Is the Sigma 150-500mm good or good value..?

whom

whom

Messages
734
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I am constantly frustrated by the limited reach available with my 5d2+70-200+1.4x when wandering around taking pictures of birds (....) and the like. I started a thread a while back and a lot of people suggested the Sigma 150-500mm.

Now after looking at a bunch of pictures on "pixelpeeper" I am not overly impressed with the picture quality. I checked samples from 400-500mm and from F6.3-8.

A lot of people rave about the lens, but is it the quality or the quality per pound that is impressing people? I've no question it is a great value lens, but would the 100-400mm canon or even 400mm F/5.6 prime be money better spent?

I suppose the 5D2 would be more gentle on the lens than some of the cameras used to take the examples I've seen with it's effective 8.3MP at APC sensor size.
 
I've got a Sigma 150-500 OS and I'm pretty happy with the quality of the image. I had a Canon 100-400 L but on the 5 Canon bodies I've had or got I found the IQ of the Sigma better. I bought the Sigma in january for around £600 from www.panamoz.com and I'm happy enough with the results. The lens is good wide open at f6.3 but gets even sharper when stopped down.

This is a Jpeg SOOC, with a Canon 5DMkIII and Sigma 150-500 OS taken about 35 feet distance, at 1/800, ISO 1000, wide open at f6.3 @ 500mm and just cropped, with no other PP at all.

7132819465_b1cfa8db91_c.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This is a crop of the above crop to show the head detail better.

6986734786_63db744d29_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
Last edited:
Thanks Stuart, it looks good. £600 is quite a bargain it would seem, especially with such highly rated stabilisation.

I'd best start saving I suppose as it would need to be an extra lens, not really a replacement for the 70-200mm. But then what would I use the 70-200mm for.... hmmm...
 
I've got a 70-200 2.8 IS L as well, I use that mainly as a short wildlife lens most of the time, but I do also use it for portraits and quite often as just a walkabout lens. The Sigma OS system is amazing, I managed to get this handheld waterfall pic at a wildlife park at 1/10sec and managed to get it quite still at 150mm.

7095849405_7548f93868_c.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
Again, a Jpeg SOOC resized for the web but no other PP.
 
Wow 1/10th! Thanks for taking the time to put these pictures up.

I could do with finding a shop with this lens so I can have a play. I might drop by park cameras and see if they have one next time I go home from Uni. If I managed to pick one up second hand for around the £450 mark and didn't like it I guess I wouldn't lose much reselling.

How do you find the AF speed Stuart compared to your 70-200? Especially for birds taking off/squirrels running etc?
 
I doubt there is a lens that offers such good value as the Sigm,a 150-500, and it can hold it's own with the Canon 100-400. It has a better OS system and of course is 100mm longer. In pure sharpness stakes the Canon 400mm would be slightly better, but then primes usually are. Until you start spending serious money you would be hard pressed to get a better bang for buck lens. I used mine for three years and had no complaints and would buy another without hesitation.

Img_0589.jpg


and a 100% crop
Img_0589c100.jpg
 
Thanks for more replies guys.

Ken, is that a crop from your 7D at F/6.3? I couldn't pull any EXIF data from it.

You guys seem to get much sharper images than the majority uploading to Flikr via pixelpeeper.

I often use "the digital picture" for lens comparisons and the Sigma didn't fare too well on his ISO tests.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

But as I've seen now it clearly is (or can be) better than that. Perhaps there is variation lens to lens..
 
whom said:
.............Perhaps there is variation lens to lens..
Click to expand...
Or perish the thought variation photographer to photographer :D perhaps a case of bad workmen and tools springs to mind. Much the same as people complaining about the 7D, some folk make it work no problem.

Looking back in my files, the Blue tit was shot at f8, though I was perfectly happy with shots at f6.3, though invariably had it at f7.1
 
Last edited:
With the 5D3 and the Sigma 150-500 OS the AF speed is pretty quick. Maybe a tad slower than the 70-200 2.8 IS L but definitely no slouch. I've done some galloping horse shots and a greyhound running and the Sigma kept up with them no problem. When I had it on my 7D I had to MA it to +5 IIRC, but not had to touch it on anything else so far. TBH I found the Sigma to be better overall than the Canon 100-400 IS L, the OS was much better and the AF seemed better able to cope in failing light, while the IQ was around the same on both lenses. Because of the price I paid for the Sigma I'd put it up as a better lens overall which is the reason I sold the Canon and kept the Sigma.

If you're ever going to be in the Lincoln vicinity and want to have a play with it drop me a PM and I'm sure we can work something out.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for the responses Stuart and the offer of a try with the lens but it's unlikely I'll ever be around your way. Thanks anyhow.

In the past I borrowed a 170-500mm sigma lens and hated it. Slow AF, crappy image quality. In fact I got better reach with 200mm+1.4x than I did with 500mm on the Sigma. But I need to realise the fact that whilst Canon make a lovely 70-300mm L lens, they also make the terrible 75-300mm lens. Same applies to all lens manufacturers.

Ken, I see what you're saying about user error but the samples I examined to make my judgement were fast shutter speed and as far as I could tell in focus to eliminate user error as much as possible. Looking back I have found a lot more decent pictures by widening my search. Perhaps the others where shot through low quality, non multicoated, double glazing....

I've been convinced! I will not proceed to keep and eye out for a decent second hand example of this lens because I don't NEED it so feel less guilty if it's second hand as I know I could sell it with only a small loss. Although 3 years warranty isn't it...? £100 more for new and 3 year warranty.... hmmm.. what can I sell to justify this....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top