Is the Sigma 150-500mm zoom a good buy?

A

AlistairW

Messages
81
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently got a Sigma 18-250mm IS 'superzoom' which I'm pretty happy with but which rather makes my Canon 70-300mm redundant.

I still like the idea of a powerful zoom - perhaps for birds, etc. At £720ish the 150-500 sounds like it would give me a lot of extra reach for the cash. BUT what do others think. Might I find the extra reach not as much as it sounds? Are there downsides to this lens? Might there be a better alternative? Also, what do other bird photographers tend to use?

I appreciate the Canon L series are good especially with IS, but to get this level of zoom might involve spending the kind of money that invites marital strife!
 
Have a look at the Sigma 120-400mm lens as well. It's a little cheaper, has a faster aperture at the long end of the zoom range, and has IS too. I've had one since November 08 and couldn't be happier with it for the price.
 
Thanks. Some food for thought there. I take it the Sigma 120-400 would lose its auto functions if you used an extender? I might be wrong, but I think this might be one of the benefits of the Canon L series.

I'm not sure how I'd get on with manual focusing - which is why I thought the 500mm might suit me.
 
I have a sigma 150-500mm and Im very happy with it, IS on it is great, heres a couple of hand held shots I took recently in Kenya

3524284827_077bdd9e12_o.jpg


3528064905_079e102107_o.jpg


3530976133_9874993f93_o.jpg


3533505269_8e1884f239_o.jpg


And an air ambulance image

3616296947_e7016908dd_o.jpg


Dave
 
AlistairW said:
Thanks. Some food for thought there. I take it the Sigma 120-400 would lose its auto functions if you used an extender? I might be wrong, but I think this might be one of the benefits of the Canon L series.

I'm not sure how I'd get on with manual focusing - which is why I thought the 500mm might suit me.
Click to expand...

It's not the lens, but the body that is important with regards to AF. Anything other than an EOS-1 series body will not AF at anything slower than f5.6, so no, the 120-400mm would lose AF capability with an extender, but so would the Canon 100-400mm L. The Sigma 150-500mm lens has a maximum aperture of f6.3 at the 500mm end, but the lens tricks the camera into thinking the aperture is faster than that so it will AF. There are tricks you can do with converters involving taping off certain contacts that will enable AF. Do a search on here and I'm sure something will come up.

I think EOS-1 series bodies can AF down to f8.
 
Thanks everyone.

Your bird/wildlife images are great Dave.

Interesting what's said about the AF issues.

I think on balance it does seem a good lens for the price. I can feel the lure of it getting the better of me - I reckon I'm getting it.

Thanks all.

Alistair
 
Chaz Photos said:
I thought teh 400 to 500 was not a lot much loss and I have IS as well
Click to expand...

It can be ... I actually think there is a worthwhile difference, but depends what you shoot. The 150-500 has OS and it performs better than the Canon IS - had two copies of both lenses and my experience is the Sigma is the better all round option and is also much cheaper new/guaranteed. I wouldn't chance a SH 100-400 ... too much copy variation IMO.

AlistairW said:
I'm not sure how I'd get on with manual focusing - which is why I thought the 500mm might suit me.
Click to expand...

You need a good viewfinder to MF reliably at distance. I wouldn't bother. Dead on focus is vital if you want a crisp image and far away there are a range of environmental variables that can knock the edge off a shot.

It's also worth considering the 400mm 5.6 L prime for birds, especially as you have the 70-300 already. It's a better lens than either zoom IQ wise in my experience (had three and all A1) and Af very fast too. If you get a 1D type body downstream you can use a TCon with it very nicely.
 
I'm very happy with mine, I just need to build up some muscle to pan with it :D




(it makes my 70-200 f2.8 feel light)
 
ok - thanks everyone. It is really good to be able to get so many thoughts so easily in these forums - it really does help.

My conclusion is that it does seem to be a good buy for my (general) purposes to go along with the lens I have.

The combination of reach, IS (or OS) and AF for the price all point to it being for me.

Having said that it seems clear the other possibilities might not have disappointed me either.
 
I have the 150-500 and i think it is a great lens for the price, yes the 100-400 might give slighlt better IQ, but i have decided not to go that route as i know i would miss the 500 top end so much. I almost use this lens exclusivly now. I never use a tripod or monopod with this lens as the OS is that good.

If you get it you wont regret it :)
 
Got the 135-400mm Sigma myself non is but very pleased with the results does not seem to incurr camera shake even hand held at 1/60th so well pleased,ovl sharpness in my humble opinion is good



Dave
 
Thanks Alistair for asking this question i was going to ask the same one after reading a review in amateur photography is week , sounds like a nice bit of kit to complement my 70-200 2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top