Sigma 150-500 F5-6.3 - A subjective review

[stubbsy]

I'm off to Antarctica and Argentina for a holiday in November. One of my dilemmas was whether my Nikon 70-200 VR gave me enough reach for some possible shots especially in Antarctica. After much thought and considerable advice from fellow forum members I decided I'd go for more reach with a Sigma 150-500 lens (street price circa AU$1200). This lens has Optical Stabilisation (like Nikon's VR and Canon's IS) and is less than 1/2 the pirce of the Nikon 80-400VR and about 30% cheaper than the Nikon 300/f4 prime. I was expecting a matching tradeoff in quality and to put it politely Sigma has a bad reputation for lens variability.

I opted to try out a lens at a bricks and mortar store rather than buy online so I could check the lens for acceptable quality before purchase. So last weekend I paid a visit to the very helpful guys at ECS in Drummoyne. I took along my D700 and after a fair bit of image taking and pixel peeping decided I had a lens worth the 1.2K asking price.

Purchase made, I headed off to Circular Quay and caught the ferry to Manly and back to give the lens a try out. If you want to cut to the chase there are some sample shots from the outing along with some commentary further down. But I thought I'd give some first impressions:

• This lens is big - bigger than my 70-200 VR by about 50% in length when extended and hood on.
• It's also heavy at about 2Kg (similar to my 70-200)
• it suffers from lens creep if held pointing down - the weight of the glass will pull the lens out from the retracted 150mm to 500mm. Sigma's solution is a locking switch. This was easy to use, well located and achieved the desired outcome.
• It's slow to auto-focus. I'd rate it similar to the Nikon 80-400VR. If your moving subject depth a lot you can see the focus happen.
• It's not as sharp at 150-200 as my 70-200 is in the same range (but it's 1/3 the price!), but it's not unacceptably soft either
• Chromatic Aberration (CA) is fairly well controlled - in fact far better than I was expecting
• The OS stabilisation works well, but has a less obvious lock in than I experience with VR on my Nikon glass. It has two modes and an off setting.

On a scale of 1 to 10 compared against my 70-200VR I'd give the lens an 8 for build quality, a 7 for image quality and a 9 for overall value.

Enough talking, here are some shots - click the images to see larger versions. I've also included some 100% crops for the pixel peepers. There are more images to be found HERE including a better cross section of shots across the 150-500 range.

This shot and the next were taken from the ferry and 5 secs apart. They show the lens at both ends of its range:






This next one, also from the ferry, was a sharpness test. Below it is a 100% crop - no sharpening or other PP. You'll see it's a little soft, but is certainly acceptable to me (YMMV).






Note the good bokeh in this next image which has a nice creaminess - below it is a 100% crop showing the feather detail. Again I consider this acceptable at such a range.





Next a test shot showing CA at the edges. This was the only image where I was able to force strong CA on the day.



The CA is noticeable in this 100% crop (it's the purple and green fringing around the dark edges of the tiles if you don't know what the heck CA is)



One final image. This time taken standing on the Cahill Expressway above the Quay. If you don't know Sydney, the distance from there to Luna park is about 1.5 kilometres.



And this is a 100% crop from the centre. Unlike the other 100% crops here I've done some PP on this one to sharpen it slightly to give a feel for what a finished image might be like. Still a little soft, but not bad especially given the haze over such a distance.



One final comment - at best Gary is going to tell me I wasted $1200 on a coke bottle and at worst he'll kill me for being a traitor to Nikon

[gstark]

One final comment - at best Gary is going to tell me I wasted $1200 on a coke bottle and at worst he'll kill me for being a traitor to Nikon

Actually, I'll do neither. These are your $$$$$, and you've made your decision in a thorough and reasoned manner, following a high degree of research. Nobody can criticise you for that; congratulations on the acquisition.

I would, however, like to see this lens put side by side with the 80-400 Nikkor - same body, same images - and compare the contrast and acuity of the resulting images. Not for a pissing contest, but to compare and create a frame of reference. Your Luna Park image reminds me of one I shot towards the Maritime Museum from the Pyrmont Bridge when I first acquired my 80-400.

I'd like to see you do some more playing with this lens, because I'm not yet convinced that you've found the sweet spots yet.

[Raskill]

Nice review. It's not a lens I would consider, but I like all my Sigmas very much. Good to see the images being as sharp and usable as they are. I think as photographers in this day and age, we get carried away with pixel peeping at times.

I'm about to try and get a 500 f4.5 from CR Kennedy. If I get it, i'll do similar to what you have done here.

