What lense (1 Viewer)

mark b · Apr 5, 2007

Hi

I have recently purchased a canon 350d and I am now looking to get a decent but reasonable lens for wildlife and birding photography.

What are peoples thoughts on the Sigma 135-400mm lens DG APO, I realise it doesn't have a image stabiliser but just wondered if you had any thoughts on it, also the zoom ring seems to have a bit of friction and apparently is a little difficult to zoom precisely, quickly.

Or the CANON 100-400 mm L IS USM, I have seen this one in action and the quality speaks for it's self, but is there any other alternatives??

Mark

postcardcv · Apr 5, 2007

The Sigma 135-400 is very good for it's money, although the Canon 100-400 is noticeably better, it's also a good deal more money. I had use of the Sigma for a few weeks and thought it was a very good lens (though I ended up buying the 170-500 instead as I wanted more reach). If you have a look in Keith Reeder's gallery there are a lot of shots taken with the 135-400, they certainly show what the lens can do.

The biggest problems with the 135-400 (and it's big brother the 170-500) is the relatively slow AF and the preformance wide open. To get really sharp shots you need to stop down a bit, which often means pushing up the ISO. I now have a Canon 100-400 IS, the AF is definitely faster (and quieter) and the quality wide open is better, and IS helps if you're not using a tripod.

All that said the Canon is abut twice the price of the Sigma so it's a matter of working out which is the better buy for you. Other lenses worth looking at are the Sigma 170-500, Sigma 80-400 OS (Sigma's stabilised lens) and the Tamron 200-500. I'm selling a Sigma 170-500 for £300 if you're interested, but if you can stretch to the Canon I doubt you'll regret it.

Here's a link to some of Keith's shots with the 135-400 - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery...t=allfields&name=keith reeder&when=&whenterm= - he now uses a Canon 100-400 so look at his recenet stuff for examples with that lens. I'm sure he'll come on here later and give you a comparison of the two lenses.

mark b · Apr 5, 2007

postcardcv said:
The Sigma 135-400 is very good for it's money, although the Canon 100-400 is noticeably better, it's also a good deal more money. I had use of the Sigma for a few weeks and thought it was a very good lens (though I ended up buying the 170-500 instead as I wanted more reach). If you have a look in Keith Reeder's gallery there are a lot of shots taken with the 135-400, they certainly show what the lens can do.

The biggest problems with the 135-400 (and it's big brother the 170-500) is the relatively slow AF and the preformance wide open. To get really sharp shots you need to stop down a bit, which often means pushing up the ISO. I now have a Canon 100-400 IS, the AF is definitely faster (and quieter) and the quality wide open is better, and IS helps if you're not using a tripod.

All that said the Canon is abut twice the price of the Sigma so it's a matter of working out which is the better buy for you. Other lenses worth looking at are the Sigma 170-500, Sigma 80-400 OS (Sigma's stabilised lens) and the Tamron 200-500. I'm selling a Sigma 170-500 for £300 if you're interested, but if you can stretch to the Canon I doubt you'll regret it.

Here's a link to some of Keith's shots with the 135-400 - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery...t=allfields&name=keith reeder&when=&whenterm= - he now uses a Canon 100-400 so look at his recenet stuff for examples with that lens. I'm sure he'll come on here later and give you a comparison of the two lenses.

Hi

Thanks for the reply, I have been looking on your webpage and was very impressed with you pictures, well done.
Were any of them taken with the sigma 170-500? and also what is the minimum distance can you shoot at with this lense.

Do you have any pics of the lense you could send me?

Mark

postcardcv · Apr 5, 2007

mark b said:
Thanks for the reply, I have been looking on your webpage and was very impressed with you pictures, well done.
Were any of them taken with the sigma 170-500? and also what is the minimum distance can you shoot at with this lense.

thanks - a good number of the earlier shots (2005) were taken with the Sigma 170-500. There are also some shots taken with it in my BF gallery - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery...hat=allfields&name=postcardcv&when=&whenterm=

I don't have any photos of the lens to hand, but can take some and email them to you... either PM or email me with your email.

What lense (1 Viewer)

More options

mark b

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

mark b

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread