Sigma 500 F4 vs Nikon 500 PF

[Johansson]

Hello there.
I just wanted to ask if any of you here one the forums have some kind of experience with the Sigma 500 F4. Mainly sharpness, rendering and autofocus performance. Any feedback is appreciated. If any you have used both the 500 of and the Sigma lens, that would also be a lot of help because it’s one or the other, and I’m not sure if the size and bulk of the sigma is worth it for just an enthusiast compared to the 500 PF
Regards Johansson

 

[Andy Work]

I have a Sigma 500 F4 Sport lens and have been happy with it. My wife and I use it mostly on our D500s and it is sharper than my Sigma 150-600mm C and her Tamron 150-600mm G2. The auto focus seems fine to me, but I don't have any other 500mm primes to compare it to.

I’m not sure if the size and bulk of the sigma is worth it for just an enthusiast compared to the 500 PF

I'm not either. I ran across a great deal on a used Sigma 500 F4. If buying new I would go with the 500PF for $2400.00 less. I would like to get a 500PF for my wife. I like the idea of less weight/better handhold ability. You may want to rent both to see which is best for you.

 

[Johansson]

I have a Sigma 500 F4 Sport lens and have been happy with it. My wife and I use it mostly on our D500s and it is sharper than my Sigma 150-600mm C and her Tamron 150-600mm G2. The auto focus seems fine to me, but I don't have any other 500mm primes to compare it to.



I'm not either. I ran across a great deal on a used Sigma 500 F4. If buying new I would go with the 500PF for $2400.00 less. I would like to get a 500PF for my wife. I like the idea of less weight/better handhold ability. You may want to rent both to see which is best for you.

Sadly I live in a country where it’s very hard to rent gear, that’s why I’m being so cautious about this. The Sigma lens I found is roughly 75% the price of a new one.

 

[FB101]

I don’t own the sigma 500 but had the chance to use it for a while (I think a couple people here own it and seem extremely happy with it).
my experience was quite good, it is a well built lens for sure with very solid performance. I compared it to the Nikon 500 f:4 at the time and the Nikon I found edged the Sigma a bit but for the price difference, the sigma was very compelling.

move forward to the 500pf, I’d say they are optically hard to distinguish. I can’t try them side by side anymore but I doubt there would be much difference in AF performance on a modern body - but on older bodies, f:4 vs f:5.6 was meaningful.
you didn’t say what camera you use, but if it’s not D5/6, D850, D500 you might want to look into f:5.6 AF performance. In all cases, in low light the f:4 lens will hunt less, it’s just physics.

in my view the 500pf wins on some aspects but not all; It’s cheaper, lighter, shorter but the Sigma, being f:4 takes in the 1.4x converter better. The 500pf works well with the Nikon converter but AF at f:8, even on newer bodies, is quite impaired. Works fine with static subjects but it’s not fast and it can miss. And then of course, there is background separation and bokeh which the Sigma also edges but depending on what you shoot, it may not be visible in practice Very often.

i personally picked the 500pf for the weight advantage but I will say, I miss an f:4 big lens now and then, in low light or when I need a converter. If you don’t do much of those two things then the pf is about as perfect as it gets.

 

[Andy Work]

Sadly I live in a country where it’s very hard to rent gear, that’s why I’m being so cautious about this. The Sigma lens I found is roughly 75% the price of a new one.

The one I bought was 1/2 the price of a new one, too good a deal to pass up. As mentioned above, if you don't need to use a converter or the extra stop of light isn't a problem, you can't go wrong with the PF.

 

[Johansson]

I don’t own the sigma 500 but had the chance to use it for a while (I think a couple people here own it and seem extremely happy with it).
my experience was quite good, it is a well built lens for sure with very solid performance. I compared it to the Nikon 500 f:4 at the time and the Nikon I found edged the Sigma a bit but for the price difference, the sigma was very compelling.

move forward to the 500pf, I’d say they are optically hard to distinguish. I can’t try them side by side anymore but I doubt there would be much difference in AF performance on a modern body - but on older bodies, f:4 vs f:5.6 was meaningful.
you didn’t say what camera you use, but if it’s not D5/6, D850, D500 you might want to look into f:5.6 AF performance. In all cases, in low light the f:4 lens will hunt less, it’s just physics.

in my view the 500pf wins on some aspects but not all; It’s cheaper, lighter, shorter but the Sigma, being f:4 takes in the 1.4x converter better. The 500pf works well with the Nikon converter but AF at f:8, even on newer bodies, is quite impaired. Works fine with static subjects but it’s not fast and it can miss. And then of course, there is background separation and bokeh which the Sigma also edges but depending on what you shoot, it may not be visible in practice Very often.

i personally picked the 500pf for the weight advantage but I will say, I miss an f:4 big lens now and then, in low light or when I need a converter. If you don’t do much of those two things then the pf is about as perfect as it gets.

It would probably sit on a D500 because full frame is not very suited for wildlife where I live, the animals are just frightened to easily. I know a few photographers who use a 5-600mm lens and still have to use a tc sometimes

 

[FB101]

It would probably sit on a D500 because full frame is not very suited for wildlife where I live, the animals are just frightened to easily. I know a few photographers who use a 5-600mm lens and still have to use a tc sometimes

D500 + 500pf is a great combo and my go-to for small birds and harder to approach animals. If you shoot on tripod all the time, then you can consider either lens. But if you are handholding, that 750mm equivalent focal is not easy to keep steady for long periods and then the pf makes all the difference in the world.
i do shoot D500 + 500pf + 1.4x TC on occasion but Af speed does take a serious hit - and 1050mm equivalent has its own set of challenges.

 

[Johansson]

D500 + 500pf is a great combo and my go-to for small birds and harder to approach animals. If you shoot on tripod all the time, then you can consider either lens. But if you are handholding, that 750mm equivalent focal is not easy to keep steady for long periods and then the pf makes all the difference in the world.
i do shoot D500 + 500pf + 1.4x TC on occasion but Af speed does take a serious hit - and 1050mm equivalent has its own set of challenges.

I do already have both a tripod and a good quality gimbal head

 

[BillW]

…..

in my view the 500pf wins on some aspects but not all; It’s cheaper, lighter, shorter but the Sigma, being f:4 takes in the 1.4x converter better. The 500pf works well with the Nikon converter but AF at f:8, even on newer bodies, is quite impaired. Works fine with static subjects but it’s not fast and it can miss. And then of course, there is background separation and bokeh which the Sigma also edges but depending on what you shoot, it may not be visible in practice Very often.

….

Not sure what body the OP would use the lens on. I agree that the 500 mm PF + 1.4x TC (I use the III version) does not AF that well on my D500 or D850. One issue is that the combination is f8 and that means that only a few AF points near the center of the frame work.

I have had much better luck with the 500 mm PF and teleconverters on my Z bodies, especially the Z7II and Z6II. I have used the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII (the combo is f8); the 1.7x TCII (the combo is f9.5); and the 2x TCIII (the combo is f11). All work on a ZII body pretty well with the FTZ. All the focus points across the frame work. I have even shot birds in flight using the 1.4x TCIII and 1.7x TCII — although mostly larger, slower birds like herons, egrets, sandhill cranes, bald eagles, trumpeter swans and the like. The 2x TCIII does slow AF on my ZII bodies enough that I have not found it useful for BIF.

Of course given the effective aperture, you may need decent light and you have less ability to blur the background.

 

[fcotterill]

I considered the Sigma Sport very seriously back in 2018, and tested one in UK. Eventually I decided on 400 f2.8E primarily for the higher Teleconverter Factor and excellent IQ.
I try and identify and single out the Sui Generis of best lenses. For the 400 f2.8 it is basically 4 primes in 1, including 800 f5.6.

Little to add to the above posts. A f4 telephoto gives you a distinct advantage shooting in lowlight, besides the advantage with TC14, and I've read the Sigma teleconverter is of high quality.

I presume the OP has read Brad Hill's exhaustive testing and comparisons of the Sigma Sport 500 f4 vs the Nikkor prime - and he kept the former. The Sui Generis of the 500 f4 Sigma Sport is its excellent IQ, and a bit lighter than the Nikon's 400 and 600 E primes (but note the Nikkor 500 f4E is the lightest of the Nikon E type exotic primes), and it can give you not only 700 f5.6 but also 1000 f8, which will have decent AF on a mirrorless.
The caveat with TCs is IQ falls off markedly over longer subject distances.

There are no free lunches with any telephoto solution, sadly!

 

[GrandNagus50]

I have both lenses. I have too many lenses; that's a story for another day. I use the 500mm PF lens probably ten times as much as the Sigma Sport 500mm f4, which I have considered selling (but haven't). They are really different beasts in terms of handling. The Sigma Sports is no sharper, in my view; they both are quite sharp and I am not a pixel peeper. I have wanted to use the much larger Sigma Sport lens in low light situations. It is very sharp at f4. The 500mm PF does not have f4. I have used the Sigma sport with the matching 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. I find it hard to get maximal sharpness at 1000mm, but that is partly my technique and lack of patience, I am sure.

 

[BLev65]

I have the 500PF and recently sold the 200-400VR... the latter is relevant if you read my entire comment.
In addition, I shot with Brad Hill in 2017 (I think) when he was using both the Sigma 500Sport and 120-300 f/2.8Sport. This was prior to the release of the 500PF. He really liked the performance of his lenses, but has since sold them off. I surmise that his decisions to sell was due to (1) the introduction of the 180-400 Nikkor and (2) the introduction of the 500PF. The latter point suggests that the image quality of the Nikon must be at least as good as the Sigma.
I sold my 200-400... my most used lens ever (at least 75,000 images made with it) because once I handled the 500PF, I was hooked on its optical performance to handling ratio. I have never used a telephoto lens that is so easy to handle with or without a tripod. The ability to hike for miles, belly crawl through mud, and quickly shoot from tripod to hand-held and back has revolutionized the way I photograph wildlife.
Just today, in the early hours, I was shooting everything from shorebirds to deer to foggy landscapes. All of the shooting was done along a river and there were times where shifting from tripod to hand holding was the difference in making or ignoring an opportunity.
In my mind, there is only one other lens that surpasses the versatility of the 500PF, and that is the Canon 400mm f/4 DO vii.

So, unless you need the f/4 aperture or want a lens that is 700mm f/5.6 w/ converter, you can't go wrong w/ the 500PF

 

[ChrisM]

I have both these lenses, the 500PF longer, the Sigma since a few months, and use these on the D500.
My opinion is a little bit different from mainstream, in that I find the imaging of the Sigma very different to that from the 500PF. The Sigma has lots of the 3D quality you expect from a 500mm super telelens, lots of the fine detail and retains contrast and detail well when shooting more distant subjects. It also retains great clarity with the 1.4TC.
In all these areas I rate it above the 500PF enough to be willing to accept the larger size and heavier weight.

The 500PF is great when subjects are a bit closer and the 3D rendering as well as background separation are not as important. It has great global sharpness and great global contrast and colors, and of course weighs next to nothing and is tiny.

Personally, the Sigma inspires me much more, and I am glad I got it, but it is personal, so by all means try before you purchase one.

 

[Don'sPhotoStream]

Hello there.
I just wanted to ask if any of you here one the forums have some kind of experience with the Sigma 500 F4. Mainly sharpness, rendering and autofocus performance. Any feedback is appreciated. If any you have used both the 500 of and the Sigma lens, that would also be a lot of help because it’s one or the other, and I’m not sure if the size and bulk of the sigma is worth it for just an enthusiast compared to the 500 PF
Regards Johansson

I owned the Sigma 500/4 and found it to be an excellent lens. The lens focus speed and accuracy was quite good. (Search out the “500mm Wars” by Brad Hill, a Canadian Wildlife Photographer). He compares the Sigma and Nikon 500/4 lenses. I eventually sold the Sigma and purchased the Nikon because the Sigma would sometimes not quite get the lens opening exactly right when shooting at 10 frames per second on my D5, that is one or two frames in a 10-shot sequence would be slightly darker than the others.