[aim54x]

Great review Peter....looks like you got a good copy!!! As strange as it seems those pics remind me of the quality I get off my Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 (1:2 Macro), which is a surprisingly good (for the price) lens. I do envy the reach you now have!

I am a bit annoyed though....You were in Sydney last weekend and you didnt tell me???

[aim54x]

Looks like you will have to go to the Air show on the 19th! BTW....I am also interested to see how this compares to a Nikkor 80-400VR (and the Canon 100-400L IS)

[surenj]

Nice one Peter.

Now you will be able to fill your frames with them penguins etc.

[surenj]

On your D300 this would give you insane 'reach' ...

Are you going to run both bodies side by side with the D700 with a wide lens?

[radar]

Good review Peter, I'm sure you will not be regretting the purchase. The extra reach will be welcome on the trip to Antarctica. You have put in the research time in your decision and the results here show that you got a good version of the lens.

cheers,

André

[Nikon boy]

Useful review Peter

A friend of mine has the lens and uses it on his Nikon D300 and struggles to obtain decent sharp images throughout the focal range

However on my D3 or D700 the problems seem to dissapear ! we are doing more testing but at this stage we have concluded that full frame is Kinder ? to the lens

Cheers

[Killakoala]

Those penguins won't know what shot them, quite literally. The reach is fantastic and over such a usable range too.

As I have shot from the odd ship or two, I can guarantee the image stabilisation will be very helpful. Not from the rolling, but from the vibration of the machinery below decks.

Nice review Peter.

[Murray Foote]

A friend of mine has the lens and uses it on his Nikon D300 and struggles to obtain decent sharp images throughout the focal range
However on my D3 or D700 the problems seem to dissapear ! we are doing more testing but at this stage we have concluded that full frame is Kinder ? to the lens

That could be an issue of body mount or sensor alignment that only shows up on such a long telephoto lens, especially since it's a longer lens on the D300. Alternatively, it might simply mean he needs to calibrate the lens for his body.

[gstark]

A friend of mine has the lens and uses it on his Nikon D300 and struggles to obtain decent sharp images throughout the focal range
However on my D3 or D700 the problems seem to dissapear ! we are doing more testing but at this stage we have concluded that full frame is Kinder ? to the lens

That could be an issue of body mount or sensor alignment that only shows up on such a long telephoto lens, especially since it's a longer lens on the D300. Alternatively, it might simply mean he needs to calibrate the lens for his body.

Or it could be another example of Sigma quality. Remember that the D300 is higher resolution than the D700, and that fact, combined with the crop sensor's apparent magnification, will make it less forgiving of any issues such as camera shake.

And different photographers have different levels of expertise/technique. That can play a role here.

[stubbsy]

On your D300 this would give you insane 'reach' ...

Are you going to run both bodies side by side with the D700 with a wide lens?

A lot will depend on what's happening. Sometimes my default will be to have the 17-35 on the D300 and either the 70-200 or the 150-500 on the D700 - other times I'll have 28-70 on the D300 and the 70-200 VR on the D700. On Zodiac outings I'll do just the latter and leave the D300 stowed in my waterproof duffle). At this stage I don't envisage having the 150-500 on the D300. But you know what they say about plans....

So my D300 will be always be my wider camera (including the 10.5 fisheye) of the pair and the D700 my camera for reach. I've decided a consitent approach will be simplest to remember.

Next outing I'll take the D300 and try it with the 150-500 and report back.

[Nikon boy]

Peter

Just a thought

Practice as much as you you can with the new lens at all focal lengths and light conditions before you go so you know it as well as possible

Cheers

[Alpha_7]

I was with Peter as we put the Sigma 150-500 through some of its paces on the Manly Ferry - while Peter was testing on the D700 and obviously it's FX Sensor, I brought along my D200 to test it on a DX crop body and experience equivalent of 750mm for the very first time (its ALOT of reach). You can check out the gallery here for some shots (no processing, I've just upload full frame jpgs and 100% crops from each shot - I haven't played around with it enough yet to pass a verdict, but the reach is undeniably attractive (Especially with Anarctica in mind). I found I really had to concentrate and steel myself to get a steady frame when on a ferry, in the wind on the bow with such a long lens, at times it acted like a sail - without the lenshood and shooting on the lee-would side of the bow (if you get my drift) made life much easier.

Linkage to the gallery here
On the full Crops you have to hit Original size to see them without smugmug resizing or sharpening.

[stubbsy]

Craig - the EXIF in your shots has been stripped, but I'm guessing the image below is @ 500. If so it's a good example of the sharpness at that range. Not razor sharp, but certainly acceptable.

[sirhc55]

Excellent choice Peter and Gary should not be a problem

[Murray Foote]

Good idea to test it out on a ferry. (Not so easy to do in Canberra.) Did you hand hold or use a monopod and what shutter speed/ focal length combination?

[gstark]

Chris,

Nice likeness.

[Alpha_7]

Good idea to test it out on a ferry. (Not so easy to do in Canberra.) Did you hand hold or use a monopod and what shutter speed/ focal length combination?

Murray - we didn't have a monopod with us, nearly all shots were handheld, some I used my elbows on the bow to limit human camera shake (it may of introduced a engine harmonic in there). All the shots I posted were at 500mm on the D200. I'm checking shutter speed now - bugger I don't have them at work I'll have to update this when I get home.

[Geoff]

Peter - knowing the research and passion you put into the aquisition of this lens I know you'll be happy and your shots prove that this lens is capable of what you are going to put it through.

Can't wait to see your images upon your return!! Well done.

[Alpha_7]

Here are the Exifs sorry about the stripping

Seagull - D200, ISO 200, f8, 1/1000 @ 500mm

Helicopter - D200, ISO 200, f6.3, 1/640 @ 500mm

AMP - D200, ISO 200, f8, 1/500 @ 500mm

[big pix]

Peter, I have an earler 50-500mm Sigma and love it....... I had the lens re chipped and calerbrated by CR Kennedy as it was a touch soft @ 500mm, then calerbrated the lens to both the D700 & D300 bodies. Quite happy now with the results that I am achiving with this lens. Bang for buck it is good value, have fun with your new toy.......

here are 2 pixs shot a few weeks ago...... using a monopod

D700 EXIF Summary: 1/320s f/16.0 ISO250 320mm

[big pix]

Excellent choice Peter and Gary should not be a problem

....... gary's brother?, great likeness.......

[Steffen]

The CA is noticeable in this 100% crop (it's the purple and green fringing around the dark edges of the tiles if you don't know what the heck CA is)

I found that Nikon NX2 and ViewNX2 do an excellent job at removing CA automatically from Nikkor shots. I wonder whether they can also do it with non-Nikkor lenses? Do they need to know lens characteristics etc?

Cheers
Steffen.

[ATJ]

So my D300 will be always be my wider camera (including the 10.5 fisheye) of the pair and the D700 my camera for reach. I've decided a consitent approach will be simplest to remember.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around? The D700 will always have a wider angle of view with the same lens as the D300. Or is it that you don't have any full frame wide angle lenses?

[stubbsy]

So my D300 will be always be my wider camera (including the 10.5 fisheye) of the pair and the D700 my camera for reach. I've decided a consitent approach will be simplest to remember.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around? The D700 will always have a wider angle of view with the same lens as the D300. Or is it that you don't have any full frame wide angle lenses?

Andrew

I was wondering if someone would question me on that since my initial thoughts were to do the opposite

Here is my thinking (I have all FX glass bar my 10.5 fisheye)
- 17 on the D300 is plenty wide enough (let's call it 25mm on the D300, but on the D700 it really would be 17)
- I figure my wide shots are more likely to be cropped given I have the 150-500 at the top end, so wide on the D300 gives me more pixel detail to play with
- on the D300 that 150-500 becomes effectively 225-750 - I don't need THAT much reach so 150-500 on the D700 is sufficient.
- I wanted to standardise on one body for wide and one for zoom - hence my final choice.

[Alpha_7]

I was wondering if someone would question me on that since my initial thoughts were to do the opposite

I was going to since most of my plans have been to do the opposite. Which might make my decision on if I got the Sigma as well a little easier, as I could got 70-200 on D200, plus the 1.7 TC 200x 1.5x 1.7 gives me 510mm without another lens.

[stubbsy]

A coda to my original review. Last weekend I went to the Williamtown airshow and gave this lens an all day workout capturing plane images. My observations after this are:

• It's not as slow to focus as I at first thought (still not as fast as my 70-200 though)
• I'm still more than happy with it's sharpness
• The zoom ring is too stiff for my liking which with fast approaching subjects like planes is a challenge
• The zoom ring rotates opposite to the Nikon ones and this is a real nuisance as I keep turning it the wrong way

A large gallery of images taken at the airshow is HERE and the bulk used the 150-500. Here is a sample taken at full zoom (click for larger):



and a 100% crop from the original image straight from camera - before PP: