Sigma 120-400mm APO DG OS HSM

CBA100

CBA100

Messages
1,145
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Does anyone have this lens? Im after a lens for wildlife/bird photography, but a 500mm is out of my price range. Is this lens any good for these subjects?
 
My wife has the 120-400 OS while I have the 150-500 OS and they are both excellent lenses. I've used the 120-400 on a few occasions and found the IQ equally as good to the 150-500, the AF speed is also fast enough to catch and track BIF and wildlife easily. I shoot a lot of aviation and when I have the 400 on my crop body I still get better reach than the 500 on full frame. Here's a shot taken with my Canon 5D3 and the 120-400 of a static bird, it's SOOC and has only been cropped, no other PP done. Taken at 400mm, 1/800sec, f6.3.


Unknown bird. by modchild, on Flickr
 
Great lens! Here's a few I took while I had it. Would buy another if I was in the market.

422768_354460901244617_441776816_n.jpg

427125_354460261244681_1344719421_n.jpg

407385_364751360215571_150474704_n.jpg

408013_362458043778236_2076796566_n.jpg

424222_354460187911355_365422602_n.jpg
 
Hi Stuart

Like Chris, I have been looking around at longer reach telephoto lenses,.

I have the Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD, which I used with a 7D. This is an excellent lens for the price. although the sharpness does fall-off a bit a 300mm, but if you stop down to f/8 it remains 'pin sharp'

However, having now upgraded to the 5D Mklll, I have of course lost the 'reach' of the 300mm lens, and so have been looking at 400 and 500mm options.

Having used Sigma lenses in the past, albeit always EX series, I read several reviews on the 120-400 and the 150-5000, and in each case the lenses were 'marked down' for lacking sharpness at the long end.

However, your image seems to contradict this criticism.

Although a lot of money, I have also considered the Canon 100-400 L IS, but the 'trombone style' zoom action doesn't exactly excite me.

Dave
 
Last edited:
DaveS2 said:
Hi Stuart

Like Chris, I have been looking around at longer reach telephoto lenses,.

I have the Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD, which I used with a 7D. This is an excellent lens for the price. although the sharpness does fall-off a bit a 300mm, if you stop down to f/8 it remains 'pin sharp'

However, having now upgraded to the 5D Mklll, I have of course lost the 'reach' of the 300mm lens, and so have been looking at 400 and 500mm options.

Having used Sigma lenses in the past, albeit always EX series, I read several reviews on the 120-400 and the 150-5000, and in each case the lenses were 'marked down' for lacking sharpness at the long end.

However, your image seems to contradict this criticism.

Although a lot of money, I have also considered the Canon 100-400 L IS, but the 'trombone style' zoom action doesn't exactly excite me.

Dave
Click to expand...


Hi Dave.

I also have the Tamron 70-300mm USD for my A700. Although a pretty good lens, im after something with a little extra reach.
 
They are pretty good examples Phil, but I wouldn't say they were particularly sharp, albeit that is being 'picky'

Here's an image taken with a 7D and a Sigma EX series lens:

Dave


Barbary Ape by Dave_S2, on Flickr
 
Thanks for the images posted Stuart & Phil. Much appreciated.
 
i was looking at the 100-400 canon but the push and pull put me off in the end i held out and went with the sigma 50-500 os i did hear a lot saying after 400-450mm the iq drops on the sigmas i have seen lots of good and bad photos from the sigma lenses but every situation will differ with the available light at that given destination and time
 
DaveS2 said:
They are pretty good examples Phil, but I wouldn't say they were particularly sharp, albeit that is being 'picky'
Click to expand...

The bird shot & lama shots are pretty sharp - admittedly the deer are a bit softer but for £600 & 400mm with OS - I think the others are pretty decent! Doesn't match my sharpest lenses but it is one of the better lenses in it's category.
 
I did say I was being a bit 'picky' Phil, but tend to be so when I'm think about spending money. I think its very much a case of "you get what you pay for", and as you say, pretty decent for £600 with IS.

Also a lot depends on whoever does the 'quality control' bit at the factory. I've heard of a few 'high end' Canon L series lenss being returned as being below par.

I have the Canon 24-105L as my 'every day' lens, and the image quality is very impressive right out to 105mm, but then it wasn't cheap.

