|
Author
|
|
Fowl Mouth
Henry's loyal companion
Registered: November 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2783
|
|
Review Date: Wed February 18, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $881.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
500mm, Optical Stabilization, sharp @ ƒ8
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, slightly soft wide open, no limiter switch
|
|
Rather than regurgitating manufacturer specs and capabilities, I figured I’d simply throw a few opinions about this lens your way.
The only other telephoto that I have significant time to compare to is a Canon 70-200 1:4 non-IS. The Canon is a superb lens, with perfect scores both mechanically and optically, in my opinion.
The Sigma 150-500, which I’ve seen referred to as the Bigmos, is the lens I purchased to specifically fulfill my desires for bird photography. It’s both the 500mm focal length and the Optical Stabilization (OS) that make for an unusual combo of features in a sub $1000 USD lens. I’ve been using it almost daily for three months now, and nearly every shot in my Gallery to date is with this lens.
Mechanically, the lens appears quite solid. Build-wise it feels and looks as good as my Canon “L” lens. The HSM motor is as fast and as quiet as my “L”, which is itself equipped with USM (Canon’s similar high end motor technology). Where the Sigma lags behind is a lack of a focal length limiter switch. This is regularly evident when shooting wildlife, which is inevitably almost always distant, and forces me to wait that extra second or two when I miss the focus lock on the first try. Still, the motor is far superior to another Sigma lens that I own (28-70 EX DG 1:2.8), which is loud and slow in comparison. As for the OS, it is a dream. I’ve managed completely handheld shots (no bracing or resting) as low as 1/80 sec @ 500mm with admirable results:
It is definitely a large lens, weighing in at 4.2 lbs, or about 2 kg. It is balanced well, though, having most of its weight near the mount end.
Optically, I’d rate this lens as good wide open and very good stopped down. I spend most of my time shooting at 500mm, and I assume most people reading this review are honestly interested in the long end anyway. When set open to ƒ6.3 the nominal sharpness is on the side of soft. Additionally, a small amount of color fringing seems to impede sharp, contrasted edges. Both of these things can be fixed in Photoshop, but know that if you are desperate for that extra light gathering, you will need to post process. When pinched to ƒ8 this lens really shines. I’ve managed some truly sharp songbirds with this lens from about 15 feet. Color saturation and contrast is also very good, considering that it utilizes 21 elements in 15 groups!
Like anything in life there are always compromises. This lens is regularly being compared to the Canon 100-400 L, and rightfully so since it shares many virtues. Based on numerous 100-400 L bird pics available “webwide”, I do feel that this relatively new lens from Sigma is capable of putting up images on par with the venerable Canon zoom. Unfortunately, the Bigmos is larger, heavier, and annoyingly lacks a limiter switch. Then again, the Sigma is two-thirds the cost, which is fairly significant. If I had the money at the time, I would have considered the Canon. In the end, though, I do not regret my purchase.
------------------------------
Jason ®
birdsbyjason
|
|
|
|
wrogers
Registered User
Registered: January 2009
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Thu March 5, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, 500mm should you need it, OS
|
|
Cons:
|
slightly soft wide open and at 500mm. plastic lens barrel
|
|
I bought this lens after the first Sigma price hike of the 'Crunch' hence the £670
the price at the moment (Mar '09) is now way over £700
The lens comes in a padded lens case, and has a lens strap for the 2kg weight.
The lens is of the same quality externally as the EX lenses, except part of the lens barrel is plastic, but seems tough.
the OS works extremely well. at 150mm I have shot at 1/15th indoors ISO1600!!
works best up to 400mm but 500mm is ok
not the sharpest W/O, but drop to F/8 or F/9 and it is good enough.
lens hood is awkward unless you grip the textured area, whereas my 100-300 F/4 had an easier hood to attach.
Sharpness is generally good, allowing feather detail to be recorded, however the Canon 400mm F/5.6 is better at this.
overall 9* as image quality could be slightly better, and the plastic barrel, that seems quite sturdy is initially unnerving.
I thoroughly recommend if the Canon 100-400 L and Nikon 80-400 are too pricey, or if the Bigma's lack of OS is a concern.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
mendis
Registered User
Registered: September 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Mon March 9, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness at wide open, OS, HSM works really well
|
|
Cons:
|
'skin' of lens fragile, no limit switch
|
|
When I was looking for a walkabout lens around the range of 80-400mm with image stabilizer, I had several choices. It was either the Sigma 120-400 OS, 150-500 OS or the Nikkor 80-400vr. After initial testing of the three lenses, I narrowed down to either the 150-500 OS or the Nikkor 80-400vr.
There were two factors that I deem as priorities for choosing the lens. First, sharpness wide open. Second, focus speed for flight/action.
In the store, I compared the two lenses with the Nikon D3 in the following areas.
Focus speed (Sigma Wins)
Sharpness (Tied – wide open)
Colour (Nikon wins)
Image stabilizing (Tied) (lowest speed tested being 1/160th)
Based on the above results, and of course, the price tag, I chose the Sigma. The Nikon costs about S$1000 more than the Sigma.
It does not get a 10 because of the body finishing; that peels off after some use.
|
|
|
|
|
Dicky Bird
Registered User
Registered: October 2008
Location: Coleshill North Warwickshire.
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Wed March 25, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
well built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Limiter switch Photos not sharp
|
|
This Lens is nice to handle,but what lets it down is the lack of sharpness in the Birds feathers.Tried all focal lenghts and f-stops and shutter speeds but it doese'nt come sharp.
|
|
|
|
|
dixiethedug
Brian
Registered: February 2009
Location: Bonnyrigg, Midlothian
Posts: 381
|
|
Review Date: Wed April 22, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
great up to 300mm
|
|
Cons:
|
soft from 300 to 500mm
|
|
 Maybe I had a duff lens, don't know, but try as i did i could not get 'pin' sharp pics between 300 & 500mm. So i went to an experienced bird photographer and it was the same result.
Even using NX Capture or Photoshop the pics at max distance were soft. I was extremely disappointed. So much so i have ditched the lens and bought a Tamron 200-500.
My experience may well be down to poor batch, who knows but i was not going to risk a change of lens and have the same result, so i went for a Tamron.
------------------------------
Lang may yer lum reek!
|
|
|
|
|
Eleanorsanimals
Registered User
Registered: November 2008
Location: Chorley, UK
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Fri June 12, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
I'm only an amateur and could do with a little help on this lense. I'm using it with a X2 transformer and am just not getting enough light into the shots (Canon 40D). Can anyone recommend settings with this configuration that might help with the problem?
Cheerz
|
|
|
|
|
fpimentel
Registered User
Registered: August 2009
Location: NYC, NY
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Thu August 20, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $930.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
relatively fast focus, image stabilization, price
|
|
Cons:
|
mediocre color quality and weak sharpness (above 400mm)
|
|
Last year I got this lens to replace a Nikon 80-400mm. For birding the 80-400 was not a good choice, too slow (focusing) and did not work well in low light. The Sigma 150-500 is a better lens in many aspects but the Nikon (was) is a better lens regarding the general quality of the pictures. I need to do a lot of work using Photoshop CS4 to improve the sharpness and color quality of the pictures that I take with the Sigma 150-500 lens. I also have a Nikon 400 (F 2.8) that I use for birding photography and (of course) is a superior lens in all aspects. But you need a sturdy tripod and if you have to move around for birding, then the Sigma is a acceptable choice for hand held camera shooting of birds. Most of the time I use the Sigma 150-500 with a Nikon D300 and a monopod (for support) and the results are OK, sometimes good.
|
|
|
|
|
Musoman
I only have a mild form of LBA
Registered: October 2009
Location: Witney
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Tue October 20, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
500mm FL
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly annoying hood - no FL limiter
|
|
I cant really add much to the reviews above. When i bought mine, i was in half a mind to get the big Tamron 200-500, but there were more negative views on that lens.
I took a chance and bought the Sig. I must say i love it, but with the small Max Aps, its not at its best on dull days. Stick to bright sunny days with this lens, stop down to F8 or further, live with its foibles, and enjoy.
------------------------------
RSPB + Dogs Trust member 450D - Bigmos - EF 50-200 - EF 35-135 - M42 Vivitar -TX 135 - Tam AD2 SP 90 macro - M42 EBC Fujinon 50 - Raynox 35 - Super Tak 35 - Tam AF 10-24
Skydrive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to BirdForum.
;)
;)
