Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

    .... has anyone got the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM and if so what do you think of it.
    rhodopsin The fat bloke with the camera stuck to his face, well actually I was born with it.

    #2
    Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

    It really depends what you compare it against? At one extreme is the 500mm catadioptic and at the other is a 500mm prime. It will always lose out to the prime on quality, but wins on price and the cat is of limited operational use.

    I did try one for a week, which was enough time to decide to stump up the extra cost for a prime. Anything with a 10x zoom is far too much of an engineering compromise to provide stunning quality, it was also too big and heavy and nowhere near fast enough, except in the brightest of light.

    I understand that the later 170 - 500mm is a very commendable lens and a significant quality jump over the 50 - 500mm, though I haven't tried one.

    Colin
    Colin

    Comment


      #3
      Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

      I have also tried one. Wanted to lug one lens as opposed to the rucksack. As stated primes will always win. Agreed as well that capture is slow. No IS meaning handheld in all but brilliant lighting conditions is not really feasible.

      With a tripod it produced reasonable pics, but if you can afford it (you can hire as well) go for the 500mmL F4. I presume it is this end that is the most interesting for you.

      regards

      Nigel

      Comment


        #4
        Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

        I used a 'Bigma' for a while and like the the others have said it has its good points and bad points. I found that in good light it could produce fairly good pics if it was supported well and care was taken. In poor light, it was often just a 'record' shot especially if it was a bird. I'm now in the very fortunate position to have the EF500 and obviously it is in a different league, but saying that, I do sometimes miss the flexibility of the 'Bigma'. I've also heard good things about the new 150-500. Before the 500, I used (and still do) the EF300+1.4ex and found that while it didn't have the reach of the Bigma, the extra quality enabled me to crop the picture more and still get similar 'reach' if you know what I mean.

        Robbie
        From 'The Island Above All Others'

        Comment


          #5
          Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

          A friend uses the Bigma in Nikon mount for wildlife and I've been very impressed with the quality of the results he's getting. Would be too slow (optically) for me, though.
          Freelance news and sports photographer
          http://www.hockeyphotos.com/

          Comment


            #6
            Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

            I have been using the Sigma 150-500mm for a few months now. It has many disadvantages as all users admit. But for those of us who cannot contemplate the 500mm Canon prime, it is a good alternative to use. The IS is a bit noisy and the limitations of 6.3 at the long end makes it difficult to get high exposure speeds at relatively low ISOs BUT with patience it is possible to get sharp decently exposed pictures. Have a look at Great Spotted Cuckoo in the Birds section which I put on earlier and I'll put a Tree rat (sorry, Squirell) on the Wildlife Section in a minute or two.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

              I'm not a fan of these super-zooms. Try out a long prime before you buy. Beg Borrow or Hire one.
              Dave

              Comment


                #8
                Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

                I use the 135-400mm sigma leans and yes it is a tad on the slow side at 6.3 BUT think what you are doing and it is fine,my only regret is that I shold have got the big mama



                Dave

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

                  Sigma do fill some gaps. I have had the 12-24 EX DG for a few years. Canon dont make a lens like this for full frame. I also have the 18-50 EX DC f2.8 which is fast and a good price. Lens for lens they are not generally as good as Canon L series but the gap is closer than you might think. Their macro lenses are very good
                  www.garywhite-photography.com
                  Gary White, MPhil
                  Travel Photographer

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

                    I have the 150-500mm. I love this lens. You have a small learning curve with this lens. Most of the problems I have with this lens is I try to push the lens, to do things it or any other 500 mm, just won't do. You have to get close to the subject. You can not be 100m from your subject and think you will get the shot. You need to know distance vs subject size and do not be afraid to jack up the ISO to get the shutter speed you need. Hope this helps
                    Thanks Jeff

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: I know it's not a Canon Lens but ....

                      OK - I hired one for a sport shoot at the weekend and what a waste of money

                      I can honestly state that the quality of the images I actually got framed correctly on a fast moving sport were rather good. But and it's a massive BUT the major down side when using the lens is the inability to adjust the zoom length in and out quickly enough whilst following the competitors around the sport arena. It took great physical effort to actually adjust the zoom in either direction. Also if I let the camera hang down the lens would travel through is zoom lens in a matter of seconds, a major problem if you've got it set just right for the next shot. I'll stick with the Canon 70-200 and 100-400 with tubes - sorry Sigma, a massive big thumbs down when using it for sport.

                      On the plus side - I think this lens will suit all those who take piccies of birds (with feathers)

                      BTW - I understand the 170-500mm version has exactly the same problems - so beware
                      Last edited by rhodopsin; 04-09-2009, 22:52.
                      rhodopsin The fat bloke with the camera stuck to his face, well actually I was born with it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X