Sigma 50-500 OS?

[BillJ]

My first posting. Just lost my gear in the Queensland floods.

Have now purchased a Canon 40D, and am considering Sigma or Canon lens for photographing birds.

I'd more or less settled on Canon100-400IS, when I saw the Sigma 50-500 OS advertised.

I'll search for any previous postings on these two lenses, (but I can't do that till I've made my first posting).

Any or all ideas welcome!

BillJ

[Roosta]

Both the lens get a good write up, have had a play with thwe Canon 100-400L and some people find the push - pull zoom a pain, it can also be a pain as it wont lock on a zoom poit, so it can creep, you can adjust the tension, but then people find it difficult to slide. Personal choice, I would recommend you get the 100-400 on the body and try it to see if it feels comfortable in operation and in your hands.

The sigma 150-500mm also is a lens not to be dismissed.
Some reviews.

100-400 mm L (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

150-500 mm OS (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-500mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx)

50-500 mm NON OS (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx)

[PH005]

Hi Bill. Sorry about your loss. I have just bought a Sigma 120-400 after reading up on different lenses of this size, for birding mostly also. Am still getting to grips with it and finding out more as I go. You will find some good reviews on it, just google. I got mine from Photo Continental. They matched an importers price of $810. Well below RRP. Best of luck.

[grumps]

Hi Bill, I have a 40D and use a Sigma 150-500 lens for wildlife and find it good. It is not quite fast enough for those early morning /late afternoon shots that I would like, however I have had some good results generally. The lens I would like, is a Canon 70-200 2.8 Mark 2, however I can't afford one just yet but look forward to the greater opportunities the lens offers. My only regrets are that I didn't test the Sigma in low light before I decided on which lens to buy. If you can, I would borrow or rent a lens to try in your normal field conditions before buying.

[BillJ]

Many thanks for the responses. I was getting 'ok' results with a Sigma 150-500, but that was on the camera that went under water and accompanying mud!

I wrestled for a while with replacing it with another, or maybe with a Canon 100-400IS.

But I'm very tempted by the Sigma 50-500OS - is there anyone out there who has used one?

[Riverlander]

Hi Bill - bad luck with the floods mate.

I have owned a Canon 100-400 and loved it.
I do a fair bit of bird photography and loved the push pull focus (mind you it was nearly always at the 400 end) and only had problems with creep when it was pointed straight down. I have read a lot of reports about this lens that were not written by people who had much experience with it.

I also owned the original Bigma and now own the new Sigma 50-500 OS. My mate has the 150-500.
My lens is a lot better than his. Mine is super quick and silent (literally silent) in operation. I can hear his from 5 metres away.

The new Sigma is probably the better choice if only for its extra reach.

[falke]

Hi Bill

*removed. members with under 50 posts cannot post links to sites other than their own personal photographic website : admin *

Good luck, Frank

[BillJ]

Thanks Riverlander - just the sort of thing I wanted to know.

Have you any feeling about sharpness between the Canon at 400 and the new Sigma at 500?

I've heard opposing views on this...

[Riverlander]

Sharpness. I think the Canon would possibly win, but only if you went pixel peeping. Many of the photos that I put on the web have been cropped heavily, and then downsized so it is not a true comparison.
Fot my purposes the Sigma wins fairly easily.

This is my photobucket website, where I put some of my work
http://s718.photobucket.com/albums/ww184/Riverlander/

All of the pics should have EXIF intact, if you have an Exif viewer.

[fastr1red]

Many thanks for the responses. I was getting 'ok' results with a Sigma 150-500, but that was on the camera that went under water and accompanying mud!

I wrestled for a while with replacing it with another, or maybe with a Canon 100-400IS.

But I'm very tempted by the Sigma 50-500OS - is there anyone out there who has used one?

Hi Bill, Yes I have the 50-500 OS. Find it a great lens for motorsport and birding. It is quite heavy but if you're pretty fit no problem at all.
The resolution is pretty good even at 500mm.

[BillJ]

Well, the Sigma's got some champions!

Riverlander brings up an interesting point "Sharpness. I think the Canon would possibly win, but only if you went pixel peeping."

We're talking about two good lenses here and trying to identify fine points of difference between them, but then, certainly in my case, all I'm doing is reducing them to small jpgs for the web!

Even so, I can't help wondering if that cropped and downsized jpg is going to be better if I capture it with the Canon's 400mm good glass, or the Sigma's 500mm good reach.

So it seems it's down to glass or reach for the best cropped result?

What do you think?

[PH005]

Have you looked at the Sigma 120-400 OS reviews ? Am pretty sure that the results for quality are better than the Siggy 500. Have a look at lenstip.com

[Adrian Fischer]

I have a new 50-500 (only last week) so havent fully tested it yet but am very happy with what it can produce. Cant wait to try it on sports. There are a few in here that have one so a Kym springs to mind as does Mudman. Have a look at some of the photos they have posted, taken wit that lens. I have an image on here also. First shots ever taken with it in my case.

[PH005]

Heres a couple of quick fired shots I took with my Sigma 120-400. Have lost some quality from uploading.