Sigma 150-600 - worth upgrading from Sigma 50-500? Images added

[Oosty]

I have a 50-500 that I use on my D7100 and am considering a change to the 150-600. My copy is reasonably sharp at 500mm and as I spend less than a month a year in game reserves I'd be interested if anyone has made the change and if the difference (apart from the longer reach) is significant. Our exchange rates are dreadful and cost is an issue for what is still a hobby. I'd love to go the whole hog with Nikon but don't have $10000 to play with at the moment!

Any comments will be appreciated.

Thanks

Peter

 

[Warren D]

I have the 150-600 Sport and it's ok. I also have the Nikon 200-500 and while it doesn't have the reach of the Sigma, I do think it's slightly sharper as well as a lot lighter. Given the choice, I almost always reach for the 200-500. I realize the 200-500 doesn't gain you any focal length over what you have. I never had the 50-500 but everything I've read indicates the 150-600 is sharper. Not sure how much the contemporary weighs in at, but the Sport is heavy.

 

[Johnnypanic]

Had previous moved from the 50 - 500 to the 150 - 600 contempory. In my particular case, there was a noticeable improvement, in sharpness.

 

[Stevie n]

I have sigma sport and 200-500 Nikon I like both lenses but you definitely need a gimbel Rig for the sigma, have achieved good results with both, if I has to choose I'd probably go for the 200-500 because its lighter.

 

[Oosty]

Thanks for the feedback

I have a couple of examples of images where the feedback would also be useful regarding acuity. Both sharpened with Steve's PS action.

This with the D7100 at 1000 iso, 1/1600 @f7.8 on a monopod

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

This taken with my old D70 at 400iso, 1/500 @f8 HH