So i am finding the reach of my 70-200mm zoom lens a bit limiting now. I am interested at this new lens from sigma and was wondering would i miss anything if i upgraded from my current zoom (Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM) to the Sigma APO 150-500mm f/5.6-6.3 lens. Since i am using a crop body it does increase the reach to around 700mm on the long end.
it's rated an 8.5 on FM. Take a pass on it, save some money and get the Canon 100-400 or a 300/2.8 and a 1.4x. Sigma is always touch and go on quality. I think even more so at longer focal lengths.
I'm sorry, but I've not read such a bizarre post in this forum for a long time. You do realise that a 300/2.8 is nearly £4000, right?! He's talking about upgrading a £500 lens to one that'll cost around £750 which, to me, suggests that he's going to sell his 70-200 to finance the 150-500, not drop another £1,500 or so on a 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS or £4,000 on a 300/2.8. Anyway, onto lcdguy's query. I've owned the 70-200 F4L and have used the Sigma 150-500 on a few occasions, thanks to a previous housemate owning one. The Sigma's by no means a bad lens, but it's not up to the same high standards as Canon's L series lenses. Aside from losing the shorter end of the zoom, which may or may not be important to you if you're thinking of replacing the 70-200 with the 150-500, it's not a bad lens. OK, so the AF is a little bit slower and noisier than Canon's USM, but it was never a problem to use, and the OS lets off an audible hum when it's engaged. The images I've taken with the 150-500 have been pretty good, though. OK, so it's not perfectly sharp throughout its entire zoom range and the corners can be a little soft for the pixel peepers out there. What's more, the relatively small maximum aperture means the lens is quite slow, so you'll need higher ISOs to obtain the shutter speeds required to freeze motion. Having said all of that, I've used it only on a full-frame camera, so if anything it should perform better on a crop body as corner-to-corner sharpness isn't so crucial because you're only using the centre of the glass on a crop body. One thing worth bearing in mind is that the lens is pretty heavy compared to the 70-200 F4L, which is easily attached as a walkaround telephoto lens. You won't be doing that with the 150-500 any time soon. If I were you, I'd go down to a shop with your camera body and ask if you can try it out, take some sample images, etc. If you're not happy, you can always walk away. Hope this helps
thanks for the tips. I just checked one of my local camera stores and they have just made my decision harder. The Sigma right now is around $1100 bucks where the canon is around 1849. Now i do realise there is a $750 difference. but do you think the L quality warrants a &50 dollar premium over the sgima. (i already have 2 sigma lens's and have been impressed with as well.)
It ultimately depends whether you'll benefit from the 150-500's extra 100mm at the extreme end or the extra 50mm at the short telephoto end, and also whether you really want to spend that extra $750. The 100-400 is a very highly regarded lens, but it is quite old now and is one that a lot of Canon users have hoped will be replaced with something using more up-to-date IS/AF technology and the newer coatings that Canon has developed since its release. I've never used it though, so can't really comment on how good it is or isn't, but a lot of people do speak highly of it. 150mm on a crop body has the same angle of view as 240mm on a full frame body - I presume you're birding or shooting fauna with the lens?
i've been thinking on this and since i am planning on using it mainly for astro photography i think investment in a telescope is a better use of the money then getting a t mount for my 50d
It's not as bizarre as it seems. He's thinking of going from one of Canon's best lenses, to one from a company that makes lots of compromises and has spotty QC. I did mention the 100-400 first, and I did mention the saving money bit. Moving to the Sigma will be a significant downgrade and I'm willing to bet he'll end up seeing softness, lost detail, and chromatic aberrations in high contrast situations. Add the focal length and aperture range, which will need faster shutter speeds-> which means higher ISOs -> which means even more loss of image quality (or in this case, a massive tripod). All that, in my mind, ends up at buyers remorse. I think he'll be happier with a proven, high quality solution like the 100-400/4-5.6. The 300/2.8 might be out of price range, but the 300/4 isn't. With a 1.4x is still brings him to f/5.6 and gives him the choice of 450mm or 670mm on a APS-C body. with great optical quality. Sigma always looks good for the price. Until you have it for a while and start to see the flaws. They have one or two winners, sure (take the 120-300/2.8). But going from a 70-200/4.....I just can't see anyone being happy with it over time. Edit: FWIW, the Sigma 300/2.8 is well regarded, and only 1,500 USD, which places it between the 100-400 and the 150-500. with a 1.4x on a APS-C body, it would be the best of the 3 choices.
It's very bizarre to recommend a lens that costs 8 to 10 times the one he's looking to replace. I'm not denying that the 300/2.8 is a beautiful lens - one of Canon's best - but I'd expect it's out of reach for 99% of people and it's not in any way a realistic recommendation to make. It's quite easy to answer "I want a good telephoto lens" with a suggestion to buy one of the most expensive and highly-regarded lenses out there, but is it a realistic choice? No and that's why I felt your post was bordering on misleading. Your other suggestions are sound, but it's down to whether lcdguy thinks a 300/400mm lens will be enough for what he wants to do, or whether it's better to invest in a decent telescope.
As much as I know JJ will disagree with me, the Tamron 18-250 and 28-300s are great lenses. I have an 18-250 now and I can't remember the last time I really felt like I needed another lens. one lens for every purpose. Whenever I get my next camera I'm going to go for the newer 18-270.
Why would I disagree with you? To date, every Tamron I have used I was ok with, not crazy about, but ok with (I had vignetting issues with the 28-75, but I like that, so it's a wash for me). It's Sigma's QC that I take issue with, and certainly there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest I'm not too far off base. Quite a few people find "the buy 4/keep 1" to be true with Sigma. It is true I prefer a 3 lens setup with f/2.8 lenses, but I am not beyond seeing people happy with the 2 lens deals. Tbh, if you love the one lens to rule them all and can live with the quality; have at it I say. But there are compromises to be made, which the consumer should be aware of.
Save up and go with the 100-400. If that's still too rich for your blood look into the new Tamron 70-300 VC, which is getting good hype atm. I'd skip the telescope all together.
it's kinda late for that. i picked the telescope up 2 weeks ago. but i will keep that lens in mind when i have the money for it.
gratz on the purchase! post some pics once it arrives! as for sigma's. After my 70-300's auto focus died i read a lot into the deal and seems like its a really common issue for sigma lenses, even for that 500mm. While the lens itself was ok and i still use it in manual it was enough to keep me away from them in the future.
already did. http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=196329 on your lens with he dead auto focus. depending on the age wouldn't that be covered under warranty. i know most sigmas here in Canada carry a 10 year warranty.
Have you tried the telescope as a super super zoom for terrestrial subjects? I always wondered how that would work.
I have not tried that but I magine it wouldn't be very good as there would be no lenses just mirrors. You generally need a refractor or apochromqtic refractor to get good results
