Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon

[Simon Turkin]

I am a new member to POTN and i need some advice... I have a 50d with the grip and a 15mm fisheye, 70-300mm standard zoom, and a 28- 138mm kit lens if you have knowledge reguarding the lens or a suggestion towards my next purchase it would be a large help!

[katodog]

The Bigma, as it's called, is supposedly an excellent lens. You should check the lens archives to see pics from this lens. I was going to buy it, but I wanted a lens with stabilization, so I went with the Sigma 150-500mm OS lens, which is an excellent lens also.


Sigma 50-500mm archive


Sigma 150-500mm OS Archive

[gasrocks]

For advice on next purchase you have to tell us your budget and what you'll be shooting.

[Simon Turkin]

Im still a high school student with out a job so as you can imagine Im running off savings witch are disappering rapidly...
I would shell out 1500 on a fantastic lens though

I mostly shoot sports and I occasionaly shoot portiats and animals

[katodog]

$1500 on a fantastic lens say to me either the Sigma 150-500mm OS or the Canon 100-400mm L IS. They both have almost identical IQ, and are both excellent lenses. The one thing that separates them is the 100mm difference at the high end and the fact that the Canon is a push/pull zoom and the Sig is a twist zoom. I didn't care much for the push/pull of the Canon lens, but it really is an excellent lens. I also preferred the longer reach of the Sig over the Canon. Having almost identical IQ makes it a hard decision, but the decision will be made by how you like the zoom operation of the lenses.

For sports I'd say the Canon 70-200mm f2.8. It's a fast lens, and seems to be the recommended lens for sports shooting. This lens will put you at your limit money-wise though. You can get the non-IS f2.8 cheaper, but I wouldn't shoot sports without IS.


Other than shooting really fast stuff, I'd still say the Sig 150-500mm OS. I haven't had any problems shooting all kinds of stuff with it. Although it and the Canon 100-400mm need decent light, I haven't had too many problems in low light with the Sig. Shooting birds in flight isn't a problem with the Sig, so I'd figure sports wouldn't be that hard either.

[sjlund]

Originally Posted by katodog

...but I wouldn't shoot sports without IS.

Why not? IS won't stop subject movement, and if you're shooting with a high enough shutter speed to freeze a football player (or whatever), camera shake shouldn't be an issue.

[05Xrunner]

I use to have the 50-500 DG for a while. I though it was a GREAT lens..VERY fast AF maybe faster then my 100-400, Great IQ, sharp and killer range. Just need a monopod with it on overcast days..But if shooting in daytime with good light its a killer lens

[katodog]

Originally Posted by sjlund

Why not? IS won't stop subject movement, and if you're shooting with a high enough shutter speed to freeze a football player (or whatever), camera shake shouldn't be an issue.

That's a good point.

I don't shoot much sports, but I do shoot moving subjects, like birds, airplanes, kids running around, etc., and the stabilized lenses seem to help with most cases. But, I guess at higher shutter speeds IS wouldn't be needed all that much. But, it does come into play if the OP wants to shoot wildlife that's not moving around that much, like ducks in a pond, zoo animals, etc.. Plus it helps for shooting portraits and such without needing to rely on a tripod or monopod. Which is helpful when you're out in the field and are just doing casual shooting. I know there's been plenty of times that I would prefer either not to carry the tripod around, or I just don't want to take the time to set up. Impromptu shots are easier when they're impromptu.

[gasrocks]

Nothing wrong with working your way up. Get the BIgma and use it on a monopod.

[Evan Idler]

Well, after using my Sigma 50-500 EX DG for 3 years I would recommend it without hesitation to anyone that asks. And I got the new Sigma 150-500 EX OS for christmas, so I will let you know what i think of it later in the year.

--Evan

[condyk]

It's a great lens: not to the standard of say the 400mm L but certainly competitive with the 100-400mm. I'd say, having owned both those zooms and the 150-500mm OS that the latter is the best option overall ... but you may need more speed than these three for sports. Depends on the sports and light. For wildlife and shooting all at a stop down I doubt anyone would see much difference. That's when the better image stabilisation and 500mm of the OS lens add value.