I enjoy trying to photograph birds, so I'm wondering which lens would be best for a Sony A 100. The Sigma 50-500mm which can be used with a 1x or 2x teleconverter or is the 170-500 better which as far as I can tell no teleconverter will fit. If I buy for the Sony will it be interchangable with a Nikon Or Canon AF mount, or will it fit only the Sony. The information says that it will fit the Nikon, Canon and Sony AF mount camers. I would really appreciate informaton, still not good on lenses. Thanks
Both lenses are about equal in sharpness. The major advantage of the 50/500 is that it has HSM A/F, which will give faster auto focus than the 170/500. Some say the 170/500 is slightly sharper at 500mm, but the difference is negligible. I would go for the faster A/F. The results with a 1.4 extender are ok. The results with a 2x are generally very poor.
Thanks Michael, I appreciate your advise and the 50/500 will be the one I will go with.
Posted by Basil Greber on July 29, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Hi there
Three things...
1) The lens with Sony mount only fits Sony cameras. Not Nikon or Canon. The lens is made for Nikon and Canon too, but they have different mounts.
2) IIRC, putting a TC onto the 50-500 lens can destroy your lens if you zoom back too much (below 100 mm, I think - so everything between 50 and 100 will make the rear element crash into the TC, possibly destroying lens, TC, or both).
3) Results of "consumer" zoom lenses combined with teleconverters won't be excellent, usually. TCs are made to work well with fast prime lenses (e.g. 300/2.8), or excellent zoom lenses (e.g. 70-200/2.8). The problem is manyfold: You'll lose autofocus due to light loss (there are ways around that, but AF won't be very fast anymore in any case), and at the same time, MF becomes difficult due to a dark viewfinder. Then, any optical flaws are greatly magnified - and zooms tend to have those more than primes. And finally, your focal length becomes longer (which is what you want, but this has consequences). So in the end, you'll have a poorly focusing 700/1000 mm lens with a slow maximum f-stop (the 50-500 is f/6.3 @ 500 mm, so you're probably at f/11 or so) that needs to be stopped down further to get sharp images (now you're at f/13-f/16 or less). All this results in fairly long shutterspeeds with a long lens, which is not a very easy thing to handle well.
Sorry if this is all old news. Just letting you know.
All this being said, the Sigma 50-500 is a popular way to get to 500 mm in a not overly expensive way. I don't use it, but there's a load of bird photographers on a budget using this lens.
Thanks Basil, but you didn't tell me what you use. I would really like to know. Anyway, this 50-500 gotta give more satisfying results than the 70-300mm lens I am using at the present, want it?I may be looking at this incorrectly but if I purchased a 70-200,2.8 lens and added a 2x teleconveter I would have about 400mm with a f stop of f4or more at 400mm, wouldn't I? Anytime a tc is used it slows down your f stops doesn't it? Sorry I am asking so many dumb questions, but I am still learning. If I focused manually instead of using af, with a TC would it still screw up the lens? If this is the case then Sigma is misleading their customers with their tech information on this lens.Sigma states clearly that both and 1x and2x TC can be used effectively with this lens, guess they accidently left out the part about it damaging your lens.
Jackie,
If you go to http://www.sigmaphoto.com/faq/faq.asp?navigator=3 you can see which Sigma lenses will work with the 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters and the effective apertures. As Basil mentioned, with the teleconverters the 50-500mm lens is limited to a 100-500mm zoom range. I doubt that using the teleconverter will destroy your lens, otherwise Sigma would not recommend or sell it. Now with that said, there might be issues if you use a third party teleconverter.
As far as the 70-300mm lens you have, remember that when using a digital camera, unless you're using a camera with a full frame sensor (35mm) there is a multiplier that's applied to the lenses focal length because of the smaller sensors used in most digital SLRs. Your Sony DSLR I think has a sensor size of 23.6 x 15.8 mm, which would give it a multiplier of 1.5. So the 70-300mm lens actually becomes a 105-450mm lens on the Sony. The multiplier has no affect on the lens aperture.
Even before the using the teleconverters the 50-500mm is actually a 75-750mm on your Sony.
Posted by Basil Greber on July 30, 2007 at 3:25 AM
I currently use a 70-300 VR Nikkor and a 400/5.6 prime lens for my "animal stuf". I'm not really experienced with bird photography, though, I'm just shooting a bird or two once in a while. I'm more into macro/close-ups. In any case, a 500 mm lens is quite a bit longer than a 300 mm lens (I previously had one but sold it when I got the 400), so you may not need to TC, depending on how close you can get to your subjects. Longer is always better in bird world, though.
