Sigma 500 F4.5 ?

[Stephane Neron]

Hello ;-)

I currently do Bird photography with a Sigma 50-500 on a Pentax K-7 body (1.5 crop), and I'm toying with the idea of selling the 50-500 to get the Sigma 500 4.5. All the reviews seems excellent.

Currently, I find that even the best shooting conditions (good light, stopped down, tripod, mirror lock & release, good focus, etc), I can't seem to get those jaw dropping tack sharp images with wonderful BG/Bokeh I typically see here... I've gotten some pretty decent images so far, but would like to go the next step.

As such, I have two questions:

1: Is this just another case of "focus on your technique, not gear", or is there truly a very large IQ improvement in going to the 500/4.5, all things considered (More light, more sharpness, thinner DOF...) ? I may be able to get a lot more out of the 50-500 by doing better post-processing... (I have not developed those skills much yet - only basics) (?)

2: If the fixed focal is truly the way to go, then my second question is relative to FL and DOF. There are rumors on the Pentax side of an upcoming 400/4 lens that could be quite interesting, including weather sealing and SDM (HSM) motor. However, I feel that the Sigma 500/4.5 (no HSM on Pentax) would be a better choice from an FL and DOF/BG perspective. I have not had the ability to assess this on real equipment, but looking at other people's images, I find that a lot of the shots with nice BGs are often taken with a 500 with 1.4 TC or 600 with/without TC. As such, I feel that the Sigma would help me getting better BGs in less ideal locations (crowded BGs). I am right ?

Thanks a lot for your input!

PS: I just joined the forum, presentation pending...

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi FW.....real name would be nice....
I know many people who owned the lens and respect their ability.....my gut feeling is that it is partially the lens. I own the 300-800 Sigma and have nothing but great comments on the lens.....but heavy and now very pricey. I am currently also looking at the 120-300 f2.8 to replace my 100-400 for handholding. About $1,800 less than the 500 and also gets great reviews. Only about 1&1/2 pounds lighter though .

[Stephane Neron]

Sorry, I had not noticed that people were not using pseudo-names. Sounds like I'll have to create a new account however (assuming the site allows it), as I can't seem to be able to change my user name.

Maybe I can post some of best shots, as well as some others where I would have expected something better...

Stephane

[Roger Clark]

FW,
In general, the fixed focal length lenses will give sharper images in telephoto focal lengths. But there are multiple things to consider as one goes to longer focal lengths, including speed of the AF system (assuming you want to photograph action), and image stabilization (IS). As your focal length increases, the magnification is (obviously) increasing too and IS (or equivalent for your camera) becomes more important, especially in lower light near sunrise and sunset. Does the Sigma have fast AF and IS?

Roger

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Stephane,
Roger is correct. I believe the Sigma doesn't have IS. My 300-800 is fast.....but not as fast as a fixed. Don't know enough on the Pentax mounts to add anything else.

[Stephane Neron]

The reviews on the Nikon/Canon version of the lense report very good AF, close to Canon 500/4. However, I don't know about the Pentax version, which does not have HSM. The IS side of things is taken care of by the In-Body IS, so that is not an issue. I believe there is a Pentax shooter with the Sigma 500/4.5 on this forum. He might know....

[Jim Buescher]

Stephane,
I can't compare lenses but I can tell you the Sigma 500 4.5 is a very capable lens. I owned one for almost ten years with no problems (canon mount). The IQ is excellent, the AF is fast (I now own the Canon 500 and can tell you the IQ and AF are both close to this lens) and it is relatively small and light compared to Canon's or Nikon's 500. The cons... no IS and no AF when used with an extender. Is it worth the "upgrade" from the 50-500 ? I don't know..do you find yourself shooting at the 500 end most of the time? If so you will probably gain some noticeable IQ with the fixed 500 4.5. But with no HSM, focusing can be a problem with moving subjects. As far as your concern with BG's, most 500 shooters stop down to about f7.1, so, if your 50-500 is at 500 at the same f-stop you should have the same DOF. If you don't have alot invested in your pentax system maybe consider going to Canon or Nikon where there are more options for bird photographer.