I'm sure that there is a degree of luck involved, as to whether you get a good, or not so good, example of a lens, and you would think that buy buying a Pro Level lens, perfection would be guaranteed, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

In Stuart's case, he seems to have a good example of the Sigma 120-400, but there is no guarantee that if Chris or I bought one, we would be as lucky.

A case of 'you pay your money, and you take your chance'.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Here's a typical review comment for the 120-400, and just one of many, which has made me think twice about buying this lens.

"The 120-400mm is a fairly sharp lens, but its performance is optimized for the wider range of its focal length spectrum. As you zoom in towards the 400mm range, image sharpness degrades significantly. Optimal image sharpness was achieved at either 120mm and ƒ/5.6, or 150mm and ƒ/8."

Dave
 
If I was going to spend some cash on a long lens I'd go for the longest available in my budget. The 150-500 OS really isn't much more than the 120-400 OS if you buy from the right supplier. I got mine from Panamoz for just over £600 while the 120-400 was about £30 less. Now it's the other way around with the 150-500 being cheaper than the 120-400 http://panamoz.com/index.php/lens/sigma.html The 50-500 OS is supposedly sharper but it is a fair bit more expensive as is the Canon 100-400. I had a Canon 100-400 and the 150-500 OS at the same time and after a heck of a lot of testing I found the IQ of the two to be so similar it made no difference. I found the AF speed to be very similar as well but the Sigma has a much newer and far better stabilization system, I've got handheld shots at 150mm at 1/12sec and still got a good output, and that was the main reason I kept the Sigma. I've got a good few shots on my Flickr page taken with the 150-500, most of the aviation shots I think, and some of them are wide open at f6.3 as well. There's been hardly any, if anything other than a crop, PP on my shots and most were taken in jpeg so taking in raw and using PP should improve them.

Here's one however that has had NO PP at all and it doesn't seem too bad to me, at full resolution you can just about count the rivets. The 150-500 OS is probably the best bang for buck long zoon there is.



SAAB Viggen 1 by modchild, on Flickr

Here's another shot from the 150-500 on the 5D3. This is also wide open and also has had NO PP apart from a crop. The first is the full bird and the second is a really heavy crop showing the details.


Dunnock (Hedge Sparrow) close up. by modchild, on Flickr


Dunnock (Hedge Sparrow) crop for detail. by modchild, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Well I couldn't criticise those results Stuart. :thumbs:

I do have wonder though, are they typical, or have you been lucky enough to get a particularly good example.

You are right about the Canon 100-400, its is a very old product, and only offers a 2 stop stabiliser. For that reason, and its 'trombone zoom', its not on my 'shopping list'.

Dave
 
Dave, I've had 2 150-500's as I managed to break the first after I'd had it for 11 months and it was replaced under warranty. The bird shot was taken with the first and the plane was taken with the second so in my case I can only say it's 2 out of 2. I've got lots of shots on my Flickr page that's been taken with both lenses and I've got hundreds more on the computer that are just as good. I've also got quite a few on the computer from an airshow where I used a 7D and the 120-400 OS and the quality is very similar. I was never particularly happy with the 7D, apart from in good light, but I was happy with them that day.
 
The 150-500mm is definitely out of my budget, so ive just taken the plunge and purchased a 120-400mm.
 
You won't regret it. I had one and it was fantastic. I can't believe I sold it, it was pin sharp even wide open at 400mm.

Definitely one of more stupid decisions I've made regarding gear.
 
TCR4x4 said:
You won't regret it. I had one and it was fantastic. I can't believe I sold it, it was pin sharp even wide open at 400mm.

Definitely one of more stupid decisions I've made regarding gear.
Click to expand...

For £330, I couldnt resist.
 
I really hope that you are happy with the 120-400, and I very much look forward to hearing how you get on with it, and seeing some of your results.

I still haven't completely dismissed the lens myself, as their really isn't a lot choice when it comes to telephoto zooms in the 100 to 500mm range.

The Canon 100-400 is a very nice optic, but an old design in respect of it's IS. This really only leaves the three Sigmas, 50-500, 150-500, and 120-400. From a practical aspect (size & weight), the two 500mm options really are 'chunky' lenses.

Dave
 
Cheers Dave. I'll get some shots uploaded over the next few days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top