Equipment Sigma 50-500mm thoughts

Hey all! In my quest for a nice long reach lens that I could afford on my popcorn and peanut wage I picked up a Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 lens a few weeks back. I finally got an opportunity to go out and play with it and really find out if my $800CND was well spent or not. The reasoning for this lens was for evens such as the rodeo, air shows which I really want to attend this year and for some nature shooting.

First pictures of the lens, which gets mounted to a Nikon D80.

at 50mm
http://www.housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/album97/other/Sigma_50-500_1.jpg

at 500mm
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/album97/other/Sigma_50-500_2.jpg

and for all you inquisitive minds, the contents of the room
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/album97/other/Sigma_50-500_3.jpg

The lens is heavy, and to be expected for glass that reaches 500mm. The build is surprisingly good, the tripod collar works very well, zooming is smooth and the autofocus is great.

Now for some pictures!

@ 165mm f/11
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7327.JPG

@ 50mm f/11
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7330.JPG

@ 500mm f/11
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7339.JPG

@ 270mm f/9.5
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7407.JPG

@ 100mm f/8
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7483.JPG

@ 500mm f/6.3
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7636.JPG

@ 500mm f/6.3
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7626.JPG

@ 500mm f/6.3
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7630.JPG

@ 200mm f/5.6
http://housemajor.com/gallery/main.php/v/Day2Day2008/July19/DSC_7654.JPG

This lens is really tough to use (at least for me). It seems to behave very differently at 50mm and 500mm and you have to tweak exposure settings through out the range. One thing the lens does hate is being pointed in the direction of the sun. If the sun is in the west, shooting SW, W or NW gets you over exposure very quickly and easily, like I said, still learning and playing with it. I can for sure say that playing with 500mm is a great deal of fun, but tracking the subject matter at 500mm is hard, especially if it is moving, you have to be zoomed out, find it, and then zoom in.

Would I buy this lens again? No, I would not, do not get me wrong, this is a very well built lens, with great reach and good optics. The problems are the speed at 500mm and the lack of any form of stabilization, which at 100mm+ begins to play a huge factor, and even more so at the 500mm! I would however buy the new Sigma 120-400OS, the lack of the 100mm at the top range is very trivial and by sacrificing it you will gain speed at the 400mm (f/5.6 vs 6.3) and weight (150g)

Anyways, there you go, please remember this is a opinion based post from my week long usage of the lens.

PS... I HATE Gallery 2.0, seems everything good about 1.0 they threw out and made it unusable, so if anyone knows how I can create links so I can hotlink pictures from the gallery (like you could nice and easy in 1) I would appreciate it!

 

We keep this lens around the studio for those rare moments when we don't want to risk messing up good long lenses. I have used it off and on for the last 2 years on an F5, D2xs, D200, and D300. It's one of those lenses, like all the super zooms, that just doesn't do anything well. TBH, a 10x zoom never will. We use it mainly, now, for remote cameras during desert rallies; because no one will miss it if it's gone. AF is slow, aperture range is really only good from 11am to 3pm....in the desert. It often has crazy CA, and the softness of velveta cheese. The build quality is rubbish, it's a giant accordion, pumping air in and out along with grit and dust. Zooming it sounds like sandpaper. and I always need a sensor clean after using it.

You say it's to heavy? I say it's the same weight as a 70-200/2.8 VR. At 500mm you want a heavy lens, that absorbs vibration. 200mm handheld? sure. 300mm? if your good. 500mm? make the lens 8lbs please, add VR and give me a heavy monopod at the least.

And the worst is the zoom creep. If you leave it at 50mm, sling it over your shoulder and run into a lady friend ( or worse your client ) it will slowly zoom out to 500mm. It basically mimics an elephants erection <- direct comment from a friend. I would rather pay the extra and get a 200-400/4 that wont embarrass me in mixed company.

The upside? It's 900 bux. That puts it well with in the range of most people. And since I know not everyone has the change to blow on great lenses, the Bigma will always be an option.

BTW, this is totally not a flame, just a different view point.

 

Bigma is one of those lenses you either love, or hate. I have seen a lot of nice images produced by this lens, how much PP was involved is beyond me. One thing to keep in mind about it is that it does not actually touch the 500mm mark, it is more like 450mm give or take. Anyhow, at one [very short] point I had considered this lens...but decided to spend the extra cash on the 100-400.

 

Why not put [ img ] [ / img ] (w/o spaces) around the image links?

Edit: Why don't I just read the entire post... Sry. I remember having messed with the linking that you mention when using gallery but it's been so long that I've forgotten. Sorry.

 

For Canon use, the Bigma can seem a tempting alternative to the 100-400 EF lens. However, if the extra cash can be found, I feel the 100-400 is worth it. Few people ever regret buying 'L' glass for their Canons.

 

Fixed that for you...

 

Some probably do when they discover that they need more L's

 

I wished Nikon would release an update to the 80-400. $5k for the 200-400 is just too much for hobby photographers like me. As much as I would love to add it to my collection, I can't justify it.

 

so get a 1.4x for your 70-200. sorted.

 

Cheaper (relatively) long glass...a plus to being a Canon shooter
Sorry, had to say it.

 

I thought that it was generally accepted that a new one was imminent (same as for Minolta/Sony users we believe that a 70-400mm G SSM is about to be released)?

True, but the 100-400mm L IS isn't that great (softish at 350mm plus & known as a dust pump) & Canon wides on the whole are nothing to write home about ...
You pick your poison according to your needs.

 

Teleconverters aren't the same as dedicated lenses. Besides, the 1.4x doesn't give you enough reach as the 80-400.

Actually, the 80-400 I was referring to costs the same (well $20 more on Amazon) is the equivalent to your 100-400L. Canon's "L" glass is Nikon's gold rings.

Canon has no equivalent 200-400 f/4.

Just being honest

 

The Canon 100-400mm L IS is better than the 80-400mm VR though, but yes, the 200-400mm is a step above both - but also a step above in price

 

You have a 200/2.8 x1.5 x1.4=420mm/4 vr. Seems reasonable considering the price.

 

Just out of curiosity...Have you ever owned the 100-400? In my experience, owning the lens, it is just as sharp as both copies of the 300 f/4 IS that I have tested at 300mm and at 400mm (w/1.4x TC on the 300). If this image looks soft to you, then I really can't say much else. And as for the whole "vacuum" thing, I've owned mine for about a year, I have a fireplace in my house which is my main heating source in the fall and winter, I also have a few cats, and a couple of dogs living here as well...no dust inside yet, not even one visible spec.

5D, 100-400 @ 400mm f/5.6--50%(+/-) crop.


As for Canon WA's have you not seen the 24-70, 16-35, 14L, 15mm FE, 24L, 35L? Those lenses are surely nothing to write home about.

 

Your going to tell me the Nikon 80-400 is equivalent to the Canon 100-400? In what respect? Surely were talking specs, not results.

As for equivalents...if you choose to go there, where is a Nikon variant of the 14L, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200 f/2.8, 200 f/1.8, 24-105L, 70-200 f/4, 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/2.8, 800L etc etc...I can go on all day--and I'm sure Nikon has some as well. Where is their 300, 400, 500, 600mm at the same/comparable price points? The 100-400 offers an extra 100mm at the loss of one stop, while the 200-400 costs 4X as much.

Each company will battle back and forth and will continuously try to out due one another...Canon will eventually update their 100-400 with a 200-400 variant, the same goes for Nikons spectacular 14-24, and I'm sure Nikon will continue to design primes that can hang with Canons highly regarded L's. Point was, if we are talking super teles, Canon outperforms Nikon's offering's marginally in performance and big time in price...its just a fact, nothing more nothing less.

 

Here is another sample of the 100-400 @ 400mm

 

No, but I have used it & I know several people who do own it.
It's probably "the" standard lens in aviation enthusiast photography where it's a well known entity.
The Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM (I've used that too) is sharper at 400mm than the 100-400 IS L .

As for Canon wides, no in general they aren't the best (this doesn't mean that they are bad but that other companies have better) e.g. both the Nikon & Sony 24-70 are reckoned to be better than the Canon. Not really surprising as it's the oldest design.
Canon's strength is in their tele line up.

 

The Canon 400 f/5.6 may be sharper (if only marginally) at 400mm, then again...its terrible from 100-399mm, and its IS system is extremely primitive (note: sarcasm implied).

Nikon has the 14-24 and 17-35...Ziess has the 21 Distagon...who else rivals Canon's FF UWA/WA's?

And just a minor correction...Canon's strength is in their prime line-up AND their f/4 zooms. They also make a 70-200 f/2.8 (both IS and non) that cannot be touched on FF.

 

So Vers and JJ, just out of curiosity, what do you carry when you're just going out to take pictures? how many lenses over what range?