About TCs and f-stops. You are right, every TC slows down your lens (a 1.4x makes you lose one stop, a 2x makes you lose two stops - you can just multiply the aperture by the factor by which the TC elongates the lens, so a 2x TC on a f/2.8 lens gives a f/5.6 lens). The reason for this is that you are elongating the focal length while the physical aperture size (the "hole" through which the light enters the lens) remains the same - and the f-stops are defined as focal length divided by aperture diameter.
About MF: I guess if the light is good, you'll be able to manually focus o.k. But if the light is low, you'll have problems accurately MF'ing because the viewfinder becomes dark with slow lenses (the wide open aperture of your lens not only affects your images/shutter speeds, but also viewfinder brightness!).
All that being said, I don't think there's a better way to get to 500 mm than the Sigma 50-500 at similar price. Maybe the Tamron 200-500 is worth considering, but it's basically a similar lens, but some say it's slightly sharper. I've not used either, though.
Thanks again for answering my questions. You have helped a lot.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 30, 2007 at 11:29 PM
The Sigma 50-500mm is likely your best bet. I pesonally wouldn't bother with a 1.4x, and wouldn't even consider a 2x on the thing. The reason is I doubt image quality would be there, and it will be very difficult to focus (autofocus will not be working even with the 1.4x and manual focus will be difficult. The 50-500mm is newer technology and has coatings for digital cameras. It also has HSM focussing, which is highly desirable.
Now for the bad news. While the 50-500mm is a relative bargain for a long lens, the cost of the lens isn't the only $$$ in the equation. To hold that thing steady so the shots aren't blurry, you will need a decent tripod. Consider a used Bogen 3021 (from eBay.) The second thing is you will need a ver decent ballhead. Those are at least a couple of hundred bucks. You will also want a quick release (QR) plate for it (I'm assuming the lens isn't Arca/Swiss compatible from the factory.)
Bird photography is a speciality, and the cost blows into the stratosphere very quickly. The Sony (Minolta mount) is a good camera but what you're going to find is very limited lens choice and availability of deals on used equipment on eBay. Canon or Nikon are more popular and thus there are more choices in long lenses.
Thanks Kent, very good information. I have already ordered so guess I'll just bite the bullet. Have th 'bogen 3021, the ball head and quick release. I know bird photography is a speciality, and expensive, but what's life if you can't reach out for your dreams. Maybe someday I will move to a Nikon or canon, but for now the Sony is a challange.
I think others have said most of these things, but maybe not all:
1. I've never seen a really good review of the 170-500; the 50-500 consistently gets better reviews, and not just because of the HSM motor.
2. The lens is available in several mounts (I've owned the Pentax and Canon versions), but you buy it with one mount and it can't be interchanged for others.
3. There is a "zoom lock" switch on the 50-500. This has two purposes. a) When locked at 50 mm, the lens is locked shut (for storage/transportation); and b) when locked beyond 100mm, the lens is free to move between 100-500mm. The reason for this second purpose is because, as stated, the Sigma TC will be damaged if the zoom goes less than 100mm. The lock must be used when a TC is used to prevent damage to the lens and/or TC. Note that this means you can't lock the lens in the short position for transport/storage when using a TC
4. Even with its HSM motor, the 50-500 is no whiz at focussing. It's not horrible either, but capturing birds in flight with it will take a lot of practice!
5. With a TC you'll probably lose AF and have to manually focus. The screen is dark at the best of times with that f/6.3 lens; add a TC and it only gets darker, which makes MF even harder to do well.
6. I know you don't shoot Canon, but for anyone else reading this, the Canon TCs do not fit on the 50-500. Obviously, the Sigma ones do, and some third party ones might.
7. Agree with Kent on the tripod. I have rarely used my 50-500 off a tripod, and then only in really good light.
8. I've owned a 50-500 for over four years, and I have no intention of selling it, even though I now have a 300/2.8 IS + TCs to cover the long range. It's a great lens for the price. It's not as sharp or as fast focussing as the 300/2.8, but the difference in sharpness is a lot less than you might expect! (Focus speed is a different story, though!) You'll be happy with it. The only limitation, as I said before, is that birds in flight will take a lot of work to get good at. That's true with any lens, but more so with this one than some others. For BIF, the top recommendations--in the Canon line (I presume similar lenses should be available in other lines)--are the 400/5.6 (for not much more than the 50-500) and the 300/2.8.
-Paul
Posted by Tyler Lehmann on August 2, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Hi Jackie,
I just wanted to let you know with my experiences with the Sony A-100, I have found the sigma 135-400mm to be very effective, slow, but effective. With the Sony it's actually a 200-600. I have also found when used with converters (1.4 or 2.0) it's not very effective at all. I have found those to be a waste of time, and loss of good shots. Be careful with your choice, Have fun.
