of a modern af-s upgrade. I tried it but switched to a 300/4 af-s prime (used with and without a 1.7x TC) for my birding and like it much better- no vr but I do not find that a big deal. That setup will run in the $1300 range used- a few hundred more new.

I would avoid the 2x TC for any of them- 1.4 and 1.7 seem to have much better results especially with zooms.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Nikon has an 80-400vr but it is painfully slow focus and in bad need of a modern af-s upgrade. I tried it but switched to a 300/4 af-s prime (used with and without a 1.7x TC) for my birding and like it much better- no vr but I do not find that a big deal. That setup will run in the $1300 range used- a few hundred more new.

I would avoid the 2x TC for any of them- 1.4 and 1.7 seem to have much better results especially with zooms.

Thanks Gdad. I was kind of looking for a zoom type lens though because on a boat I can't back up or move around very much for whale watching. I saw your photos from the 300/f4 and WOW! They are very nice! I just don't know if I would be bummed out because I couldn't zoom with it if needed. (Sometimes dolphins come and swim alongside the boat too) I'm not the one piloting the boat either so it's not like I can tell them to back up a little so I can get a better shot. They would laugh me off the boat!
Thanks!

 

[zackiedawg]

If you end up deciding you can live without the stabilization, another lens that might be worthy of consideration is the Tamron 200-500. It's smaller and lighter than the 50-500, hand-holdable but definitely not a casual walkaround lens. It's capable of razor-sharp results, and will operate well in decent light. Focus has been fast and accurate with my Alpha body, and the lens is surprisingly sharp even at full 500mm and wide open. It's my primary birding/wildlife lens, and I walk miles every weekend with it. The good thing is that it's quite a bit cheaper than other lenses with similar range - usually running in the $850 range new. I've got lots of samples in my galleries with it...this entire gallery was shot with this lens exclusively:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/a300wakodahatchee

Downsides? Though lighter and smaller than some similar competitors, it's still a fairly big lens, so it isn't going to be a Disney walk-around style lens. Use it for wildlife, whale watching, birding, etc, and it's in its element. Also, it doesn't have any stabilization...don't know how important that is - some seem to cope just fine without it - and in good light, I don't see it being too problematic. But in lower light, or unsteady hands, it might not fare as well. My Alpha body has in-camera stabilization, so I might be reaping some benefit from that, making it hard for me to say for sure if you need it.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

If you end up deciding you can live without the stabilization, another lens that might be worthy of consideration is the Tamron 200-500. It's smaller and lighter than the 50-500, hand-holdable but definitely not a casual walkaround lens. It's capable of razor-sharp results, and will operate well in decent light. Focus has been fast and accurate with my Alpha body, and the lens is surprisingly sharp even at full 500mm and wide open. It's my primary birding/wildlife lens, and I walk miles every weekend with it. The good thing is that it's quite a bit cheaper than other lenses with similar range - usually running in the $850 range new. I've got lots of samples in my galleries with it...this entire gallery was shot with this lens exclusively:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/a300wakodahatchee

Downsides? Though lighter and smaller than some similar competitors, it's still a fairly big lens, so it isn't going to be a Disney walk-around style lens. Use it for wildlife, whale watching, birding, etc, and it's in its element. Also, it doesn't have any stabilization...don't know how important that is - some seem to cope just fine without it - and in good light, I don't see it being too problematic. But in lower light, or unsteady hands, it might not fare as well. My Alpha body has in-camera stabilization, so I might be reaping some benefit from that, making it hard for me to say for sure if you need it.

Wow those pictures beautiful! I'll definitely look into this lens. I wonder how much the stabilization isn't needed for you because the Sony has in body stabilization. I need to look into it further. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Justin, does the Sony have in body stabilization? Do you think this makes a difference in the overall clarity of your photos, especially when shooting zoomed all the way out? I'm interested in this lens, but concerned about the lack of VR. Another friend who is a Nikon shooter has a 70-300 w/out VR and his photos never come out on the boat. (Too much motion blur.) The VR has saved me many times.

 

[zackiedawg]

I do think it helps - and yes, the Sony bodies all have in-body stabilization. In tests, it appears a hair less effective than the good in-lens systems, but not by much...and it has the inherent advantage of making all lenses essentially 'VR'...even low light primes and cheaper zooms.

As for how much it helps with the 200-500, hard to say. I would imagine there are definitely some shots that were helped by it, when shooting at 500mm. But in good daylight, and shooting with a tripod as a base, I think you are usually shooting fast enough shutters for it not to matter. Many of my wildlife and bird shots are at 1/500 or faster shutters, so even moderate movement would be frozen even without stabilization.

I know a few folks who shoot with the 200-500 on Canon bodies (which means they're not stabilized) and they had very good things to say about the lens too...so they must be getting decent results from it. I think light is going to be your biggest factor...if it's grey or cloudy, and you're pushing shutter speeds under 1/200, then at 500mm and handheld, you might start having problems with blur if you don't have a super steady hand. But in any normal daylight, I wouldn't think it would be a problem keeping shutter speeds up to 1/500 or better at ISOs 400 and under.

 

[handicap18]

Any lens that goes over or up to 400mm in a zoom is pretty much going to be BIG. Even if has VR/OS/IS you'll want a monopod just to be able to carry it around.

I recently picked up a Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 used for less than $200. It's gotten some very good reviews, but it is an old lens (released in the early/mid 90's IIRC) and is a push/pull zoom.

I haven't had much time to play with it, but it seems nice so far. I should be get some use out of it this week at a baseball game.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I do think it helps - and yes, the Sony bodies all have in-body stabilization. In tests, it appears a hair less effective than the good in-lens systems, but not by much...and it has the inherent advantage of making all lenses essentially 'VR'...even low light primes and cheaper zooms.

As for how much it helps with the 200-500, hard to say. I would imagine there are definitely some shots that were helped by it, when shooting at 500mm. But in good daylight, and shooting with a tripod as a base, I think you are usually shooting fast enough shutters for it not to matter. Many of my wildlife and bird shots are at 1/500 or faster shutters, so even moderate movement would be frozen even without stabilization.

I know a few folks who shoot with the 200-500 on Canon bodies (which means they're not stabilized) and they had very good things to say about the lens too...so they must be getting decent results from it. I think light is going to be your biggest factor...if it's grey or cloudy, and you're pushing shutter speeds under 1/200, then at 500mm and handheld, you might start having problems with blur if you don't have a super steady hand. But in any normal daylight, I wouldn't think it would be a problem keeping shutter speeds up to 1/500 or better at ISOs 400 and under.

Thanks Justin!

Any lens that goes over or up to 400mm in a zoom is pretty much going to be BIG. Even if has VR/OS/IS you'll want a monopod just to be able to carry it around.

I recently picked up a Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 used for less than $200. It's gotten some very good reviews, but it is an old lens (released in the early/mid 90's IIRC) and is a push/pull zoom.

I haven't had much time to play with it, but it seems nice so far. I should be get some use out of it this week at a baseball game.

Oooh, can you post some photos up if you get a chance? I'd appreciate seeing some photos.
I would love to get a lens with bigger zoom like this, but in addition to the cost, vr/non-vr issue, I'm concerned about the size too. I figured I would have to use a tripod or monopod. Would be nice to be able to handhold though... If I were to get something like this, the primary use would be on a boat, so I'm thinking the VR would be essential. I've looked over a lot of my whale photos and quite a few were taken on overcast/cloudy days so not sure what kind of shutter speed I could get on days like that or if it would be high enough to eliminate the movement.

 

[zackiedawg]

I think overcast but bright would still be OK...overcast and dark...not so much. Were these the types of overcast days where you still needed sunglasses to cut the glare, or where the skies blow out white most of the time when shooting? If so, you'll probably still be OK with these big lenses, which are typically in the F6.3-F8 aperture area wide open at full zoom. Of course, you can go to ISO400-800 to get a few more stops, without any serious noise impact on most DSLRs (usually 1600 and up is where it starts to get noticeable).

For an idea of size...here's a pic of the Tamron 200-500 on my A300 body (fairly large DSLR body, as those go...and you've got a few other lenses in there for comparison, like a 50mm F1.7 and 18-250mm zoom):

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I think overcast but bright would still be OK...overcast and dark...not so much. Were these the types of overcast days where you still needed sunglasses to cut the glare, or where the skies blow out white most of the time when shooting? If so, you'll probably still be OK with these big lenses, which are typically in the F6.3-F8 aperture area wide open at full zoom. Of course, you can go to ISO400-800 to get a few more stops, without any serious noise impact on most DSLRs (usually 1600 and up is where it starts to get noticeable).

For an idea of size...here's a pic of the Tamron 200-500 on my A300 body (fairly large DSLR body, as those go...and you've got a few other lenses in there for comparison, like a 50mm F1.7 and 18-250mm zoom):

I would say it was 50/50; some days overcast and bright and other days overcast and dark. That lens doesn't actually look too big. Not as big looking as the Sigma anyway! Thanks again Justin. I've got some thinking to do...
OT: is that a Kata bag? I almost bought one -- I think it was a 103 backpack or something like that. They are made so solid. I have a small Kata that holds the body and a couple of lenses, but I've quickly outgrown it.

 

[zackiedawg]

Yep...the bag's Kata. Needed a good strong bag to go with the big lens! Alot of bags can't fit the big 500mm zooms on-body, which was a requirement for me especially when I go out birding and such. This is the R102 - the R103 is identical, except it also has the laptop computer slot in the back. I don't need to cart my laptop around with my camera, so I went for the slightly slimmer model.

The Tamron is a big lens...but smaller and lighter than something like the Bigma 50-500 (and a bit smaller than the 170-500 I believe too). It's quite lightweight considering the size and range. Of course, it looks twice as long when you reverse that big lens hood and install it on the end...and grows to twice the length when you zoom all the way out. Still, I have shot this lens handheld many times, and don't have too much problem doing so unless I'm at 500mm and shooting a small subject very far away...then a tripod definitely helps.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Yep...the bag's Kata. Needed a good strong bag to go with the big lens! Alot of bags can't fit the big 500mm zooms on-body, which was a requirement for me especially when I go out birding and such. This is the R102 - the R103 is identical, except it also has the laptop computer slot in the back. I don't need to cart my laptop around with my camera, so I went for the slightly slimmer model.

The Tamron is a big lens...but smaller and lighter than something like the Bigma 50-500 (and a bit smaller than the 170-500 I believe too). It's quite lightweight considering the size and range. Of course, it looks twice as long when you reverse that big lens hood and install it on the end...and grows to twice the length when you zoom all the way out. Still, I have shot this lens handheld many times, and don't have too much problem doing so unless I'm at 500mm and shooting a small subject very far away...then a tripod definitely helps.

Thanks a lot for the info Justin! I really have to think about this more...The photography hobby can be so expensive and I just don't want to make any mistakes. I have so many lenses already and find that I keep going back to my favorite few lenses. The only thing I'm really lacking is a good fast zoom that can get me up to at least 400mm. I saw that Sigma has a 120-300 f2.8 for about 3k. With a teleconverter we're talking 5.6 at around 500mm-600mm for around 3.5k. But geez, 3.5k? The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is around 2k. Plus the tele would bring it to around $2.5k. But would still be less than 400mm. If I were getting paid for this then it would be one thing, but it is just a hobby... So far, I have to say that I really like the Sigma lenses that I've bought. I hesitated on buying any Sigma because of numerous negative reviews re: focusing issues. But I've never had a problem with any of mine yet. (knock wood!) It's too bad that all the lens companies are raising prices. Just a few months ago I could've gotten the 120-300 2.8 for $1k less than it costs now. Maybe I should wait until next year. The economy seems to be doing better. Hopefully the prices will drop...I'd be sick if I paid full retail now only to find out next year that it's $1k cheaper.