Sigma 50-500 (Bigma) or 150-500 OS?

I'm looking for some advice on a long lens...

I've heard a lot of good things about the Sigma 50-500 AKA Bigma but was also intrigued by the newer 150-500mm with OS for less money. Of course I would LOVE to get a Canon 500mm but I don't have $6k kicking around.

I am looking for something to take some moon pics and maybe a bird pic here or there. I can do without the low end of the Bigma if the 150-500 is a good lens.

Does anyone have any experience with both? I've check out some sample photos of them both and it looks like the Bigma is far superior

If someone has something else in mind let me know, I'm certainly not locked in on Sigma.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/bigmos
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/bigmapump

These links might help you.

I have not used the Bigma, but the Bigmos is a decent lens. The optics of the Bigma may be better based on what I have heard about the Bigma and experienced with the Bigmos. The OS on the Bigmos is very good, but can be a little jittery.

Bottom line is that if you plan to shoot handheld the majority of the time I think the OS of the Bigmos is worth it, especially if you do not pixel peep. But if you shoot with a tripod or monopod most of the time then the Bigma may be a better choice for you, especially if you pixel peep.

Thank you everyone for all of the valuable input... It was a difficult decision but I decided to give the "Bigmos" A try...

I just placed the order for the 150-500mm OS from Amazon. I should have it by the weekend. I will let you know how I make out.

I have had the 150-500 OS for two weeks and enjoy it very much. Using it on a Monopod to get pictures of the two bucks on our land.

I've owned very good copies of both and would go for the OS. Any IQ differences either way are not worth worrying IMO about and you get a modern OS that actually does a great job too. Both are great lenses for what you pay and the only worthwhile upgrade without spending silly money is the 400mm 5.6 L.

A review of the 50-500, 150-500, 120-400, 100-400 at one of the nature photo sites:

Click here

Yes, good review. I like his conclusions. There are a few other factors to consider but we have lots of threads on this subject already.

Good link Foxy and I agree with those finding ... apart from the 120-400mm which I have not used so I dunno. Was interesting reading the 200-500mm 2.8 review too

I had the SIgma 120-400 for all of one day before I returned it. Sounds great on paper, I love the MFD but it wasn't sharp enough for me.

funhouse69 wrote in post #6408154
Thank you everyone for all of the valuable input... It was a difficult decision but I decided to give the "Bigmos" A try...

I just placed the order for the 150-500mm OS from Amazon. I should have it by the weekend. I will let you know how I make out.

I forgot about this thread until it popped up the other day. I ended up getting the Bigmos and returned it about 3 days later. I was not impressed with it at all.

I have since lost my mind completely and got the 500L which I know is like comparing a bar of silver to a bar of gold but believe it or not I actually got a defective one and had to return that for an exchange and have yet to receive the replacement yet. Here's to hoping that the new one is a good copy.

gasrocks wrote in post #6964136
I had the SIgma 120-400 for all of one day before I returned it. Sounds great on paper, I love the MFD but it wasn't sharp enough for me.

Did you go for the Canon zoom?