Sigma primes ?

macky799

macky799

Messages
4,092
Name
neil
Edit My Images
Yes
Just a quick ? has anybody used the Sigma 500mm prime lens with a 1.4 convertor, or has anybody used the Sigma 800mm prime lens ?
 
lifethrualens said:
i have a sigma 50-500mm with a 1.4 pro converter
Click to expand...

Not a prime though is it?

What are you wanting to know macky799? Ive not go either of the ones you mention, but use a Sigma 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4X converter. Also any reason why you might be considering the 800mm over the 300-800mm?
 
Messiah Khan said:
Not a prime though is it?

What are you wanting to know macky799? Ive not go either of the ones you mention, but use a Sigma 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4X converter. Also any reason why you might be considering the 800mm over the 300-800mm?
Click to expand...

I have the 50-500 already but want more reach as always, would ideally like the canon 600l but don't think the budget will go that far and i also want better iq than my 50-500 (y). Thanks for your time to reply
 
Been considering long primes myself. I too don't know where to head at the moment, but I've finally shortened the list to 3 lenses.

Sigma 500mm f/4.5
Canon 500mm f/4 L IS
Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 (a LOT better than the prime)

First of all you need to consider some aspects. The 500mm for Sigma is handholdable, I know since it's the same weight as my 120-300mm f/2.8. The 800mm or the 300-800mm are two of the heaviest lenses in the market. You'll need to spend a fortune on expensive tripods and heads, there is a huge learning curve for such long lenses and when you chose the place you'll sit, you stay there!
But, the Sigmonster (300-800) has the best kill-zone in the market! It is actually my dream lens to combine with my 120-300 which is considered its little brother. But I think I'll end up with the canon in the end. The reason?

Well you may ask why do I have both the SIgma and the canon in my shortlist. Well, the only reason is cost. I am looking for reasons to justify paying double the money for a lens that delivers almost exactly the same optical results.
I've read a lot of reviews, most of them raving on the merits of the Sigma, regarding optical performanse, built quality, handling. All of them say that the Sigma surpasses the Canon in the aspects that it can, ie the detail, better built, smoother focus ring, smoother tripod collar, better tripod bush etc. But the bottm line is that the Canon is a slightly better optical performer, it has IS, which is the most important factor to consider, and the .5 gain in aperture makes a hell of a difference when it comes to TCs.

So, what you want to consider is this. Spend around £2200 on the Sigma, and have 80% the performance from a £4000 lens? Spend the £4000 on probably the best wildlife lens out there? Or spend around the same for a lens with the best kill-zone in the field, stellar optical performance but difficult to use and carry around and without IS.
 
stylgeo said:
Been considering long primes myself. I too don't know where to head at the moment, but I've finally shortened the list to 3 lenses.

Sigma 500mm f/4.5
Canon 500mm f/4 L IS
Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 (a LOT better than the prime)

First of all you need to consider some aspects. The 500mm for Sigma is handholdable, I know since it's the same weight as my 120-300mm f/2.8. The 800mm or the 300-800mm are two of the heaviest lenses in the market. You'll need to spend a fortune on expensive tripods and heads, there is a huge learning curve for such long lenses and when you chose the place you'll sit, you stay there!
But, the Sigmonster (300-800) has the best kill-zone in the market! It is actually my dream lens to combine with my 120-300 which is considered its little brother. But I think I'll end up with the canon in the end. The reason?

Well you may ask why do I have both the SIgma and the canon in my shortlist. Well, the only reason is cost. I am looking for reasons to justify paying double the money for a lens that delivers almost exactly the same optical results.
I've read a lot of reviews, most of them raving on the merits of the Sigma, regarding optical performanse, built quality, handling. All of them say that the Sigma surpasses the Canon in the aspects that it can, ie the detail, better built, smoother focus ring, smoother tripod collar, better tripod bush etc. But the bottm line is that the Canon is a slightly better optical performer, it has IS, which is the most important factor to consider, and the .5 gain in aperture makes a hell of a difference when it comes to TCs.

So, what you want to consider is this. Spend around £2200 on the Sigma, and have 80% the performance from a £4000 lens? Spend the £4000 on probably the best wildlife lens out there? Or spend around the same for a lens with the best kill-zone in the field, stellar optical performance but difficult to use and carry around and without IS.
Click to expand...

Thanks (y) Do you know why the 300-800 sigma is better than the 800 prime i would have thought the prime would give you better IQ :shrug:
 
I would've thought that too, but after lots of searching, everybody says that the zoom is better. Even the MTF charts at sigma's webpage say so.
The 300-800mm and the 800mm.
Besides, it would be a LOT easier to compose and take the picture at 800mm with a zoom that goes back to 300 than with a prime. You search at 300mm, find your target and zoom in!!
 
stylgeo said:
I would've thought that too, but after lots of searching, everybody says that the zoom is better. Even the MTF charts at sigma's webpage say so.
The 300-800mm and the 800mm.
Besides, it would be a LOT easier to compose and take the picture at 800mm with a zoom that goes back to 300 than with a prime. You search at 300mm, find your target and zoom in!!
Click to expand...

Thats true :LOL:
 
It's the same with the sig 120-300 vs 300 - the 120-300 is better..
 
Why is Image Stabilisation so important on such a big lens given you can't use it handheld? I might be misinformed, but don't you normally turn of VR / IS equivalents when mounted on a tripod?

I would have thought that IQ, aperture size and range usability are the most important factors.
Jas
 
IS can help compensate for camera movement while being attatched to a tripod. When you touch the camera, a slight breeze or even the mirror bouncing up can cause movement that will ruin a photo in that long focal lenghts. Even on my 120-300mm I use mirror lock-up with remote shutter release for slower shutterspeeds. Imagine what the magnification of those slight movements would be on a 500 or 800mm lens!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top