My experience with the 50-500 Sigma has been a good one. I've used this lens for quite a few years having purchased it just after its initial release, so mine is not the latest version. The down side is weight and sometimes zooming requires the whole hand to turn the zoom ring. Without the 1.4x tele, you "may" not need the tripod but probably can use a monopod effectively because you do have pretty good internal image stabilization with the Alpha 100. Be sure they have it available in the Minolta mount. It's quite a sharp lens, even at 500mm. My own copy is a Canon mount which I've used on my D30, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II and 10D. It's not a desirable lens for the 1DS or any full frame Canon because of excessive vignetting, but with the 1.5x Sony it should be fine. Even with my 1.3x Canon's it's not noticeable and with my D30 and 10D it's completely clean at any focal length.
I find the sharpness equivalent to my two 100-400L IS Canon copies. The color cast is slightly warmer than my Canon and a good deal warmer than my Nikon lenses because of the coatings (don't know if this is true for the newer versions) but certainly not an issue. All in all it's a very, very good bargain but it's definitely a "chunk" to tote.
Lin, I did purchas this lens and I LOVE it. It is a bit to " tote". but well worth the effort. Not only is it clear and sharp, but also has a fast AF and virtually no noise. Aso this lens can be used in manuel focus. Mine came with the lens hood and a very nice carring case.Also Paul, is there a 300/2.8 for a Sony A100? Thanks for the info on using this Lens.Most have cautioned me about buying lens for the Sony A100, but I really like the operation ease, and the photo's this DSLR produces. This is Sony's first dslr, but I don't think it will be their last. I am anxiously awaiting the next one, as I think they will be strong competors with Nikon and Canon at a much better purchase price.Guess we'll just half to wait and see.
Jackie, Sigma makes a 300/2.8, but looking at their website, it seems that the Sony mount version of that lens doesn't have HSM, so it probably won't compare to the Canon version very well for AF speed.
Also, Lin referred to Vignetting for the 50-500. I should have included that in my list of points about the 50-500, but it's been three years since I shot full frame (film), so I forgot. The 50-500 does indeed vignette on full frame cameras. But in the year and a bit that I had the 50-500 and shot film, I think I ever noticed the vignetting on two pictures out of several hundred. Basically, if there wasn't a smooth background, the vignetting wasn't noticeable (to me).
Discussion
14 repliesThree things...
1) The lens with Sony mount only fits Sony cameras. Not Nikon or Canon. The lens is made for Nikon and Canon too, but they have different mounts.
2) IIRC, putting a TC onto the 50-500 lens can destroy your lens if you zoom back too much (below 100 mm, I think - so everything between 50 and 100 will make the rear element crash into the TC, possibly destroying lens, TC, or both).
3) Results of "consumer" zoom lenses combined with teleconverters won't be excellent, usually. TCs are made to work well with fast prime lenses (e.g. 300/2.8), or excellent zoom lenses (e.g. 70-200/2.8). The problem is manyfold: You'll lose autofocus due to light loss (there are ways around that, but AF won't be very fast anymore in any case), and at the same time, MF becomes difficult due to a dark viewfinder. Then, any optical flaws are greatly magnified - and zooms tend to have those more than primes. And finally, your focal length becomes longer (which is what you want, but this has consequences). So in the end, you'll have a poorly focusing 700/1000 mm lens with a slow maximum f-stop (the 50-500 is f/6.3 @ 500 mm, so you're probably at f/11 or so) that needs to be stopped down further to get sharp images (now you're at f/13-f/16 or less). All this results in fairly long shutterspeeds with a long lens, which is not a very easy thing to handle well.
Sorry if this is all old news. Just letting you know.
All this being said, the Sigma 50-500 is a popular way to get to 500 mm in a not overly expensive way. I don't use it, but there's a load of bird photographers on a budget using this lens.
Basil
If you go to http://www.sigmaphoto.com/faq/faq.asp?navigator=3 you can see which Sigma lenses will work with the 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters and the effective apertures. As Basil mentioned, with the teleconverters the 50-500mm lens is limited to a 100-500mm zoom range. I doubt that using the teleconverter will destroy your lens, otherwise Sigma would not recommend or sell it. Now with that said, there might be issues if you use a third party teleconverter.
As far as the 70-300mm lens you have, remember that when using a digital camera, unless you're using a camera with a full frame sensor (35mm) there is a multiplier that's applied to the lenses focal length because of the smaller sensors used in most digital SLRs. Your Sony DSLR I think has a sensor size of 23.6 x 15.8 mm, which would give it a multiplier of 1.5. So the 70-300mm lens actually becomes a 105-450mm lens on the Sony. The multiplier has no affect on the lens aperture.
Even before the using the teleconverters the 50-500mm is actually a 75-750mm on your Sony.
About TCs and f-stops. You are right, every TC slows down your lens (a 1.4x makes you lose one stop, a 2x makes you lose two stops - you can just multiply the aperture by the factor by which the TC elongates the lens, so a 2x TC on a f/2.8 lens gives a f/5.6 lens). The reason for this is that you are elongating the focal length while the physical aperture size (the "hole" through which the light enters the lens) remains the same - and the f-stops are defined as focal length divided by aperture diameter.
About MF: I guess if the light is good, you'll be able to manually focus o.k. But if the light is low, you'll have problems accurately MF'ing because the viewfinder becomes dark with slow lenses (the wide open aperture of your lens not only affects your images/shutter speeds, but also viewfinder brightness!).
All that being said, I don't think there's a better way to get to 500 mm than the Sigma 50-500 at similar price. Maybe the Tamron 200-500 is worth considering, but it's basically a similar lens, but some say it's slightly sharper. I've not used either, though.
Basil
Now for the bad news. While the 50-500mm is a relative bargain for a long lens, the cost of the lens isn't the only $$$ in the equation. To hold that thing steady so the shots aren't blurry, you will need a decent tripod. Consider a used Bogen 3021 (from eBay.) The second thing is you will need a ver decent ballhead. Those are at least a couple of hundred bucks. You will also want a quick release (QR) plate for it (I'm assuming the lens isn't Arca/Swiss compatible from the factory.)
Bird photography is a speciality, and the cost blows into the stratosphere very quickly. The Sony (Minolta mount) is a good camera but what you're going to find is very limited lens choice and availability of deals on used equipment on eBay. Canon or Nikon are more popular and thus there are more choices in long lenses.
Kent in Kauai
1. I've never seen a really good review of the 170-500; the 50-500 consistently gets better reviews, and not just because of the HSM motor.
2. The lens is available in several mounts (I've owned the Pentax and Canon versions), but you buy it with one mount and it can't be interchanged for others.
3. There is a "zoom lock" switch on the 50-500. This has two purposes. a) When locked at 50 mm, the lens is locked shut (for storage/transportation); and b) when locked beyond 100mm, the lens is free to move between 100-500mm. The reason for this second purpose is because, as stated, the Sigma TC will be damaged if the zoom goes less than 100mm. The lock must be used when a TC is used to prevent damage to the lens and/or TC. Note that this means you can't lock the lens in the short position for transport/storage when using a TC
4. Even with its HSM motor, the 50-500 is no whiz at focussing. It's not horrible either, but capturing birds in flight with it will take a lot of practice!
5. With a TC you'll probably lose AF and have to manually focus. The screen is dark at the best of times with that f/6.3 lens; add a TC and it only gets darker, which makes MF even harder to do well.
6. I know you don't shoot Canon, but for anyone else reading this, the Canon TCs do not fit on the 50-500. Obviously, the Sigma ones do, and some third party ones might.
7. Agree with Kent on the tripod. I have rarely used my 50-500 off a tripod, and then only in really good light.
8. I've owned a 50-500 for over four years, and I have no intention of selling it, even though I now have a 300/2.8 IS + TCs to cover the long range. It's a great lens for the price. It's not as sharp or as fast focussing as the 300/2.8, but the difference in sharpness is a lot less than you might expect! (Focus speed is a different story, though!) You'll be happy with it. The only limitation, as I said before, is that birds in flight will take a lot of work to get good at. That's true with any lens, but more so with this one than some others. For BIF, the top recommendations--in the Canon line (I presume similar lenses should be available in other lines)--are the 400/5.6 (for not much more than the 50-500) and the 300/2.8.
-Paul
I just wanted to let you know with my experiences with the Sony A-100, I have found the sigma 135-400mm to be very effective, slow, but effective. With the Sony it's actually a 200-600. I have also found when used with converters (1.4 or 2.0) it's not very effective at all. I have found those to be a waste of time, and loss of good shots. Be careful with your choice, Have fun.
I find the sharpness equivalent to my two 100-400L IS Canon copies. The color cast is slightly warmer than my Canon and a good deal warmer than my Nikon lenses because of the coatings (don't know if this is true for the newer versions) but certainly not an issue. All in all it's a very, very good bargain but it's definitely a "chunk" to tote.
Best regards,
Lin
Also, Lin referred to Vignetting for the 50-500. I should have included that in my list of points about the 50-500, but it's been three years since I shot full frame (film), so I forgot. The 50-500 does indeed vignette on full frame cameras. But in the year and a bit that I had the 50-500 and shot film, I think I ever noticed the vignetting on two pictures out of several hundred. Basically, if there wasn't a smooth background, the vignetting wasn't noticeable (to me).
-Paul