Is the Sigma 150-500mm a good wildlife lens for an Alaska trip on a DX camera?
Asked 11/29/2012
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m planning a summer trip to Alaska and want to save up for a wildlife lens to use on a DX camera. I’ve been considering the Sigma 150-500mm because the long reach seems useful for animals you can’t safely approach, and I’d like image stabilization so I’m not always dependent on a tripod.
My concerns are that it’s a relatively slow lens at the long end, and I haven’t used anything this long before, so I’m not sure whether 500mm is ideal or excessive. I’ll have other lenses for closer subjects, but I’d prefer not to swap lenses constantly in the field.
For wildlife photography, what focal range is typically most useful? How important is a faster maximum aperture if most shooting will be in daylight? Is a 150-500mm a sensible choice, or would something like a 70-300mm or superzoom be more practical in this kind of situation?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
5
Yes that is a reasonable lens. The most popular for wildlife is actually the Sigma 50-500mm which, despite the larger range, actually performs better.
When choosing a lens like either one of those you have to manage expectations:
The lens is not super-sharp, particularly towards the long end. If you intend on shooting birds and small wildlife, you do need that long end though! You would do better with a fixed 400mm or 500mm but it will cost you in price and weight.
The lens is very dim. F/6.3 is the maximum aperture at 500mm and you have to stop it down to improve sharpness. So this lens will make you struggle in low-light. Luckily for you, light does not get very low in Alaska in the summer :)
Overall it can be a good choice. If, for example, you are not planning to shoot birds and small animals, then you can do much better for a similar price with a shorter lens. The Sigma 100-300mm F/4 is ultra-sharp and among my favorite wildlife lens. The middle-ground is probably the Sigma 120-400mm F/4.5-5.6 but I have not tried it, so I cannot vouch for its performance.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes — the Sigma 150-500mm is a reasonable wildlife choice, especially if your priority is reach. For distant subjects like wildlife, 500mm can be very useful, and it will generally give better results than using a shorter lens and cropping heavily.
The tradeoffs are important: it isn’t especially sharp at the long end, and it’s slow at 500mm (around f/6.3), so low light and action can be challenging. Stopping down can improve sharpness, but that costs even more light. In Alaska in summer, the long daylight helps offset that.
Its stabilization is effective for handholding static subjects, but it won’t freeze subject movement, and long lenses are still easier to use on a monopod for best sharpness. It’s also a large, tiring lens to carry for long periods.
A 70-300mm would be more portable, but may feel short for wildlife, especially small or distant animals. A superzoom offers convenience but usually gives up image quality. If wildlife reach matters most, the 150-500mm makes sense. Some photographers also prefer the Sigma 50-500mm in this class, and higher-quality fixed 400mm/500mm lenses perform better but are heavier and more expensive.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which of these lenses is best for photographing bears and wildlife in Alaska?
Which lens should I pair with a Canon 6D and 650D for wildlife on safari?
Are telephoto primes usually sharper than telephoto zooms for wildlife photography?
Should I use a teleconverter on a Canon 70-300mm, or buy a 150-500mm lens for wildlife?
Can I use a Manfrotto 393 gimbal head with both a heavy telephoto and lighter lenses?