Sigma 500/4.5 handholdable (1 Viewer)

Sigma 500/4.5 handholdable / comparing "lens speeds"

Hi.

I am currently using the Canon 400/5.6 L USM for bird photography (BIF and stationary ones). Most of the time I do not miss IS on that lens usually using shutter speeds < 1/600sec. I have even managed to get sharp shots at 1/50sec (out of 20 or so). It's a great lens! But, like many wildlife photographers I have reached the (or one of the many) points, where I want to have more reach.

I cannot afford a Canon 500/4 so the Sigma 500/4.5 (still quite an investment for me) is probably the only real alternative. Some will recommend the new Tammy but I want a big aperture lens that is already sharp wide open.

Since I never use tri- or monopods and the Sigma doesn't have OS the question is, if it is possible with that lens to take sharp photos handheld. Have you any experience? Is it only a issue of weight (I am quite trained) or of technique/shutterspeeds/mirror lockup etc.?

(How) can you compare shutterspeeds of the 500mm at 4.5 to the 400mm at 5.6 in the same situation, so which lens is "faster"?

Hello,
I'm a Nikon guy, but I'll give you my "two cents" (i.e., opinion).

Your 400mm f/5.6 is a very lightweight lens, only 2.75 lbs. It's really ideal for hand-held use. I use a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4X teleconverter, for approximately the same "reach" but it is ~1 lb. heavier. I can use it hand-held but I carry a monopod on my belt (easy to carry, out of the way, hands-free). When I can use the monopod I think I often get noticeably better results. If you're going to step up to a heavier/longer lens, I'd highly recommend reconsidering the use of a monopod at least sometimes.

Secondly, don't expect a huge difference if you step up from 400mm to 500mm, especially if you keep hand-holding. You might try instead to focus on how to get closer to the birds (i.e., field craft, use of camouflage, hides, pishing, etc.). With regard to your question of comparing the 500 f/4.5 to the 400mm f/5.6, the 500 is more than twice as heavy and less than 1 "stop" faster. I don't think you would see a huge difference between the two lenses hand-held without teleconverters. The Sigma 500 is so expensive that I would consider renting it first if you're really serious.

Finally, you might consider trying to find a used Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS and use a teleconverter with it. A 2X converter would make this a 600mm f/5.6 with IS that is still fairly manageable hand-held. I know a lot of Nikon guys really like the Nikon equivalent set-up.

Good luck! And hey, by the way, welcome to Bird Forum!

Dave

I use the Sigma 500f4.5 EX.

You might wish to consider the new (Sport) Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS with 1.4X and 2X converters. It is sharp and you can get useable images at 600mm when a 2X converter is attached. This rig is much cheaper than the prime.

I am 6ft tall and of lightweight build (I'm a weed) and have a neck complaint which makes handholding the Sigma for long periods very difficult (nerve root irritation). I have managed sharp images at less than 1/250 sec when the lens has been freely hand held. But I get more soft images than sharp ones at those low shutter speeds. The percentage of sharp images rises accordingly when the shutter speed increases and most images at around 1/500 sec are sharp for say an A4 print and sometimes bigger. However I am often able to find some support such as an upright post, tree trunk etc and this helps a lot. Also when you lie on the ground you can lock your elbows to make a rigid support or use a camera bag. However, when standing, I find even if it is only slightly windy it makes hand holding difficult for low shutter speed shots.

The 500 will expose movement that your 400 may not have and by a bigger margin than you might expect.

The sigma 500f4.5 is sharp at f4.5 and marginally sharper as you close down....I never consider the f stops in relation to sharpness. I only consider it for depth of field and shutter speed.

The Sigma 500f4.5 is a solid , well built lens, it is not as good as a Canon optically but it is very close indeed.

It's not a bad flight lens either and it focus pretty fast.

All said you are still better served having a tripod.

here is an image of a tree sparrow taken at Bempton Cliffs on a very dull day with the lens hand held. I guess this is about a 50% crop.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24940353@N03/9177792741/

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/9177792741_5c1b04dacf_o.jpg

Thank you for your recommendations.

@optoholic: If I can shoot 500 at 4.5 I think there is a great difference to my 400/5.6 but I will check if any photo dealer around has this lens to try.

@a.dancy: I will consider the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS with 1.4x. It would be less expensive (especially second hand copies of the older non-S version) have OS and would be zoomable. But I fear that IQ with 2x TC attached all the time would not be comparable to a bare 500/4.5 and I would have to stop it down to maximize IQ. Do you know this lens by own experience? How would you rate it compared to the 500/4.5?

Hi, I do not have personal experience of the 120-300f2.8. which is why I said you should 'consider it'. However I did request a retail outlet to shoot some images with the bare lens, and with converters and then email the images (full size) to me which they did. I was impressed. The sport lens has a dock which enables micro-focusing at 3 distance settings. This can only be a good thing since zoom lenses MF can slide at different focal lengths.
Also I have the Sigma 300f2.8 and I am confident that the 120-300 is better and sharper. I have managed useable images with the prime 300f2.8. It can be hit and miss with a 2X attached but I am confident the 120-300 sport is better. The 120-300 with a 2X converter will not be lightening quick and so not the best flight combination....but you will have a focus limiter which is an improvement over my 300 prime.

Everything in photography is about compromise. This is what gives rise to so many discussions. It may be argued that the Canon 600 lens matched up with a Canon 1DX is the best set up for birding that Canon offers. However, I could not cope with the weight and inertia of that combination hand held. Whilst the IQ is superior to other combinations what's the point if you miss shots...and I do have experience of such situations.

I would not advise the 2X attached the 120-300 permanently. I would use the 1.4X as default. You do have great OS with that lens and that helps with your mobility. You should with a bit of field craft in many situations gain the extra 100-200mm FL by merely moving closer to your subject. This may be impossible at twitches or when working from fixed hides. When I am out on the moor I wear a head covering and a green sheet I picked up for a fiver which operates like a bag hide. A few days ago I had a wheatear land on my head!

What sort of green sheet did you get? I keep considering a pvc poncho

Thanks for your opinions!

@a.dancy: "Selfies" are in vogue so are wheatear-selfies! ;-)

Tailorbird2 said:

If I can shoot 500 at 4.5 I think there is a great difference to my 400/5.6 but I will check if any photo dealer around has this lens to try.

Click to expand...

If I may clarify, what I was trying to say is that I don't think you would notice a big difference in the images you get from hand-holding the 500/4.5 vs. the 400/5.6 because
But I think you're getting better advice from actual Sigma owners. It is surprising to me if the 120-300 zoom offers better image quality than a 300 prime, but maybe that is true. Sigma has been making some fantastic lenses lately. For my own photography, I can imagine someday I might upgrade from my 300 f/4 to a 300 f/2.8, simply because the 2.8 takes all teleconverters so well, saves me an extra stop and adds image stabilization. Too bad those 300/2.8 lenses are so darn expensive. Nikon's pro telephoto prices have been lower than Canon, but that is about to change; I think Nikon will soon upgrade all its pro telephotos and price them similar to Canon.

Thank you for your advice! Perhaps Sigma will offer a 300 2.8 OS sometime that is very good withd a 2x-converter.

opticoholic said:

If I may clarify, what I was trying to say is that I don't think you would notice a big difference in the images you get from hand-holding the 500/4.5 vs. the 400/5.6 because

(1) the 500 is signficantly heavier and more bulky,
(2) the extra "reach" of 100mm is not as much as you might think
(3) the slightly higher shutter speed allowed by the 500 is not that much, less than 1 stop, and it would tend to be canceled out by the added difficulty holding the heavier/longer lens, plus you would need a little higher shutter speed using the 500 simply due to the longer focal length (even if it was exactly the same size/weight as the 400).​

But I think you're getting better advice from actual Sigma owners. It is surprising to me if the 120-300 zoom offers better image quality than a 300 prime, but maybe that is true. Sigma has been making some fantastic lenses lately. For my own photography, I can imagine someday I might upgrade from my 300 f/4 to a 300 f/2.8, simply because the 2.8 takes all teleconverters so well, saves me an extra stop and adds image stabilization. Too bad those 300/2.8 lenses are so darn expensive. Nikon's pro telephoto prices have been lower than Canon, but that is about to change; I think Nikon will soon upgrade all its pro telephotos and price them similar to Canon.

Click to expand...

opticoholic said:

If I may clarify, what I was trying to say is that I don't think you would notice a big difference in the images you get from hand-holding the 500/4.5 vs. the 400/5.6 because

(1) the 500 is signficantly heavier and more bulky,
(2) the extra "reach" of 100mm is not as much as you might think
(3) the slightly higher shutter speed allowed by the 500 is not that much, less than 1 stop, and it would tend to be canceled out by the added difficulty holding the heavier/longer lens, plus you would need a little higher shutter speed using the 500 simply due to the longer focal length (even if it was exactly the same size/weight as the 400).​

But I think you're getting better advice from actual Sigma owners. It is surprising to me if the 120-300 zoom offers better image quality than a 300 prime, but maybe that is true. Sigma has been making some fantastic lenses lately. For my own photography, I can imagine someday I might upgrade from my 300 f/4 to a 300 f/2.8, simply because the 2.8 takes all teleconverters so well, saves me an extra stop and adds image stabilization. Too bad those 300/2.8 lenses are so darn expensive. Nikon's pro telephoto prices have been lower than Canon, but that is about to change; I think Nikon will soon upgrade all its pro telephotos and price them similar to Canon.

Click to expand...

I can weigh in a little bit as one who owned both the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 as well as the 300mm f/4 & 1.4x combo that I shot on a Nikon D7100. The 300/1.4 combo was a very practical size, had decent image quality, and was almost as long as the Sigma (420mm vs. 500mm), but I wound up lugging the Sigma out 80-90% of the time I went birding. The Sigma 500mm reached optimal sharpness one stop faster (f/5.6 vs. f/8), and was noticeably sharper in rendering fine detail on a 24MP sensor. In my opinion it's definitely a step up optically from the 400/5.6 & 300/4-class lenses, and worth getting. It is expensive, but consider looking for a used one in good condition - the lens has changed very little in design since it was introduced, and the one that I had was a 2001 model.

When using the Sigma, I usually carried a monopod with me, but only used it if I was going to shoot from a stationary position for a long time. I'd say about 90% of my shots were handheld. The Sigma 500 is pretty heavy, but it's handholdable for short periods of time, and if you're in good shape, and do it regularly you get used to it pretty quickly. Because of its mass, it's less susceptible to vibration than lighter lenses, and I actually found it more stable to handhold than the 400/5.6 when I rented that lens with a Canon body. With the Sigma, I generally tried to stay above shutter speeds of 1/320s or 1/500s when handholding, and above 1/1250s for birds in flight.

Here are some handheld Sigma 500mm f/4.5 shots that I took, which should be viewable at 100% with full EXIF information:
https://flic.kr/p/easJ71
https://flic.kr/p/ebuT65
https://flic.kr/p/ee4o53

Sharpness on the 300mm f/4 & 1.4x TC is pretty good as well, and may be acceptable to you depending on how much you pixel-peep. I admit that I do a little too much, hence I notice the feather detail isn't quite as good as with the Sigma:
https://flic.kr/p/ehDgrh

Paul - Herts said:

What sort of green sheet did you get? I keep considering a pvc poncho

Click to expand...

PM sent

I use a cotton olive coloured single bed sheet with two holes ripped , one for head and one for lens.

Okay. I will go for a 500/4.5. This seems to be the best option for me.
Unfortunately used copies are quite rare so I will have to wait.