Equipment Sigma 150-500

Hey fellows,

Im looking to by a longer zoom lens than my current 18-200 DC OS, which for middle distance is fantastic, but for longer range architectural shots and motorsport photos, I'm after something a bit longer.

This caught my eye: Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Does anyone have any experience with this lens, or lenses of this size, I've never used anything over 200mm. Its currently £839 from Amazon which doesnt seem unreasonable.

I'd be using it with my Canon 60D, and have a 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-200 for shorter distance stuff.

I'd also want a proper tripod to support the lens properly, any recommendations?



Edit: Or would I better to wait for a while and buy a Canon 100-400? Its about £400 more but based upon reviews is a much better lens.

 

Rent a better quality lens and pocket the difference. 3 day hire for a faster lens with nikkor optics is less than £55, with insurance.

 

I personally have a thing for sigma lenses, so I'd suggest you just wait it out and get the canon. Better resale value too if you get tired of it. You get a lens and keep it for years, get the best you can.

Depending on what light you're shooting in, it may be better just to get a monopod. I got a monopod for my Nikon 300 F2.8 AI (manual focus), and I get the job done. Beats having to open up tripod legs and set the height of each leg, not to mention having to carry something that's more cumbersome. You may think, heh, a tripod's a tripod, but you get what you pay for, and usually you have to spend a fair bit of money and unless you are shooting landscape, or birds from inside a hide, I wouldn't bother with a tripod, and get the monopod instead. I've got a tripod and the only times I've really used it are for long exposure landscapes, or family photos with timer release.

I got this monopod btw;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manfrotto-6...JU7W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317763300&sr=8-1

Oh and craig, the guy said he uses canon, but regardless, if you can afford to have a £1k+ piece of equipment sitting around as I doubt it's something you're going to use every day, then rent, otherwise, just buy the 100-400. I can't say I regret buying any lenses I own, so I'd say buy as opposed to rent. Unless of course it was a once a year thing, like a grand prix thing, then I'd rent the best piece of glass I could. 300 f2.8 IS etc etc.

 

It's definitely a buy as opposed to rent situation, I want the lens available at all times. Im the sort of person who when bored will walk down to the river and take photos, so having something rented just wouldn't work.

I currently have an el cheapo £15 monopod from Amazon and that works fine, but I thought with about £2000 worth of equipment, it'd be better to have it properly stable.

 

The 100-400 weighs the same as the nikon 70-200 F2.8 which is pretty good considering the reach you get. I wouldn't take that anywhere without a monopod though considering you probably need around 1/600th factoring in the crop factor to get shake free shots.

There's a cheaper manfrotto one here;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manfrotto-6...CK2G/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1317764543&sr=8-3

With 3 sections instead of 4. That thing supports up to 10 kg's so you know you're getting something solid. As with lenses you will always want something faster, longer etc, so you may as well get a decent monopod. So far the most I've loaded mine with is 4 kilos and it handles that no problem.

 

Any clues as to the heights of the mono's? I'm 6'6 and I know the one I've got inst high enough..

(I've got to bend at the knees to take a photo with the camera in portrait.)

 

Jesus lol, what you been eating xD

Well I don't think any monopod will suit you tbh. I've got the 4 section manfrotto, and with it fully extended I don't have to lean over to use it. I'm 5"7 though. Tbf, I don't mind leaning over as I often have to anyway, as I can't really walk comfortably with it fully extended, so I often use it, on bended knee.

 

Don't buy the Bigma. It's a craptastic compromise to get a lens like that to that price point.

Get the 100-400/4. And scrap the monopod, it's very hand holdable.

If you are set on buying a Sigma, look at the 120-300mm/2.8. It's one of the hidden gems in the Sigma lineup, along with their 300/2.8.

 

I've used the 100-400 and the Bigma and I disagree with JJ that the Bigma is bad. It's not as sharp and accurate as the Canon but then it costs about a third less. It's perfectly fine for the cost and works for motorsport, planes and birds. However, on the whole I prefer using the 100-400 because it lets in more light and is a much easier lens to handhold.

If you must have a lens at all times (as opposed to renting) then I think the 100-400 will make for a better investment. You might want to do as I did and rent both and see what you prefer. Also, for motorsport, aircraft and birds, I found a monopod on both lenses was useless. They're easily handholdable (with the Canon feeling easier than the Bigma).

