Sigma 500mm F4.5 - worth an upgrade? (1 Viewer)

Dear all,

I am eyeing a Sigma 500mm F4.5 lens as a future replacement for my Canon 400mm F5.6L lens. Have any of you experienced this upgrade or have both lenses at once?

On paper, the Sigma has a 100mm focal length and 2/3 stop increment over the Canon. However, it comes at a price - 2.5x the Canon's weight and 5x the price. However, being able to afford a longer Canon telephoto is way beyond my budget by any stretch, hence this question.

I would like to know whether the Sigma will be a worthwhile upgrade over the Canon please.

Thank you for your opinions. :t:

Regards,

Hor Kee

I've never used the lens you are asking about, but I'm sure it is close in size to Canon's 500mm f4. Sigma makes good stuff. It is not however a stabilized lens. I'd pony up for a Canon if I was going to spend some serious money on a lens. You will get 2 stops better from an IS lens than one that his not stabilized. Moving to a big lens like that means you will have a major change in shooting style, going from the freedom of hand-held to support based tripod shooting. You will get better shots you can set up, but will miss a lot at first you could have swung the camera to very quickly with your 400mm off hand with no tripod. Speaking of support, you will most likely need to upgrade your tripod and head. Don't even consider a lens you can't hand hold without a serious support system. Think Gitz or Induro with a Whimberly head. A gimbaled tripod head makes a huge difference in how long it takes to set up a shot with a big lens, not to mention safety of the lens. - Look up some reviews in Google, if you have not already. : http://www.digiscoped.com/sigma500.html

Thanks Mookadabird. I already have a gimbal head and tripod large enough to support this lens. I am fully aware of the benefits of IS of the Canon 500mm f4 even when mounted on a tripod. As far as weight is concerned, the 500mm IS II is almost the same as the Sigma. My main hindrance is the cost of the Canons which is near astronomical here in Malaysia. I'm just wondering how much of an upgrade in IQ the sigma gives, and whether it justifies the increase in weight and costs.

The Sigma is not an upgrade in IQ. It is an upgrade in focal length and wider aperture. Having read your thread this morning I met with my birding pal Ivan Ellison who has both the Canon 400f5.6 and 500f4 primes and I asked him "if you had only two lenses to select, the Canon 400f5.6 or the Sigmaf4.5 which would you select" his reply was the Sigma.

The fact of the matter is you will get far more pixels on the bird.

Having said that you and I both know that the Sigma120-300f2.8 OS with converters has to be seriously considered and the price is just a touch higher than half the price of the Sigma 500 which means a lot of bang for your buck and a lot of flexibility. I have not as yet tested this out but the reviews and full size images that I have seen seem to be promising.

When I was in Derbyshire photographing little grebes and water voles I wished I had the Sigma 120-300 and when I was on the coast doing redthroated diver I wished I had one and more recently doing the great northern diver.

Also why not the Canon 300f2.8 plus converters (not the new model), its quality is legendary and the ability to take a 2X converter (or stacked converters) is not in dispute?

Comparison

I've got both lenses. I had the Canon 400mm f5.6 first and it is undoubtedly a fantastic lens. I've had the Sigma 500mm f4.5 about 5 months and I've developed a love hate relationship with it. On the one hand, I find that it misses shots I could have got with the Canon 400 due to the tighter depth of field and the fact that it is a lot trickier to use off a tripod ( I do use it with a monopod reasonably successfully, but the canon is a lot more forgiving and lighter).

On the other hand, I've taken my best shots this year with the Sigma. From the tripod with a jobu gimball and a 1.4 converter it has the extra reach and the extra light that the lens lets in means the shots are less grainy than with the canon, although there is a slight softness to the output from the sigma compared with the canon.

As you've said it's a lot more expensive than the canon 400 f5.6, but a lot cheaper than the Canon 500. I think this lens and big glass in general exhibits the law of diminishing returns, in that once above the spec of the 400mm f5.6 you're paying a lot for a small improvement in functionality and reach. A 1.4 converter and getting used to manually focusing your 400mm f5.6 will achieve a lot, it depends on whether you want the extra reach of the 500mm and auto focus with a 1.4 converter.

I would say that you would be advised to use a body with focus micro-adjust if your using the Sigma for photographing birds as the dof is really small on a bird up close (unless it's an eagle) and you may need to tweak it to maximize the effectiveness of the lens.

Would I buy it again knowing what I know now, I'm honestly not sure, the canon 400mm f5.6 prime is such a good lens and if I could have only one of them it would be the canon 400. I'm afraid the only way your going to find out is by using one and living with it for a while. Like you, I'd already decided that the canon 500 was out of my price range, so if I was going to try big glass, then the Sigma was my only realistic option. It's not going to be quite as good as the canon equivilent, but for a third of the price what can we expect.

I've been out photographing deer this month and the canon has been the weapon of choice, this weekend though there was a Great Grey Shrike on my local patch and the Sigma delivered.

Here's some of my best with the Sigma

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60528629@N03/5867436432/in/set-72157626352674405/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60528629@N03/5893948802/in/set-72157626352674405/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60528629@N03/6295235061/in/photostream


All the best
Andy

I great unbiased write-up by Andy Holt above.
The only thing I would say is that IMHO optically the 400/5.6 is right up there with the very best Canon lenses (including the super teles) albeit it is slow (f5.6) and lacks I.S.
If you want more reach then you could do a lot worse than a used Canon 300/2.8 + tc's.

Thanks all. I did consider both the Canon and Sigma 300mm 2.8s and I think they are great combos as well. May have to stack TCs though, which may affect the IQ of these 2 great lenses to a degree. From the online reviews, it would be slightly better (to quote Andy Holt's insightful law of diminishing returns) for a 500mm F4.5 + a 1.4 Kenko DGX TC than to have to stack more than 1 TC. I'm not in a hurry to get either setup as finances don't quite permit as things stand now, but I'll definitely keep your opinions in mind.

Hor Kee said:

Thanks all. I did consider both the Canon and Sigma 300mm 2.8s and I think they are great combos as well. May have to stack TCs though, which may affect the IQ of these 2 great lenses to a degree. From the online reviews, it would be slightly better (to quote Andy Holt's insightful law of diminishing returns) for a 500mm F4.5 + a 1.4 Kenko DGX TC than to have to stack more than 1 TC. I'm not in a hurry to get either setup as finances don't quite permit as things stand now, but I'll definitely keep your opinions in mind.

Click to expand...

Does the Sigma 500mm f4.5 AF with a 1.4x tc attached on a non 1 series body? from everything I have read it does not.

I've got the latest version of the lens and it auto focuses with a 1.4 tc on my Canon 60D, although very occasionally it gets lost and locks requiring a turn off and on of the camera to reset.

I have a Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x TC and that should not be of any problem as it gives me AF at F8 (but with hunting in mediocre light).

Andy Holt said:

I've got the latest version of the lens and it auto focuses with a 1.4 tc on my Canon 60D, although very occasionally it gets lost and locks requiring a turn off and on of the camera to reset.

Click to expand...

Yep, this seems to be a strange lens for AF with a 1.4x tc - I have seen lots of posts where people can get AF and also lots who cannot get AF, sometimes with the same Camera and tc !!!. I was reading a thread the other day where a couple of guys could not even get AF with a 1.4x tc on a 1D MkIII (which AF's up to f8).

Hor Kee said:

I have a Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x TC and that should not be of any problem as it gives me AF at F8 (but with hunting in mediocre light).

Click to expand...

If you are relying on that I would check before buying the lens - I know the DGX will ATTEMPT to AF but how well it does it is another matter. I have tried a friends DGX with my 400/5.6 and 7D and on the centre point it is next to useless IMO. It is the Cameras AF system and not the converter which is the problem, non 1 series bodies are only designed to AF up to f5.6 so anything over that is bound to struggle and AF efficiency is bound to be a comprise.

I have both the Sigma lens and the Canon lens. If I had to get rid of one it would be the sigma. I love the 400 as it is light and I think the images just have a better quality to them. I find the sigma doesnt take well to tele converters and I have both the sigma and kenko versions.
I tend to walk alot and also dont use a tripod so there is also the weight issue to think about.
I have borrowed a 500 canon lens and would love to have one of them compared to sigma.
Why not get a secondhand canon 500 many pro photographers only buy secondhand glass and let others take the hit in depreciation.

I have this lens (Sigma 500 f4.5) bought brand new about four months ago. I cannot get it to AF on either a 7D or 1D4 with either a Canon or Sigma 1.4TC pins taped or not. Occasionally it will AF with the 1D4 but it's such a hit and miss affair I have simply given up trying now.
In all other respects I really like this lens and the results so far are very good with it.
Andrew

I use a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 1.4 converter. it works with no pin taping required. As I said very occasionally it gets lost and I have to turn the camera off and on, otherwise it's OK.