Anyone got any sigma 50-500mm example pictures?

[timmyquest]

I know i'm getting annoying but based on the two sigmas i own and examples from some canon L lenses, i'm just very weary of buying this lens...

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1214031&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1


http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1008321&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=886830&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1214026&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[sparty314]

The Sigma 50-500 has been discussed in several threads recently. Try doing a search. I just got mine a week ago, and have really only taken a few hand-held shots with it. I did post a picture I took of the Moon with the lens just a few days ago, though.

[timmyquest]

The Sigma 50-500 has been discussed in several threads recently. Try doing a search. I just got mine a week ago, and have really only taken a few hand-held shots with it. I did post a picture I took of the Moon with the lens just a few days ago, though.

Most of the threads are most likely of my creation :oops:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Timmy,. remind me what Sigmas you have that "suck"

[timmyquest]

Timmy,. remind me what Sigmas you have that "suck"

70-300mm f/4

28-80mm f/4

both came with my 35mm rebel last year...i know, i should expect more out of the EX lenses but... :roll:

[Cal Maier]

Hi Timmy,

I own the Sigma 15-30mm EX Zoom and for now it is the only Sigma Lens that I have. I have test shot the 17-35mm EX, 24-70mm EX, 70-200mm EX, and the 50-500mm EX. Of all these lenses I feel the 50-500mm EX was the sharpest lens through its focal length. The 15-30mm EX is very sharp for a wide angle zoom and for the money it cost. I have compared it to four different Canon 17-40mm L lenses and have not found the Canon lenses to be any better(or worse) as far as image sharpness is concerned. I found the Canon 17-40L to be inconsistant in colour tone and I preferred the colour from the Sigma 15-30 EX. All of the Canon "L" series lenses focus faster than any of the Sigma EX lenses that I tried, and the general build quality seems to be consistantly better in the Canon "L" lenses (to be expected).

Other than the 15-30mm EX and the 50-500mm EX, none of the Sigma lenses that I tested were as sharp as the Canon "L" lenses that I own, these being the 28-70mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L.

IMHO if you are on a tight budget the Sigma EX lenses are excellent value for what they cost. If you can afford it, the Canon "L" lenses are probably the way to go, with the exception of the 50-500mm EX Sigma. From what I have seen, Canon has nothing in the Sigma price range that will come close to its sharpness and focal length. It isn't the fastest focus but it produces a fine image, as you can see from Cyberdyne's very good photographs. To get close in focal length in a Canon "L" you would have to get the 100-400mm 4.5/5.6L and use it with a 1.4X tele-converter. This would cost you well over twice the price of the Sigma and I do not believe the results would be any better.

Hope this helps you out.

Cal Maier
CPS 432

BTW: Cyber... Excellent photos!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

There is allways the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L

You give up 100mm but it is a sweet lens indeed!

[timmyquest]

Hi Timmy,

I own the Sigma 15-30mm EX Zoom and for now it is the only Sigma Lens that I have. I have test shot the 17-35mm EX, 24-70mm EX, 70-200mm EX, and the 50-500mm EX. Of all these lenses I feel the 50-500mm EX was the sharpest lens through its focal length. The 15-30mm EX is very sharp for a wide angle zoom and for the money it cost. I have compared it to four different Canon 17-40mm L lenses and have not found the Canon lenses to be any better(or worse) as far as image sharpness is concerned. I found the Canon 17-40L to be inconsistant in colour tone and I preferred the colour from the Sigma 15-30 EX. All of the Canon "L" series lenses focus faster than any of the Sigma EX lenses that I tried, and the general build quality seems to be consistantly better in the Canon "L" lenses (to be expected).

Other than the 15-30mm EX and the 50-500mm EX, none of the Sigma lenses that I tested were as sharp as the Canon "L" lenses that I own, these being the 28-70mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L.

IMHO if you are on a tight budget the Sigma EX lenses are excellent value for what they cost. If you can afford it, the Canon "L" lenses are probably the way to go, with the exception of the 50-500mm EX Sigma. From what I have seen, Canon has nothing in the Sigma price range that will come close to its sharpness and focal length. It isn't the fastest focus but it produces a fine image, as you can see from Cyberdyne's very good photographs. To get close in focal length in a Canon "L" you would have to get the 100-400mm 4.5/5.6L and use it with a 1.4X tele-converter. This would cost you well over twice the price of the Sigma and I do not believe the results would be any better.

Hope this helps you out.

Cal Maier
CPS 432

BTW: Cyber... Excellent photos!!

That helps alot, the only thing i worry about is the focus speed, how much slower is it? Again i know the sigmas i have are not very good at all but the telephoto one is like cold oil...it's just, bad.

BTW, as much as i would love to get a canon L such as the 400mm you mentioned, i need a zoom for what i'm going to be doing, i just cant see myself getting the action shots i want with a 400mm fixed focal length. If, in the event that you are refering to the 100-400mm canon, i dont think i'd get that over the sigma.