 

[ChrisM]

I owned the Sigma 500/4 and found it to be an excellent lens. The lens focus speed and accuracy was quite good. (Search out the “500mm Wars” by Brad Hill, a Canadian Wildlife Photographer). He compares the Sigma and Nikon 500/4 lenses. I eventually sold the Sigma and purchased the Nikon because the Sigma would sometimes not quite get the lens opening exactly right when shooting at 10 frames per second on my D5, that is one or two frames in a 10-shot sequence would be slightly darker than the others.

I have had the Sigma 500S for a few months and the Nikon 500PF for a few years, but never got to use the Nikon 500E.
The resolution of the Sigma is astounding, even at f4. AF is very good and accurate and fast.
The only thing that I still have to find out about in the field, is whether the color and white balance of the Sigma is actually up to Nikon 500PF/500E standards.

As you have used both the 500/4 lenses, do you have any opinion the matter?

 

[Roy]

Hello there.
I just wanted to ask if any of you here one the forums have some kind of experience with the Sigma 500 F4. Mainly sharpness, rendering and autofocus performance. Any feedback is appreciated. If any you have used both the 500 of and the Sigma lens, that would also be a lot of help because it’s one or the other, and I’m not sure if the size and bulk of the sigma is worth it for just an enthusiast compared to the 500 PF
Regards Johansson

I've played with both lenses along with the Sony version.
All nice and light compared to older 500mm lenses.
Unfortunately the Sony I tried was probably a faulty sample. And the Sigma and Nikon PF seemed a little soft.
I ended up keeping my old 600mm f4 Nikkor tele lens and putting up with the extra weight.
I'm using Nikkors 300mm 2.8, 400mm, 600mm, 200-400mm, and the 200-500mm when i'm feeling too lazy to carry the big glass very far.
The best thing about a 500mm is that is is at the limit of being hand held.

 

[simo]

Now is one year that I owe the Sigma 500 f4 sport, and I decided to buy it because in that moment, starting my bird photography passion, I wanted a F4 500 and the price difference with the nikon f4 was enough, along with the reviews, to make me do the step.
Is a heavy lens as you know, but can be handled , and I forget that hard work to carry it, every time I come back home and I open the files.
When I bought it I had a d5, and the combination was honestly something remarkable ; sharpness, colors, bokeh don't make you think to want to try to buy the more expensive Nikon as an improvment, because was good enough what I had.
Has two setting of AF performance, one is very fast but a bit less precise, I noticed that gives less results on focus in burst shooting with the d850 while with the d5 was mostly fine.
I did not ever tried the Nikon 500 f4, so I cannot compare the IS, but works fine enough for me.
I decided few months ago to buy the 500 pf because I'm growing old and I thought was a good idea to enjoy a lighter glass.
Well, on the d850 I couldn't see the difference in sharpness, when there was , it was me don't hold the big one solid as I should. AF same story. Did not notice as well any difference in lock the bird in darker zones. Being so small, with the IS engaged, the PF can goes lower in shutter speed because is easier to hold still, but the difference is always 1 stop ISO, so pretty much same story.
In the meantime I decided to buy to add to my d850 and start to move to Z, the Z7ii. Both AF speed drop very badly in my opinion, is very disappointing, when you are used to have fast AF lenses, to see that. I'd take a little advantage (but is so little) to the Sigma in the faster AF setting. The sharpness of both on the mirrorless is crazy.
Because the only advantage was the weight, and tones passages for me are better on the Sigma, and because I'm really addicted to the separation that gives the F4, I changed idea and kept the Sigma, and decided to sell the PF, and give a go to the Sigma once the Z9 will be here. If the Z9 won't push the AF of the Sigma at least as same as was going on the dslr, it will be time to change it too.
I feel to can reccommand this lens if you are keen to carry it, and if you are using a dslr, get the Sigma dock station. I did not need to fine tune it on my d850 but some people had to.

 

[Roy]

Now is one year that I owe the Sigma 500 f4 sport, and I decided to buy it because in that moment, starting my bird photography passion, I wanted a F4 500 and the price difference with the nikon f4 was enough, along with the reviews, to make me do the step.
Is a heavy lens as you know, but can be handled , and I forget that hard work to carry it, every time I come back home and I open the files.
When I bought it I had a d5, and the combination was honestly something remarkable ; sharpness, colors, bokeh don't make you think to want to try to buy the more expensive Nikon as an improvment, because was good enough what I had.
Has two setting of AF performance, one is very fast but a bit less precise, I noticed that gives less results on focus in burst shooting with the d850 while with the d5 was mostly fine.
I did not ever tried the Nikon 500 f4, so I cannot compare the IS, but works fine enough for me.
I decided few months ago to buy the 500 pf because I'm growing old and I thought was a good idea to enjoy a lighter glass.
Well, on the d850 I couldn't see the difference in sharpness, when there was , it was me don't hold the big one solid as I should. AF same story. Did not notice as well any difference in lock the bird in darker zones. Being so small, with the IS engaged, the PF can goes lower in shutter speed because is easier to hold still, but the difference is always 1 stop ISO, so pretty much same story.
In the meantime I decided to buy to add to my d850 and start to move to Z, the Z7ii. Both AF speed drop very badly in my opinion, is very disappointing, when you are used to have fast AF lenses, to see that. I'd take a little advantage (but is so little) to the Sigma in the faster AF setting. The sharpness of both on the mirrorless is crazy.
Because the only advantage was the weight, and tones passages for me are better on the Sigma, and because I'm really addicted to the separation that gives the F4, I changed idea and kept the Sigma, and decided to sell the PF, and give a go to the Sigma once the Z9 will be here. If the Z9 won't push the AF of the Sigma at least as same as was going on the dslr, it will be time to change it too.
I feel to can reccommand this lens if you are keen to carry it, and if you are using a dslr, get the Sigma dock station. I did not need to fine tune it on my d850 but some people had to.

Mirrorless AF is getting good but not quite up to a D850 or D5 yet...

 

[simo]

Mirrorless AF is getting good but not quite up to a D850 or D5 yet...

Indeed, I mentioned that when I wrote about the very disappointing drop of AF speed, and that's why I still have the d850 with me, even if I really like some things of the Z7ii. Was out of the contest talk too much about that. Finger crossed the Z9 will level the gap

 

[ChrisM]

Now is one year that I owe the Sigma 500 f4 sport, and I decided to buy it because in that moment, starting my bird photography passion, I wanted a F4 500 and the price difference with the nikon f4 was enough, along with the reviews, to make me do the step.
Is a heavy lens as you know, but can be handled , and I forget that hard work to carry it, every time I come back home and I open the files.
When I bought it I had a d5, and the combination was honestly something remarkable ; sharpness, colors, bokeh don't make you think to want to try to buy the more expensive Nikon as an improvment, because was good enough what I had.
Has two setting of AF performance, one is very fast but a bit less precise, I noticed that gives less results on focus in burst shooting with the d850 while with the d5 was mostly fine.
I did not ever tried the Nikon 500 f4, so I cannot compare the IS, but works fine enough for me.
I decided few months ago to buy the 500 pf because I'm growing old and I thought was a good idea to enjoy a lighter glass.
Well, on the d850 I couldn't see the difference in sharpness, when there was , it was me don't hold the big one solid as I should. AF same story. Did not notice as well any difference in lock the bird in darker zones. Being so small, with the IS engaged, the PF can goes lower in shutter speed because is easier to hold still, but the difference is always 1 stop ISO, so pretty much same story.
In the meantime I decided to buy to add to my d850 and start to move to Z, the Z7ii. Both AF speed drop very badly in my opinion, is very disappointing, when you are used to have fast AF lenses, to see that. I'd take a little advantage (but is so little) to the Sigma in the faster AF setting. The sharpness of both on the mirrorless is crazy.
Because the only advantage was the weight, and tones passages for me are better on the Sigma, and because I'm really addicted to the separation that gives the F4, I changed idea and kept the Sigma, and decided to sell the PF, and give a go to the Sigma once the Z9 will be here. If the Z9 won't push the AF of the Sigma at least as same as was going on the dslr, it will be time to change it too.
I feel to can reccommand this lens if you are keen to carry it, and if you are using a dslr, get the Sigma dock station. I did not need to fine tune it on my d850 but some people had to.

My experience is that the Sigma is not only f4 vs the f5.6 of the Nikon 500PF, but it is also a lens with a different optical design, resulting in better, more defined, subject separation even when both lenses are at f5.6.
This results in a higher "3D" sensation.
Also, I find that resolution and contrast are better maintained when cropping more distant subjects.
I used the 500PF on the Z7, but went back to the D500

 

[simo]

My experience is that the Sigma is not only f4 vs the f5.6 of the Nikon 500PF, but it is also a lens with a different optical design, resulting in better, more defined, subject separation even when both lenses are at f5.6.
This results in a higher "3D" sensation.
Also, I find that resolution and contrast are better maintained when cropping more distant subjects.
I used the 500PF on the Z7, but went back to the D500

Indeed this too, I was saying about the tone passages in my comment (I'm not English speaking, maybe it is called in another way?) that for me are better. Those tones passages bring to a better 3d natural effect
cheers

 

[Roy]

Indeed, I mentioned that when I wrote about the very disappointing drop of AF speed, and that's why I still have the d850 with me, even if I really like some things of the Z7ii. Was out of the contest talk too much about that. Finger crossed the Z9 will level the gap

I like my Z cameras too - they show much promise.
But My D850 cameras and D5 are still my preffered choice for important work.

 

[tigger4t]

Not sure what body the OP would use the lens on. I agree that the 500 mm PF + 1.4x TC (I use the III version) does not AF that well on my D500 or D850. One issue is that the combination is f8 and that means that only a few AF points near the center of the frame work.

I have had much better luck with the 500 mm PF and teleconverters on my Z bodies, especially the Z7II and Z6II. I have used the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII (the combo is f8); the 1.7x TCII (the combo is f9.5); and the 2x TCIII (the combo is f11). All work on a ZII body pretty well with the FTZ. All the focus points across the frame work. I have even shot birds in flight using the 1.4x TCIII and 1.7x TCII — although mostly larger, slower birds like herons, egrets, sandhill cranes, bald eagles, trumpeter swans and the like. The 2x TCIII does slow AF on my ZII bodies enough that I have not found it useful for BIF.

Of course given the effective aperture, you may need decent light and you have less ability to blur the background.

I'm using my Sigma 500 f4 on either a Nikon D850 or D7200

 

[tigger4t]

I have both lenses. I have too many lenses; that's a story for another day. I use the 500mm PF lens probably ten times as much as the Sigma Sport 500mm f4, which I have considered selling (but haven't). They are really different beasts in terms of handling. The Sigma Sports is no sharper, in my view; they both are quite sharp and I am not a pixel peeper. I have wanted to use the much larger Sigma Sport lens in low light situations. It is very sharp at f4. The 500mm PF does not have f4. I have used the Sigma sport with the matching 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. I find it hard to get maximal sharpness at 1000mm, but that is partly my technique and lack of patience, I am sure.

Thanks - I sold my Sigma TC-2001 as the image quality wasn't great whatever I tried - the TC-1401 holds up very well though.

 

[Rixpx]

I have no experience with 500mm, but I use the Sigma 24-105 f/4 and the 150-600 Contemporary with my Z7 and the FTZ. They perform well for my purposes. They are left from before I switched to the Z cameras.

Sigma has upped their quality over the past 10 years or so.