Discussion
I happened across one of these bad boys in a trawl through eBay and on the face of it they seem to offer a hell of a lot for the money (good used ones are £400-£500) compared to Canon's telephoto lenses. (I have a 450D with a 15-85 and a 100mm prime so am toying with various options for something a bit longer).
Anybody got one or had any experiences ? The reviews certainly read well but there's no substitute for some first hand experiences
Cheers, DD.
Anybody got one or had any experiences ? The reviews certainly read well but there's no substitute for some first hand experiences
Cheers, DD.
Hi DD,
I've had one for several years and mainly used it for motorsport, albeit it's mostly regarded as a "birder" lens.
It has positives and negatives, as its a compromise at the end of the day:
Positive:
Flexible Zoom Range
Fairly Compact (given the above)
Cheap in comparisson to other offerings (but still strong construction).
Negative:
Slow F4-6.3 (and also not fixed aperture)
Heavy (I can hand hold it, but you know you have been doing it after a while)
"Soft" - It's softer at 500 but come back a bit and it does sharpen up. However, having said that I have had pretty good results shooting F1 at full zoom. I think alot is possibly luck of the draw as Sigma does have some QC issues.
I don't have any full size pics online, but just to give you a taste of what it can do (on a Canon 30D body).
The last pic was taken at 500mm.
I've had one for several years and mainly used it for motorsport, albeit it's mostly regarded as a "birder" lens.
It has positives and negatives, as its a compromise at the end of the day:
Positive:
Flexible Zoom Range
Fairly Compact (given the above)
Cheap in comparisson to other offerings (but still strong construction).
Negative:
Slow F4-6.3 (and also not fixed aperture)
Heavy (I can hand hold it, but you know you have been doing it after a while)
"Soft" - It's softer at 500 but come back a bit and it does sharpen up. However, having said that I have had pretty good results shooting F1 at full zoom. I think alot is possibly luck of the draw as Sigma does have some QC issues.
I don't have any full size pics online, but just to give you a taste of what it can do (on a Canon 30D body).
The last pic was taken at 500mm.
dibbly dobbler said:
(good used ones are £400-£500)
Are you sure this is the 50-500 not the 150-500 a this price?I own the sigma 120-400, and the 150-500 is similar in terms of quality, from what i've heard, if a little softer (bearing in mind the 120-400 isn't the world sharpest lens wide open/ at the long end.)
The 50-500 lens is supposed to be very good, although i have no personal experience of it, and its pretty big!
Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 22 November 14:40
Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 22 November 14:41
Rinko said:
Hi DD,
I've had one for several years and mainly used it for motorsport, albeit it's mostly regarded as a "birder" lens.
It has positives and negatives, as its a compromise at the end of the day:
Positive:
Flexible Zoom Range
Fairly Compact (given the above)
Cheap in comparisson to other offerings (but still strong construction).
Negative:
Slow F4-6.3 (and also not fixed aperture)
Heavy (I can hand hold it, but you know you have been doing it after a while)
"Soft" - It's softer at 500 but come back a bit and it does sharpen up. However, having said that I have had pretty good results shooting F1 at full zoom. I think alot is possibly luck of the draw as Sigma does have some QC issues.
I don't have any full size pics online, but just to give you a taste of what it can do (on a Canon 30D body).
The last pic was taken at 500mm.
Excellent - thanks a lot Rinko that's just what I was after I've had one for several years and mainly used it for motorsport, albeit it's mostly regarded as a "birder" lens.
It has positives and negatives, as its a compromise at the end of the day:
Positive:
Flexible Zoom Range
Fairly Compact (given the above)
Cheap in comparisson to other offerings (but still strong construction).
Negative:
Slow F4-6.3 (and also not fixed aperture)
Heavy (I can hand hold it, but you know you have been doing it after a while)
"Soft" - It's softer at 500 but come back a bit and it does sharpen up. However, having said that I have had pretty good results shooting F1 at full zoom. I think alot is possibly luck of the draw as Sigma does have some QC issues.
I don't have any full size pics online, but just to give you a taste of what it can do (on a Canon 30D body).
The last pic was taken at 500mm.
I must say these pic look excellent to me - very, very impressive
I think the main appeal is the big numbers, I mean 500mm has got to be better than a weedy 200mm hasn't it
jimmy156 said:
dibbly dobbler said:
(good used ones are £400-£500)
Are you sure this is the 50-500 not the 150-500 a this price?I own the sigma 120-400, and the 150-500 is similar in terms of quality, from what i've heard, if a little softer (bearing in mind the 120-400 isn't the world sharpest lens wide open/ at the long end.)
The 50-500 lens is supposed to be very good, although i have no personal experience of it, and its pretty big!
I wasn't aware of the other sizes, more investigating to be done, yay!
I have 150-500 sigma and it's a cracking lens PROVIDED you can stop it down to F8.
When I bought mine I had a problem at the 500mm end [it appeared that the focus wasn't]! after returning to sigma under warrenty, they replaced the IS unit and adjusted the internal movable lenses to allow them to focus properly at 500mm, apparently there's insufficient travel to focus correctly at 500mm on some lenses, unless it's been re-adjusted by Sigma.
When I bought mine I had a problem at the 500mm end [it appeared that the focus wasn't]! after returning to sigma under warrenty, they replaced the IS unit and adjusted the internal movable lenses to allow them to focus properly at 500mm, apparently there's insufficient travel to focus correctly at 500mm on some lenses, unless it's been re-adjusted by Sigma.
dibbly dobbler said:
jimmy156 said:
dibbly dobbler said:
(good used ones are £400-£500)
Are you sure this is the 50-500 not the 150-500 a this price?I own the sigma 120-400, and the 150-500 is similar in terms of quality, from what i've heard, if a little softer (bearing in mind the 120-400 isn't the world sharpest lens wide open/ at the long end.)
The 50-500 lens is supposed to be very good, although i have no personal experience of it, and its pretty big!
I wasn't aware of the other sizes, more investigating to be done, yay!
The 50-500 is a better lens then the 150-500, and has sigma's EX designation (sort of an equivalent to canons L range) and would have been over £1000 new. Had i known they were this sort of price when i bought my 120-400 (they may have dropped since though) i would have definitely considered one of these!
dibbly dobbler said:
Jimmy - thanks again, I hadn't realised there were two options, ie os and non-os.
Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
On a long lens I'd say it is worth it. I love my Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX but do sometimes wish it had OS as well.Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
BTW, I've used my lens with Canon's 1.4x extender and got some great results, that makes it a 140-420mm f5.6 (and if you add in the camera's crop factor 224-672mm f5.6!).
ETA: A photo taken with the 100-300 + 1.4x.
Wheatear by dogsey, on Flickr
ETA2: And that's a 100% crop out of the middle of the photo.
Edited by Dogsey on Monday 22 November 19:29
dibbly dobbler said:
Jimmy - thanks again, I hadn't realised there were two options, ie os and non-os.
Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
The OS version has just been released, and superceeds the non-os lens, it isn't just the OS that has been added, the new lens is supposed to be sharper w/o too.Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
Some examples here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?for...
Dogsey said:
dibbly dobbler said:
Jimmy - thanks again, I hadn't realised there were two options, ie os and non-os.
Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
On a long lens I'd say it is worth it. I love my Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX but do sometimes wish it had OS as well.Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
BTW, I've used my lens with Canon's 1.4x extender and got some great results, that makes it a 140-420mm f5.6 (and if you add in the camera's crop factor 224-672mm f5.6!).
ETA: A photo taken with the 100-300 + 1.4x.
Wheatear by dogsey, on Flickr
ETA2: And that's a 100% crop out of the middle of the photo.
Edited by Dogsey on Monday 22 November 19:29
If that was done without the benefit of image stabilisation then is/os cant exactly be essential...Cabinet Enforcer said:
dibbly dobbler said:
Jimmy - thanks again, I hadn't realised there were two options, ie os and non-os.
Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
The OS version has just been released, and superceeds the non-os lens, it isn't just the OS that has been added, the new lens is supposed to be sharper w/o too.Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
Some examples here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?for...
dibbly dobbler said:
Dogsey said:
dibbly dobbler said:
Jimmy - thanks again, I hadn't realised there were two options, ie os and non-os.
Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
On a long lens I'd say it is worth it. I love my Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX but do sometimes wish it had OS as well.Never very sure if image stabilisation is worth the extra
BTW, I've used my lens with Canon's 1.4x extender and got some great results, that makes it a 140-420mm f5.6 (and if you add in the camera's crop factor 224-672mm f5.6!).
ETA: A photo taken with the 100-300 + 1.4x.
Wheatear by dogsey, on Flickr
ETA2: And that's a 100% crop out of the middle of the photo.
Edited by Dogsey on Monday 22 November 19:29
If that was done without the benefit of image stabilisation then is/os cant exactly be essential...Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff