Any ideas on how it compares in quality and value to the Sigma 50-500mm OS lense?
2071193
Yes. It is WAY better in every aspect. Although it costs a bit more, the image quality is much higher with the Sony lens. The Sigma is very soft, especially above 300mm. I tried the Sigma and was not satisfied with the images. My Sony 70-400 never disappoints.
2071194
I have both lenses and their ib no comparison. The Sony far exceeds the Sigma lens in terms of image quality. But it costs more and is much heavier. I use it with my Sony A900 and would not move back to the Sigma. Image quality is excellent even with the 2X extender.
1939948
Truthfully I think the 50mm 1.4 lens is better made and the resulting picture quality is great. I think it is definitely worth it to spend the extra cash to purchase the lens.
1637021
With Sigma look for DG in the lens description to identify FX compatible lenses. In the case of the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM. the letters DG are what you care about and OS (optical stabilized) for long lenses like this one. I use this lens on my D700, D800 and D80 (IR converted) with good results. Go for it. Good price and my experience is that it is a good lens.
852960
For buyig options see: Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM SLD Ultra Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera
1756271
I am a serious amateur. After comparing both lens, I concluded that the sigma is a better deal.After purchasing the Sigma I could not be happier with my purchase, it's an excellent lens for the money, I love it!
812304
Thanks for the additional info. I am primarily involved in shooting fencing matches, and can usually get fairly close to the action, so I'll probably be taking a good look at the Sigma lens.
110373
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster.I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).
1218644
I don't specifically know the answer to this, but would expect the fixed focus 50 mm to be considerably sharper, have better contrast etc. I have the used the Sonnar 1.8 which is the best single e-mount lens of all, spectacular results, but at ove $ 1,000 I guess that is what one would expect. Generally speaking I would avoid the SELp 1650 as I think it is trying to do too much in too tiny a package. After having had five lenses for my Sony Nex 7, I now rely almost entirely on the kit lens, which for compactness and ease of use suits me fine. For fancy stuff I rely on my Canon Eos as long as I can get someone to tote it around for me
387099
If you can afford the Canon. Get the Canon. It's a damn good lens. But if you're not trying to put down a lot of money and still want top notch quality, the Sigma is just that good. Sigma's on that level, but the Canon is hard to beat. My option was the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm. My advice, see if you can test them both out and go from there.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
543323
Hi, I'm a Nikon user. I'm not sure about Canon's 50 1.8 but this Sigma is better than Nikon's 50 1.8, 1.4D, and even 1.4G in terms of the overall better IQ, contrast, and creamy bokeh. The only problem is to get a "good copy" with accurate AF. Sigma is infamous for the QC for this last generation lenses.
24766
I own both lenses and while the 18-300 is the best walk around lens, the 50-500 is my favorite lens for wildlife and particularly birds. It obviously has 200 more mm reach which results in around 40% more magnification and it is tack sharp throughout it's range. The Sigma 50-500 stays on my camera 90% of the time.
1756269
As a professional photographer myself, I weighed both options heavily prior to purchasing the Sigma 70-200 which I absolutely love! The quality is amazing. I did ask other photographers who owned the tamron lens and paid the cheaper price but defined the sigma lens as the better deal. One of the main reasons is construction of the lens. They reported the tamron lens having more problems after a few years and going 'soft' due to the plastic casing whereas the sigma didn't-making it a better choice for the money. I think the sigma lens will pay for itself this year.
582699
Okay, thanks a lot, new at this and I wasn't sure if the lens quality is the same. I appreciate everyone's help!
1838718
M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for... » Read More M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. « Show Less
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
123476
It seems the art lens has higher quality optics which give better contrast and sharper images, although to the average photographer the difference would be slight. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $400 works great, and I have no complaints at all.