The new Sigma 150-500mm lens (3 Viewers)

[canonman77]

sigma 150-500

Hi Martin, exactly right, I mean why not fix the fault In the first place. I ordered mine a few days after warehouse express sold the last one, Sigma have assured me though, that the new batch of lenses will NOT have the problem. Lets hope not, because It looks like a good piece of kit, from the pics Ive seen..

Sean.

 

[christineredgate]

Thanks,Pete,not too much profit,I replaced my 100-400.so I am quite happy.I do not think the probs re the 40D and the frames per second are too much of an issue.Just a couple of less frames per second.

 

[paul goode]

If anyone is interested in the 150-500 there is a review of it in issue 72 of Digital Photographer magazine. Mind you after reading the review you may be looking for a different lens. A glowing review it isn't....

 

[HokkaidoStu]

If anyone is interested in the 150-500 there is a review of it in issue 72 of Digital Photographer magazine. Mind you after reading the review you may be looking for a different lens. A glowing review it isn't....

I know it's a couple of weeks since you posted this but just out of interest what did the review say?

 

[paul goode]

I know it's a couple of weeks since you posted this but just out of interest what did the review say?

The bottom line was that the lens was very soft beyond about 300mm. The reviewer mentioned that they carried out the tests twice just to make sure that there hadn't been a mistake. The conclusion was that they actually recommended buying the 50-500 instead.

I'm no fan of magazine reviews to be honest, I believe advertising budgets influence many reviews so it was a surprise to find the lens being roundly criticised.

I'm sure its feasible this was a rogue lens but it begs a question on how Sigma released it to a magazine for review and what their QC is like for customer product.

The sample images don't help much, they look dire, but then a 400D at iso1600 isn't the best test I can think of. But the testing procedure does sound more analytical and it was on that test that the conclusions were drawn.

Paul

 

[HokkaidoStu]

but then a 400D at iso1600 isn't the best test I can think of.

Paul

Thanks for the info.

Actually I have a 400D and I don't think I've ever even used ISO 1600.

 

[Stroggler]

I think it's a good lens for it's price.

/ Stroggler

 

[Keith Reeder]

The bottom line was that the lens was very soft beyond about 300mm.

On the strength of pretty much every online example I've seen from the 150-500mm Paul - and the 120-400mm (and I've looked at hundreds)- I'd agree 100%.

I haven't seen a single shot from either that has been within a million miles of what I'd consider acceptable, compared with my little Canon zoom.

I'm kinda disappointed, because Sigma can make superb lenses, and they've really missed a chance here.

 

[HokkaidoStu]

I'm kinda disappointed, because Sigma can make superb lenses, and they've really missed a chance here.

I guess it turns out they were only looking at the budget end of the market.

When these were announced I was amazed the 150-500 and 120-400 were quite a bit cheaper than the old 80-400 and also cheaper than the 50-500 (here in Japan anyway). I suppose there had to be a reason quality-wise for the lower prices.

Having said that if I was buying a first long lens for birding and was short of cash I'd still consider one of the newer Sigmas. If you accept you have to drop down 2 or 3 f stops and don't use it at maximum focal lengths..........at less than half the price of the Canon 100-400 (in Japan) I can see why some would people buy it.

 

[Nikon Kid]

Now I have the 400 f5.6, I would say wait and save your money up, and buy the 400 f5.6.
I did consider the 150-500 because of the reach but very glad I went for the 400 f5.6.

 

[HokkaidoStu]

I did consider the 150-500 because of the reach but very glad I went for the 400 f5.6.

At the same time the Sigma was released in Japan I was offered a chance to buy a s/h Canon 100-400 for about the same price as a new Sigma. I got the Canon and like you have no regrets.

 

[redtail7]

Hi Guys
I was just out for the day today with my new Sigma 150-500mm OS lens. Pretty happy with most of the shot, but am wondering what happened with these shots. I was using a tripod. Any ideas? First two shots had the haze below the owls tail and the next three shots were fine and tripod was never moved.
Thanks Redtail7

 

[redtail7]

Heres another shot that was OK

 

[jfmgb777]

Just buy a Bigma instead as the magazine review advised?

Monday 18th August 2008, 08:41 #69
stuprice68
"Having said that if I was buying a first long lens for birding and was short of cash I'd still consider one of the newer Sigmas. If you accept you have to drop down 2 or 3 f stops and don't use it at maximum focal lengths..........at less than half the price of the Canon 100-400 (in Japan) I can see why some would people buy it."

:storm:Buy a sounds-too-good-to-be-true super-tele zoom in haste, repent at leisure ... as I am, having traded in my Tamron 200-500 for a Sigma 120-400.

Although I was very critical of the Tamron as regards lamentable autofocus speed and hunting (see my post on equipment review regarding the Tamron), having gone through all the long-distance photos I took with it, at 400 mm it was reasonably sharp at f/8 on a tripod. From my limited experience the Sigma 120-400 is not a patch on the Tamron as regards sharpness at 400 mm and f/8, and only becomes adequate at much shorter focal lengths (there hasn't been the light this Aguust to go to smaller apertures). Thus on my Canon 350D I have lost an effective 160 mm of focal length for no real gain. Maybe I should just have bought a Bigma (the Sigma 50-500 mm non-stabilized lens) when I had the money to blow...

Buying a zoom lens that performs adequately only up to two thirds of its zoom range (and then only when stopped down to f/11 or smaller) may be a logical choice for the cash-strapped if you live in a predominantly sunny part of the world, but it makes no sense for anyone living in the almost permanently overcast skies of Britain.

 

[Vectis Birder]

Now I have the 400 f5.6, I would say wait and save your money up, and buy the 400 f5.6.
I did consider the 150-500 because of the reach but very glad I went for the 400 f5.6.

And I'd agree. I had the older 170-500mm Sigma and while it was okay it wasn't brilliant and, as you'd expect the Canon 400mm f5.6 totally blows it out of the water in every department. The Sigma wasn't bad up to and at 400mm but not that good beyond that.

 

[HokkaidoStu]

Buying a zoom lens that performs adequately only up to two thirds of its zoom range (and then only when stopped down to f/11 or smaller) may be a logical choice for the cash-strapped if you live in a predominantly sunny part of the world, but it makes no sense for anyone living in the almost permanently overcast skies of Britain.

I meant using the 150-500 at around 400mm (not the 120-400 at around 300mm).

Sorry to hear you regret buying that lens and it didn't work out. It did sound great when it was announced.

 

[Gentoo]

Anyone in this thread shoot with Nikons? Some interesting comparisons with Canon lenses but I have a question:

I am debating between this lens and the Nikkor 80-400mmVR. Which one would be better? Would the Nikon give better results overall? I know it's AF is ridiculously slow and I would lose 100mm. I would go for better optics though if those optics are significantly better. I shoot with a D300 and I need something when my 70-300mmVR can't quite cut it. That in itself is a good lens too. Should I go with the Sigma 150-500mm or the Nikkor 80-400mm?

 

[jfmgb777]

Anyone in this thread shoot with Nikons? Some interesting comparisons with Canon lenses but I have a question:

I am debating between this lens and the Nikkor 80-400mmVR. Which one would be better? Would the Nikon give better results overall? I know it's AF is ridiculously slow and I would lose 100mm. I would go for better optics though if those optics are significantly better. I shoot with a D300 and I need something when my 70-300mmVR can't quite cut it. That in itself is a good lens too. Should I go with the Sigma 150-500mm or the Nikkor 80-400mm?

Don't waste your money on the Sigma 150-500. I have the new 120-400 and (if you will excuse the vernacular) it is <b>crap</b> above 200 mm.

I did some comparative tests recently using Norman Koren's test charts. When mated with my Canon 350D on a sturdy Velbon tripod with mirror lock-up, at 400 mm it comes a <b>very poor third</b> against the old Tamron 500mm mirror and a non-ED glass digiscoping set-up (Nikon 80 mm scope, 33 X eyepiece and Canon A95 camera).

If you look at page 3 of this thread

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=115552&page=3

you will see Paul Goode's two posts regarding a <b>very unfavourable review</b> of the Sigma 150-500 in issue 72 of <em>Digital Photographer</em> magazine. The upshot is that they recommended the non-IS 50-500 over either of the two new image stabilized Sigmas.

If image stabilisation is important to you, and you cannot afford the Nikkor 80-400mmVR, have you thought of the Sigma 80-400 OS? Although a much older design, with slow non-hypersonic autofocus motor and a 1st-generation image stabilisation system, the Canon version is optically very good.

 

[Gentoo]

Don't waste your money on the Sigma 150-500. I have the new 120-400 and (if you will excuse the vernacular) it is <b>crap</b> above 200 mm.

I did some comparative tests recently using Norman Koren's test charts. When mated with my Canon 350D on a sturdy Velbon tripod with mirror lock-up, at 400 mm it comes a <b>very poor third</b> against the old Tamron 500mm mirror and a non-ED glass digiscoping set-up (Nikon 80 mm scope, 33 X eyepiece and Canon A95 camera).

If you look at page 3 of this thread

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=115552&page=3

you will see Paul Goode's two posts regarding a <b>very unfavourable review</b> of the Sigma 150-500 in issue 72 of <em>Digital Photographer</em> magazine. The upshot is that they recommended the non-IS 50-500 over either of the two new image stabilized Sigmas.

If image stabilisation is important to you, and you cannot afford the Nikkor 80-400mmVR, have you thought of the Sigma 80-400 OS? Although a much older design, with slow non-hypersonic autofocus motor and a 1st-generation image stabilisation system, the Canon version is optically very good.

I probably will be able to afford the Nikkor when I get the money to buy a new lens. Thing is, that lens too seems to have mixed reviews, mainly concerning autofocus issues although I bet this likely varies with the camera body. VR/OS/IS is important to me as I tent to be mobile and often in areas where a tripod would not work for me. I don't even own a tripod lol. So if I had to choose between the Nikkor 80-400 and the Sigma, you're saying I should stick with the Nikkor?

 

[WHIMBREL]

Anyone in this thread shoot with Nikons? Some interesting comparisons with Canon lenses but I have a question:

I am debating between this lens and the Nikkor 80-400mmVR. Which one would be better? Would the Nikon give better results overall? I know it's AF is ridiculously slow and I would lose 100mm. I would go for better optics though if those optics are significantly better. I shoot with a D300 and I need something when my 70-300mmVR can't quite cut it. That in itself is a good lens too. Should I go with the Sigma 150-500mm or the Nikkor 80-400mm?

I have read as many reviews as possible about the Sigma 150-500 and like you I have to choose eventually between the Sigma and the Nikon 80-400, I also have the Nikon D300.

Recently I tested the Sigma 150-500 and was most impressed with the speed of autofocus and the image quality, I was also impressed with the OS, this is an essential requirement for me because I have camera shake difficulties. For the money I don't think there is another lens with OS/VR to compare at the 500mm range. I cannot understand the negative remarks that some users/reviewers have reported on this lens, and as regards the Digital Photographer magazine review...where do these journals get their testers from...junior school!!!

I'm going to sell my Sigma 135-400 APO and put the money towards the purchase of a Sigma 150-500 OS HSM.

Regards,

Bill |=)|