[Stephane Neron]

Thanks for the feedback Jim. I have a fair bit of investment in my system (about 7k), so I'm not really considering switching system at this time. The info you give me wrt to typical aperture used on a 500/4 is good info to help me compare BG wize. So basically that won't change much, besides gaining 1.5 stops of light at sharpest aperture.

Most of my shots are at 500mm, but I sometimes back off at 400 to use the sharpest part of the Lens. I find it reaches its highest long range IQ at 400mm f13. 500 f11 or f13 is not bad either.

I though that AF could be had with a TC on non Canon bodies, or with non Sigma TCs. Am I mistaken ?

[Stuart Hill]

Hi FW,

I use this lens on a Nikon D300. I find it very quick to AF and have no problems tracking fast moving subjects, but the nikon version I have does have HSM.

The 1.4x tc's do work but find the af hunts quite a bit before latching on.

regards.
Stu.

[Roger Clark]

Thanks for the feedback Jim. I have a fair bit of investment in my system (about 7k), so I'm not really considering switching system at this time. The info you give me wrt to typical aperture used on a 500/4 is good info to help me compare BG wize. So basically that won't change much, besides gaining 1.5 stops of light at sharpest aperture.

For my own style, I shoot wide open a lot, with my 500 f/4 L IS. Sharpness increases some at f/4.5 but not much more after that. With a 1.4x TC, sharpness improves a tad from wide open (f/5.6) to f/6.3. I only go slower when I need the depth of field.

Most of my shots are at 500mm, but I sometimes back off at 400 to use the sharpest part of the Lens. I find it reaches its highest long range IQ at 400mm f13. 500 f11 or f13 is not bad either.

It is kind of sad to have invested in high priced lenses to feel you must "back off" so much to get sharpness.
Here, for example, is the sharpness of the 500 f/4 with a 2x TC, hand held:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html
You can photograph the next full moon and see what you are able to achieve with your equipment. (Note there is a link on the page to the full resolution image.)

I still have some sigma lenses and I do think they tend to be very good. For example, my sigma 170-500 mm beats the Canon 100-400 L IS hands down on image quality. But I stopped using the sigma because I got more keepers with IS. That is something to consider.

I though that AF could be had with a TC on non Canon bodies, or with non Sigma TCs. Am I mistaken ?

Perhaps, but not necessarily accurate or reliable.

Pentax version, which does not have HSM. The IS side of things is taken care of by the In-Body IS, so that is not an issue.

No HSM means slow focus. And is HSM as fast as Canon's USM, or Nikon's?

In body IS is no competition for in lens IS at longer focal lengths. As the focal length increases, the sensor must move further and faster, resulting in reduced performance when you need it most.

Bird and much wildlife photography requires long focal lengths. On my 500 f/4, I use the 1.4x a lot, the 2x a fair amount, and even stacked 1.4+2x (and the 1D bodies still does autofocus).

So if you buy a sigma 500 f/4.5, you won't have fast AF, you will have reduced IS, and can't AF well with TCs. Why lock yourself in because of a body? Bodies come and go, but a good lens can last you 20+ years and many bodies. I've had 5 generations of DSLR bodies on my 500, not including the film SLRs. Buy the lens system to do the job you want to do, not compromise because you are locked in. You may find you spend more in the long run by staying locked in to one system only to find it can't do the job and you can't upgrade.

(I have the lenses, f/stops and TCs used on most of my images in my galleries if you want to look.)

Roger

[Jim Buescher]

I though that AF could be had with a TC on non Canon bodies, or with non Sigma TCs. Am I mistaken ?

Sorry, to clarify, I used a Canon 1.4x on my Sigma 500 on a Canon body and AF did not work. With Sigma's TC on a Pentax body it may very well work, I don't know, regardless, without HSM (which is just as fast as Canons USM) AF would probably be inadequate for most bird photography IMO.

