Sigma lens

[steve1840]

I'm looking to get some input on a choice I am having a hard time making for myself. I know there are a few of you on here that use Sigma lenses.

Currently I am using a Canon 100-400L, but today I happened to be on B&H Photo website and started looking into new glass. I have been looking at getting a little mroe focal length and looked at the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus. Has anybody ever used this lens, and if so would I be stupid to trade in my 100-400 to make this purchase? I would like to find out as much as I can about it. I will read some reviews online, but I would like to hear from you guys too. Especially since I would be hearing info from someone who uses it for aviation photography as I will be using it for mostly.

Thanks,

Steve F

[gonzalu]

I would NOT trade in an L 100-400mm for a Sigma 150-500mmm no matter how good the Sigma is on paper. I believe the 100-400 to be better built and have better optics. And this from ZERO personal experience :-)

If you're looking for more reach, you will be saddened when you mostly magnify air and heat shimmer and turbulence.

What you may want is to fill your frame AT THE SAME distance with smaller aircraft. That I would support. But simply more FL for the sake of capturing from further away is not very rewarding in our hobby.

If all you care about is capturing and collecting and NOT quality, then by all means go for it. But keep in mind the fact that your new 500mm will seem poor when the images you get are looking very blurry or similar because of the compression.

On another level, it is sometimes nice to be able to fill the frame when a corp or biz jet comes by. But again, your distance is still small.

Just trying to make your life miserable :cool: as I am sure you were almost certain you wanted to buy a new longer tele. LOL

[steve1840]

Thats one thing I've been tossing around. I have the funds to get the 150-500 without trading in the 100-400, but was thinking that I'm not sure if I would need both in the bag. I am leaning towards taking monday off and coming down and paying a visit to the B&H store. Is there there a reputable camera shop outside of the city that may have that in stock?

[Zee71]

Ditto........I echo Manny's comments. I don't use Canon, but I would not get rid of this lens. I'm sure all the Canon users will probably tell you likewise. I think there are Caono rumors cirulating as well, that Canon may be coming out with a replacement for this lens. Please wait for the Canon users to chime in.

[steve1840]

Thanks for the buzz kill Manny :tongue:

In all seriousness, actually, thank you. I saw that lens and started to get excited. I need someone to snap me out of it once in a while. I see your point and do agree with you. THat as good as it would be to be able to fill the frame a little mroe when a smaller aircraft comes by, it wouldn't justify the expense.


I would NOT trade in an L 100-400mm for a Sigma 150-500mmm no matter how good the Sigma is on paper. I believe the 100-400 to be better built and have better optics. And this from ZERO personal experience :-)

If you're looking for more reach, you will be saddened when you mostly magnify air and heat shimmer and turbulence.

What you may want is to fill your frame AT THE SAME distance with smaller aircraft. That I would support. But simply more FL for the same of capturing from further away is not very rewarding in our hobby.

If all you care about is capturing and collecting and NOT quality, then by all means go for it. But keep in mind the fact that your new 500mm will seem poor when the images you get are looking very blurry or similar because of the compression.

On another level, it is sometimes nice to be able to fill the frame when a corp or biz jet comes by. But again, your distance is still small.

Just trying to make your life miserable :cool: as I am sure you were almost certain you wanted to buy a new longer tele. LOL

[moose135]

I have the funds to get the 150-500 without trading in the 100-400...
How about buying me a nice wide angle instead? :biggrin: But seriously, I doubt you will get enough performance out of the Sigma to warrant the cost if you already have the 100-400.

[Derf]

how about a nice 1.4X tele converter for that 100-400?

[steve1840]

how about a nice 1.4X tele converter for that 100-400?

I was thinking that, but I have been reading that since my 100-400 has a max aperture of f/4.5-5.6 the autofocus won't work. Is that true?

[njgtr82]

The only thing I would trade my 100-400 for is a new upgraded version

[SmAlbany]

I was thinking that, but I have been reading that since my 100-400 has a max aperture of f/4.5-5.6 the autofocus won't work. Is that true?

From what I've read, the autofocus with that combo will only work on a pro series body (eg EOS 1-D Mark IV or similar).

[steve1840]

From what I've read, the autofocus with that combo will only work on a pro series body (eg EOS 1-D Mark IV or similar).

My body is a 5D MKII, which I do not believe they consider a pro body

[NIKV69]

Isn't the AF real slow on the Sigma, I mean for a 500 the glass is prob decent but for moving things it's prob a fail. You may be able to manage arrivals but would struggle with departures.

[SmAlbany]

My body is a 5D MKII, which I do not believe they consider a pro body

I believe that is correct. The 1 series bodies can autofocus with a maximum aperature of f/8. The other canon bodies (including the 5D II) require a max aperture of f/5.6.

With a teleconverter, you need to multiply the max aperture of the lense by the extender. On a 1 series body, the 100-400 would autofocus with a 1.4TC but not with the 2X.

[steve1840]

Guys, I appreciate all the good info on this subject. I believe I have made my decision and I am NOT going to get the Sigma lens. I will stick with my 100-400 and just go to areas where I don't really need the extra length. I will most likely be investign in some good wide angle lenses though.

I can tell that I am loving this hobby more and more everyday as I am in the middle of selling my Camaro (was going to be my main hobby before photography and spotting came along) so that I can buy photo gear, lenses, etc.

[megatop412]

Well people, I hate to throw a fly in the proverbial ointment, but, I personally have not experienced any lack in optical quality OR focussing speed with this lens. I am satisfied with it except for the slight vignetting it produces.

All of the photos in this recent thread were taken with the Sigma 150-500, mounted to a Nikon D40x:

http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/39403-JFK-shots-Feb-26-28-March-1

[gonzalu]

William, I am interested for a friend of mine who keeps asking me (different hobby, also needs magnification of small subjects)

Would you be so kind and show me a full resolution original RAW or JPG of one of your best images for inspection? You can send me via E-mail and will be discarded of course :-) I would prefer a shot of a wall at say 200 yards or 1000 feet :-) but if of an airplane, all the better. Something that actually fills the frame.

Thanks

[megatop412]

I shot a wall with the lens the day I bought it then deleted the shot. But I'd be happy to send you a RAW of an airplane. PM me your email and I'll gladly send it. All of the images I've shot with it are of aircraft.

[gonzalu]

Awesome man... I'd love to see the potential ... rarely does one appreciate originals on the web :-)

manny (at) manny (dot) org

or IM me ... all in my profile.. .contact form also on my website etc. :cool:

[njgtr82]

Also most people in this hobby seem to prefer a body with a crop factor(7D, 40D, 50D, etc) so that your 100-400mm lens is now a 160-640mm lens. The 5D is a full frame sensor

[gonzalu]

Also most people in this hobby seem to prefer a body with a crop factor(7D, 40D, 50D, etc) so that your 100-400mm lens is now a 160-640mm lens. The 5D is a full frame sensor

Well not quite... no disrespect but the 400mm will still be 400mm no matter how you crop it :-) If you say you have more pixels in the center of the frame, so be it. The image projected on the sensor is exactly 400mm ...

To put it another way, If I put a 400mm lens on a 12MP 1.5x crop sensor or a 400mm on a 30MP 1.0x sensor the resulting central portion of the image will be identical on screen. The crop sensor just take care of some cropping :-)

Seriously, I know how people think it is acting like a teleconverter but it is not.. .it is just more pixels on the same space. The magnification of the image optically has not changed and this is important in our hobby because of atmospheric compression. You want to be physically as close as possible, not magnify the distance optically.

A big advantage of a crop sensor is the idea that it concentrates more pixels in the center of the frame where the optical qualities of a lens are at their best. Corners are usually not as good on lenses designed for crop sensors. This is the case with most super-zooms and you will get better performance from them on a crop sensor as it ignores the edges/corners of the projection ...

I say if I had a choice of a Full Frame camera with the same pixel depth as a crop sensor and a lens that has good edge-to-edge sharpness and contrast and overall quality, I 'd chose the Full Frame camera becuase of the benefits of the larger frame coverage. With the crop area having more pixels, you also get the benefit of a more croppable image... (is that even a real word?)

[megatop412]

Awesome man... I'd love to see the potential ... rarely does one appreciate originals on the web :-)

manny (at) manny (dot) org

or IM me ... all in my profile.. .contact form also on my website etc. :cool:


2 RAW's sent

[Nathan McGrew]

I had to decide between the 100-400 and the Sigma 150-500 last year. The price difference and the fact that Dell only carried the Sigma (only place I have credit these days...) made me pick up the Sigma. Almost returned it right away, but I stuck with it. It's a bit tricky to use on my XSi. Waiting to see how well it works with my incoming 1D MKII. I say, if you can afford it, go with the Canon. But the Sigma is not a waste of money.

Here are a few albums from this summer with the Sigma. Note: 99% of these shots are with the Sigma. Only a few wide shots with my old 18-55 kit lens.

http://s1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Date%20With%20a%20Russian/

http://s1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/American%20Fighter%20Day/

http://s1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Heritage%20Flying%20Collection%20Round%20Engine%20 Day/

http://s1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Luftwaffe%20Fly%20Day/

http://s1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Paul%20Allens%20Helicopter/

Any out of focus shots are directly the fault of the operator and the XSi focus system.

[flyingwithfish]

I demo'd the Sigma 150-500f5-6.3 a few years back (and I believe they just released a new generation of the lens) and quite frankly it was not a lens I'd want to use.

I used the lens exclusively on the Canon EOS 1D/1Ds series bodies and it consistently had focusing issues. These issues were not limited to low light or back lit situations … but while shooting in bright contrasty situations in the early-mid afternoon during the fall. These lighting conditions are ideal for auto focus and it just couldn't get a lock on.

While my kit contains more than a dozen Canon lenses, nearly all L series lenses, I ended up with the Sigma 120-300f2.8 after I sold my Canon 400f2.8 (when I stopped covering pro and NCAA D1 sports for a living) and I am happy. I've also owned, and enjoyed the Sigma 20f1.8, used the and loved the Sigma 500f4.5 and now use a Canon 12-24f4.5-5.6 regularly … so I am not a Canon lens snob … but the 150-500f5-6.3 just wasn't for me, or even close to close to my standards

[megatop412]

Fish- sorry you seem to have gotten a 'bad' copy of the Sigma, they seem to have quality consistency issues at Sigma. I picked mine up from a local shop instead of one of the major retailers and while not a 2.8 tele it certainly has the required sharpness if used properly. My D40x only has 3 focus points and it's never had a problem locking on with this lens.