Sigma 150-500mm
Discussion
Does anyone own one or has used one for any time.
I am looking for a long lens or my Canon 7d for wildlife. I had a quick back to back comparison with a Canon 100-400mm with a 1.4 converter in a shop but didn't reach a firm conclusion.
The Sigma is a big heavy beast but seemed quite bright on a dull day and seemed to focus quickly, it also had useful moulding on the tripod support to use as a hand grip. The canon with the converter on would not autofocus.
Magazine reviews of the Sigma seem lukewarm but I am trying to do this on a budget so cannot afford a prime. I know that you get what you pay for. I would just be grateful for any feedback from sigma owners or users.
Thanks in advance.
I am looking for a long lens or my Canon 7d for wildlife. I had a quick back to back comparison with a Canon 100-400mm with a 1.4 converter in a shop but didn't reach a firm conclusion.
The Sigma is a big heavy beast but seemed quite bright on a dull day and seemed to focus quickly, it also had useful moulding on the tripod support to use as a hand grip. The canon with the converter on would not autofocus.
Magazine reviews of the Sigma seem lukewarm but I am trying to do this on a budget so cannot afford a prime. I know that you get what you pay for. I would just be grateful for any feedback from sigma owners or users.
Thanks in advance.
No experience I'm afraid but I'll be watching this thread with keen interest as this is a lens I'm quite fascinated by. No idea how much I'd use it's range but it would be nice to have the option.
As you say reviews seem okay at best but then it is very cheap for what it offers and I think most reviews say it does offer very good value for money.
Are you looking at the OS version? This seems like a must to me on a lens like this for hand holding as you're going to to need a lot of light or (cranked up ISO) to get the shutter speeds down below 1/500 when using at full reach, particularly as most reviews suggest it's worth dropping down a couple of stops from fully open.
Don't know if it's an option to you but I was thinking of hiring one for a week or so and seeing how I get on.
As you say reviews seem okay at best but then it is very cheap for what it offers and I think most reviews say it does offer very good value for money.
Are you looking at the OS version? This seems like a must to me on a lens like this for hand holding as you're going to to need a lot of light or (cranked up ISO) to get the shutter speeds down below 1/500 when using at full reach, particularly as most reviews suggest it's worth dropping down a couple of stops from fully open.
Don't know if it's an option to you but I was thinking of hiring one for a week or so and seeing how I get on.
I had one for a short while, just couldn't get on with it and sold it for a few quid less than I paid for it.
I'm sure it's OK and it's my inability rather than the lens, but I have doubts. Needs lots of light which I found restrictive. I also found 500mm (aside from my moon shot) was too long for my genre.
400D
ISO 100
f/11
1/60th
Moon V3 original by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr
I'm sure it's OK and it's my inability rather than the lens, but I have doubts. Needs lots of light which I found restrictive. I also found 500mm (aside from my moon shot) was too long for my genre.
400D
ISO 100
f/11
1/60th
Moon V3 original by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr
Edited by HoHoHo on Friday 21st January 15:58
Sigma 150-500 is a great Modern design lens. Although it may need setting up properly at 500mm.
Sigma's Factory QC ain't the best, so if you buy the lens and have a focussing problem send it back and Sigma UK will sort it, this is what happened with my lens.
Weight is very light for a 500mm lens and the IS works well.
On my Canon bodies I increase the contrast 1 stop via the body custom controls, which greatly improves the shots IMO, possibly if you use the lens on Nikon or Sony Bodies, contrast may not need adjusting.
Previously I owned the Canon 100-400 'hell' zoom, the Sigma is in whole different class for IQ compared to the ancient Canon.
Hope this help you decide
Sigma's Factory QC ain't the best, so if you buy the lens and have a focussing problem send it back and Sigma UK will sort it, this is what happened with my lens.
Weight is very light for a 500mm lens and the IS works well.
On my Canon bodies I increase the contrast 1 stop via the body custom controls, which greatly improves the shots IMO, possibly if you use the lens on Nikon or Sony Bodies, contrast may not need adjusting.
Previously I owned the Canon 100-400 'hell' zoom, the Sigma is in whole different class for IQ compared to the ancient Canon.
Hope this help you decide
S47 said:
Sigma's Factory QC ain't the best, so if you buy the lens and have a focussing problem send it back and Sigma UK will sort it, this is what happened with my lens.
A good reason to buy from somewhere reputable. I bought a Sigma 20-40 from Warehouse Express and the focus was miles out. They exchanged it and the new one was no better so I got a refund, no quibble.
It does OK considering the price you pay versus the OEM lenses
DSC_5161 copy by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/1000
f6.3
500mm
ISO400
S3RBERA by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/320
f6.3
150mm
ISO200
DSC_4509 by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/800
f6.3
500mm
ISO200
DSC_6419 by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/250
f6.3
450mm
ISO200
DSC_5161 copy by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/1000
f6.3
500mm
ISO400
S3RBERA by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/320
f6.3
150mm
ISO200
DSC_4509 by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/800
f6.3
500mm
ISO200
DSC_6419 by ray_blake, on Flickr
1/250
f6.3
450mm
ISO200
Edited by Yellabelly on Friday 21st January 23:34
Hi
I've just bought this lens but not had the time or the weather to use it yet.
I found this web form worth a look. You need to scroll down and after the Canon lens it moves on to a list of sigma lens
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...
Ray
I've just bought this lens but not had the time or the weather to use it yet.
I found this web form worth a look. You need to scroll down and after the Canon lens it moves on to a list of sigma lens
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...
Ray
I have been pleased with my Sigma 150 -500.I only ever use it with a tripod or monopod, trying to use it hand held was too awkward. Here are a couple of shots that I took with it. I think both were on the full 500m. I am glad I bought it and personally would not hesitate to recommend it, unless of course you had £4-£6K to spend!
This is my first post on this Photography forum and the first time I have dared try putting up photos,so apologies if it doesn't work.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_14Q7GXkXbx4/TTxd__cy6dI/AAAA...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_14Q7GXkXbx4/TTxeAPNdweI/AAAA...
This is my first post on this Photography forum and the first time I have dared try putting up photos,so apologies if it doesn't work.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_14Q7GXkXbx4/TTxd__cy6dI/AAAA...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_14Q7GXkXbx4/TTxeAPNdweI/AAAA...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58302268@N03/53790022...
This is one taken yesterday with a 150-500 at 500mm hand held then cropped on the computer.
Ray
This is one taken yesterday with a 150-500 at 500mm hand held then cropped on the computer.
Ray
The new 50-500 OS is supposed to be better than the old one, which was supposed to be better than the 150-500.
Have you considered a sigma 400mm f5.6 HSM? Not many around that work on digital bodies, but supposed to be sharp wide open and probably a much cheaper foray into the world of telephoto than a new zoom lens. I have one, but it is thick with fungus (somewhat misdescribed by an ebay seller) and it is still pretty good tbh.
Have you considered a sigma 400mm f5.6 HSM? Not many around that work on digital bodies, but supposed to be sharp wide open and probably a much cheaper foray into the world of telephoto than a new zoom lens. I have one, but it is thick with fungus (somewhat misdescribed by an ebay seller) and it is still pretty good tbh.
I have the Sigma 50-500, and I really enjoy using it. The reach is great and the IQ is a decent 7/10.
I also use it for wildlife. Most of the time handheld. The only downside to it is that you need a decent amount of light to get the shutter speed fast enough to 'freeze' the subject. On a dark day, you'll have a difficult job, but on a sunny day the AF will be snappy and you can take photos at 1/500 or faster you can get some great shots.
I got mine because I got a great deal on a mint used one. That said, and I think this may be worth considering, most wildlife you are taking photos of means that you are going to need 400mm and above because of the physical distance you need to be away from the subject. 90% of the time mine is on 500mm
If I had the chance, I would swop it for the Canon 400m 'L' prime in a heartbeat. For me, I never use any shorter than 400mm anyway, and the IQ of that, and the speed of the lens makes for some stunning photos, which are easily a step above the Sigma, especially in terms of absolute sharpness. For example, on a bird photo with the Sigma, you'll look back at the shot and you can see the texture of the individual feathers, and you'll be pretty pleased. Then you see what the prime will do, and you can see the individual filaments of each feather, almost as if the Sigma was 'ever so slightly' out of focus... It's a lot more cash though.
I also use it for wildlife. Most of the time handheld. The only downside to it is that you need a decent amount of light to get the shutter speed fast enough to 'freeze' the subject. On a dark day, you'll have a difficult job, but on a sunny day the AF will be snappy and you can take photos at 1/500 or faster you can get some great shots.
I got mine because I got a great deal on a mint used one. That said, and I think this may be worth considering, most wildlife you are taking photos of means that you are going to need 400mm and above because of the physical distance you need to be away from the subject. 90% of the time mine is on 500mm
If I had the chance, I would swop it for the Canon 400m 'L' prime in a heartbeat. For me, I never use any shorter than 400mm anyway, and the IQ of that, and the speed of the lens makes for some stunning photos, which are easily a step above the Sigma, especially in terms of absolute sharpness. For example, on a bird photo with the Sigma, you'll look back at the shot and you can see the texture of the individual feathers, and you'll be pretty pleased. Then you see what the prime will do, and you can see the individual filaments of each feather, almost as if the Sigma was 'ever so slightly' out of focus... It's a lot more cash though.
I've got an older (5ih years old) 50-500 and have been very happy with it. This set was all taken with it
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsurfa/5376583790/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsurfa/5376583790/
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 23 January 21:35
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff