Sigma 120-400 / 150-500 or perhaps 50-500

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there.

Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM/AF

Sigma APO 150-500mm F5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM/AF

Considering either of these lenses and wondered how they compare ?

I quite like the idea of the extra 100mm of the 500 but I wasn't sure how 'good' that 100mm was.

Also - are they equal in terms of quality at 400mm and less.


I guess the Sigma 50-500mm is my other option so would be interested to hear what folk thought of this lens compared to the above two.

Thanks

Phil
 
andrewc said:
What do you plan to shoot?
Click to expand...

Hi there

I'm looking for something to use (on a 40d at the moment) for shooting wildlife.

I mainly do landscapes but as I spend a fair bit of time at Loch Sunart I'd love to start photographing the birds, otters, seals etc that I see on and around the shore as well as from the hide.

Motorsport seems popular on here but not I'm not really interested in this.

Cheers
 
Dinners, I am currently thinking about the same lenses (120-400 and 150-500) but I'm not sure which one to go for. :shrug:

I have read numerous reviews on both which have been really helpful. There are plenty of threads on both lenses on TP which give interesting views for and against the lenses. The main point against suggests buying the Canon 100-400 as an alternative - this option does come at a price though (literally!!).

I was all set to go for the 120-400 but then I start to think about the 150-500. Personally I am now leaning towards buying the extra 100mm reach for about £80-£100 more than 120-400.
 
dinners said:
Hi there.

Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM/AF

Sigma APO 150-500mm F5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM/AF

Considering either of these lenses and wondered how they compare ?
I quite like the idea of the extra 100mm of the 500 but I wasn't sure how 'good' that 100mm was.
Also - are they equal in terms of quality at 400mm and less.
I guess the Sigma 50-500mm is my other option so would be interested to hear what folk thought of this lens compared to the above two.
Thanks

Phil
Click to expand...

On a budget these lenses work ok for wildlife shots, best when used on a tripod and using manual focus and when the light conditions are working for you. The autofocus on these lenses are slow, and quality at 400/500mm is soft. Also the 150-500mm and 50-500mm aren't true 500mm, more 450mm lenses, the 50-500mm is also heavy'sh at 2.5kg.

The 300mm f4 and/or 1.4x TC or 400mm f5.6 would be better options for wildlife, but budgets rule your choices. Other alternative's would be the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 or sigma 100-300mm f4 and/or 1.4x TC.
 
Another vote for the 400 5.6 or 300 f4 and 1.4 tc......excellent lenses for the price.
 
If you get the Autumn Issue 2009 no 92 of Digital Camera they do a side by side comparison on these very lenses and more ( Page 100-106 inclusive). Oh by the way the Sigma 120-400mm lens came out top at 92% and second was the Sigma 150-500 at 90%. I am also thinking the same but decided on the 120-400 as I have a 1.4 sigma tele converter.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
If you get the Autumn Issue 2009 no 92 of Digital Camera they do a side by side comparison on these very lenses and more ( Page 100-106 inclusive). Oh by the way the Sigma 120-400mm lens came out top at 92% and second was the Sigma 150-500 at 90%. I am also thinking the same but decided on the 120-400 as I have a 1.4 sigma tele converter.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

I believe those reviews with a pinch of salt, especially when value for money is a main driver for products scores.

Of course budget is a main influence in your decisions and for £600-1000 it's a cheap way of getting 400mm+ but these aren't great lenses, especially for the challenging light conditions take the UK has to throw at you.
 
Pete
I was only pointing toward what Dinners was asking about, and having seen the article in the said magazine thought it might have been of interest. What is affordable for some is beyond the reach of others cost wise.

Realspeed
 
Thanks for the feedback folks - plenty to mull over.

I did wee that magazine but with kids in tow i didn't get chance to read it.

The Canon option is still possible but I want to decide on which Sigma before deciding whether to go Canon or Sigma.
 
in the mag the 120-400 came out on optical par with the 100-400 is from canon, not bad for half the price, so long as your not obsessed by brand
 
c_robinson said:
in the mag the 120-400 came out on optical par with the 100-400 is from canon, not bad for half the price, so long as your not obsessed by brand
Click to expand...

Brand obsession has nothing to do with it, its the best lens for the money.

Personally I would recommend the sigma 100-300mm f4, even with a 1.4x TC over the 100-400mm, as the sigma is a great lens.

In fairness the canon is very old in the tooth now, version 1 IS, and a few pro's don't consider it a L series lens even though it has the badge. But 9 years down the line and probably still one of canon's best selling lenses, its still a good lens for the money and very versatile.

As for wildlife lenses, depends how close you can get to the action, usually thats 300/400mm + so something like a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 lens would be better, add a 1.4x TC which was designed for these lenses and you'll get good shots.
 
Thanks for the heads up on the review in DC mag realspeed. Interesting article and has helped to change my mind again.

At the moment I'm going with my original choice of Sigma 120-400.
 
fox in the box said:
Thanks for the heads up on the review in DC mag realspeed. Interesting article and has helped to change my mind again.

At the moment I'm going with my original choice of Sigma 120-400.
Click to expand...

Off to the supermarket later so will take a look at the article. :thumbs:
 
I have a Sigma 150-500mm which I've used to photograph the flamingos and chimpazees at Chester Zoo. I was quite happy with the quality. One thing I did find - particularly with the flamingos - was that I really needed the full 500mm.

I've not used the 50-500mm but I've heard that squeezing that much zoom range into the lens has resulted in a compromised design so I would expect the image quality to be inferior.

As for the Canon 100-400, I rejected that on the grounds that it was far too expensive and only had 2 stop image stabilisation. That's fine if you have arms as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger's but a no go if you're a weedy intelectual like me!
 
I got my Sigma 150-500 from WarehouseExpress in January and have used it constantly. I tried both the 150-500 and the 120-400 before purchasing and found them both of the same quality. I got the 150-500, as the somewhat longer reach was was better suited to the D700 full frame.

The autofocus on these lenses are slow, and quality at 400/500mm is soft.
Click to expand...
The HSM (built in focussing) on the 150-500 lens works fine for me, and I use it for motorsport. I have no problems with the results at 500mm either. For what it's worth, here is a recent post using the 150-500. All shots except for the first are with the Sigma 150-500, and shots #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 are all at 500mm.

http://www.ppforums.co.uk/index.php?topic=389.0

Ed
 
I find that my 150-500 is quick enough to follow focus but can be a bit sluggish to acquire it in the first place unless there's plenty of light. It's fine for slow moving and static wildlife but I wouldn't really recommend it for things like birds in flight. It's considerably sharper than the 170-500 it replaced (in my kit), particularly when stopped down a stop or 2 from wide (if f/6.3 can ever be called wide!) open.
 
I had the older 135-400mm and when I decided to upgrade it I tried the 12-400mm, 150-500mm and 50-500mm.

I quickly decided against the 12-400mm and eventually purchased the 50-500mm because I found it sharper at 500mm wide open than the 150-500mm .. plus it had the extra 100mm at the wider end. To be honest there isnt much between them if you get a good copy of the 150-500mm but the Bigma was a better choice for me as I have in body IS.

I have since bought a 100-300mm f4 and even with a 1.4x TC it is quite a bit better.
 
I used a 50-500 and 150-500 side by side and found the 50-500 to be better lens in terms of IQ and the obvious focal range
 
Being a bit shakey I was concerned about the lack of IS/VR on the 'Bigma' 50-500 ???

I think of the three the 120-400 is top of my list from what I've read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top