[Stephane Neron]

Thanks to all for your helpful feedback. I will take all this into consideration before making my final decision... At least looking at Roger's pictures (very nice btw...) and this thread has finalized a couple of my questions: The upgrade is worth it, I'll go for 500mm, not 400mm, and I have to carefully check for AF performance (with and without TC) before make the call... As far as switching systems, I'd say its always a consideration when investing so much in a lens... We'll see...

Thanks again ;-)

Stephane

[Chad Griggs]

I'm looking into the Sigma 500 f4.5 for my Nikon.

The problem with the Sigma seems to be the AF performance with teleconverters. The used market seems that the Nikon 500 f4 (non VR) is about $1000-1500 more than the Sigma 500 f4.5

My opinion is currently to spend the extra money on the Nikon.

Just some thoughts for you if you do consider switching systems. The price difference might be even closer on a Canon system, I just still prefer Nikon bodies. Obviously you would be gaining HSM with either of these by switching.

[Indranil Sircar]

I use Sigma 50-500 with Canon 40D. In response to your original question, it has taken me a while to get the technique correct and I am able to consistently get good images both hand held and on Tripod using Mongoose head. Post processing can improve quality significantly. I tried using Sigma TC and it loses AF. Quality also degrades significantly. Given a choice today, I would not select this lens. I have heard a lot of good comments about the new 500 f4.5 and might be worth considering.

[Stephane Neron]

Indranil,

I've looked at your pictures. Your egrets and landing gull shots are particularly nice in terms of punch and contrast. I have been able in some cases to get shots with the 50-500 that had that kind of Punch and contrast, but most of the time, the contrast is not there. It may be a question of light... I'll put some of my shots on the Eager to Learn - Critique forum, we'll see what comes out ;-)

Stephane

[Nancy A Elwood]

I went through this decision last year and ended up getting the Nikon 500 AFS II. I am extremely happy with it on my D300. The AFS II's seem to be getting harder and harder to find though.

[alain vandal]

Salut Stéphane,
I'm not sure I will invest in a lens with no ultrasonic AF especially at the price the sigma 500 are. Why don't invest in a "wildlife" set up from other brand. A 400mm f5.6 USM can cost you around $1,000.00 used (1,100 on lespac right now) + a 20 or 30D body for an other 350-550.00 or best and old 1D2 for 1,2000. With the 1D you can put a 1,4 TC with no real loss of IQ and AF speed. All of this can cost you well less than the sigma fixed 500mm lens. A fixed lens like the 500mm or the 400mm don't need to be close for great IQ, you can use them wide open. A must for a not really fast lens.

[Roger Clark]

Salut Stéphane,
I'm not sure I will invest in a lens with no ultrasonic AF especially at the price the sigma 500 are. Why don't invest in a "wildlife" set up from other brand. A 400mm f5.6 USM can cost you around $1,000.00 used (1,100 on lespac right now) + a 20 or 30D body for an other 350-550.00 or best and old 1D2 for 1,2000. With the 1D you can put a 1,4 TC with no real loss of IQ and AF speed. All of this can cost you well less than the sigma fixed 500mm lens. A fixed lens like the 500mm or the 400mm don't need to be close for great IQ, you can use them wide open. A must for a not really fast lens.

Alain,
Pretty good advice. Are used 1D2's really down to $1200? Wow. A friend bought one a little over a year ago for $1600 and I thought that was a good deal. Even at $1600 to get the performance of a pro body is very interesting.

Roger

[Stephane Neron]

Thanks for the idea. I'll wait little bit to see what Pentax will come up with in the near future, as we expect that a new Telephoto will be announced very shortly. The IQ of the last 2 they produced (DA*300/4 and DA*60-250/4) are outstanding. Once the announcements are made, I'll be in a better position to decide.

The things I don't want to do without however are: Stabilized setup, sharp wide open, ability to add a 1.4TC without relevant IQ degradation. Ideally 500mm, but will consider 400mm as well...

We'll keep you posted ;-)

[alain vandal]

Good luck Stéphane, you'r right, the Pentax lens are very good and it make sense to wait a bit. Yes the 1D2 and even the 1Ds2, go down from month to month, you can have some from adorama from around 850-900 and 1,500 for the N version.