 

It's not as sharp, as contrasty, as fast in AF or aperture, as accurate in AF (it hunts like a cro magon), as well built, and it's a dust bellows that has issues with lens droop (This is what happens when you make a lens like that at 1/3rd the cost). You prefer the 100-400 and think he shouldn't get a monpod.

So while you disagree with me, you agree with me. Nice. I swear sometimes, people go out of their way to disagree with me if only to disagree with me.

Trust me, I have shot 2 years of desert rallies with the Bigma, airshows, and countless boat and beach scenes; it's a crap lens that will irritate you and make you regret spending the money after about 2 editing sessions (I regretted it and I didn't even buy it). You'll end up buying a better lens anyway, and will kick yourself for buying the Bigma. Save yourself the frustration and cash, buy the 100-400/4.5-5.6. Or Sigma's 100-300/4 which is a well regarded lens (Sigma caveats apply).

Fact: anything past 200mm isn't cheap, in fact the longer the pricier. There are no cheap, good long lenses. The Bigma is a $900 lens, hence it's performance. EDIT: That Amazon price is horrible. $1294? With no re sale value? OUCH.

 

I've used both lenses and, yes, the 100-400 is more compact and has much better image quality, better AF & IS, but the Sigma isn't a bad lens. The Sigma's IS is quite noisy, focusing isn't as fast as the Canon's and it's quite a big bigger, but it's hand-holdable and produces relatively good images that are well-focused the vast majority of the time. Having said that, I'd get the Canon if you can afford it and want the best possible lens in that focal range. It's not without its faults though, as the 100-400 is quite old and can be prone to dust gathering inside the shotgun-style barrel - the weather sealing isn't the best.

If you're looking for a decent monopod for your height, the Giottos MML 3290B will be what the doctor ordered. I'm 6'5" and its 182cm maximum height is more than enough - fully extended with a 70-200 f2.8 mounted directly on top is well above eye height.

 

I didn't disagree with your post in its entirety, just your rejection out of hand of the Bigma. For the money, it is a great lens and does what it says on the tin. The AF in AI Servo on my 50D was crap, but in One Shot I had only a handful (say, 10%?) of mis-focused shots of planes doing ~900kmph. For a 1200-shot session, 10% gives a large number but still not a bad percentage. Processing those shots was not hard. I did have to kick up contrast a notch but because I wasn't viewing or printing at 100%, the slight loss in sharpness was imperceptible.

TL;DR - for Mankz's stated use, it should do fine if he doesn't want to stretch his budget. If he can, the 100-400 will indeed be better, especially since he's shooting a crop body anyway.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Tim.

 

I disagree

 

Haha funny how people are posting to defend a lens they once owned, but still accept the sigma has it's flaws, and yet say it's still good value for money...

I'll have to diaggree with you on the monopod business.. (see where this is going? It's become a trend to disaggree with you ) I can hand hold my 300 f2.8 AI, and while ok, I don't have auto focus, so I NEED a stable lens to get the best possible results from mf'ing, it's still good to have because while you may need 1/600th normally, you may find that if you have that little bit extra of adrenaline going through you at the time, you might need double that. It's happened to me often that I'm shooting 300mm say, with 1/1000 and I still managed to get a camera shake shot. Anyway, you can disaggree with me ( ), I still think it's a good investment.

 

I haven't owned either, but have borrowed or rented both of them on multiple occasions for a variety of uses. I don't think either is the perfect lens and if it was me, I'd go with the 70-200 F2.8 L IS II with the new mk3 1.4x and 2.0x TCs.

 

^^ As would I, but thats pushing £2k...

I guess I will go and rent a 100-400 for a day and see If I like it. If i do, I just have to save for a little longer.

 

Yep, that's why I didn't suggest it initially... it's not a set up for the faint hearted

 

As for the monopod? You say one of these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Giottos-GTM...3UHY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317822347&sr=8-1

Do I need a head with it, or would I need to just direct mount onto the pod?

 

Eh, if photography is your only expensive hobby, then all it takes is a purchase of a full frame body to forget how much money you're spending on all the fancy lenses later on

Yeah that looks pretty good, seems to have got good reviews. If you have to have the 190cm max height then fair enough. Funny how my manfrotto 680B 4 section weighs more than that one. Bet you mines got better build quality

No you don't need a head, it screws right into the tripod collar mount of the lens.

 

That's the model I've got, yes. You won't need a head as long as you've got a collar on your lens