Help,,,Looking for lenses

betts 11 1 England
30 Apr 2010 6:25PM
I'm looking for a Canon fit os Sigma lens, i have seen a Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-63 apo dg os hsm and a Sigma 150-500 f5.63 apo dg os hsm lens, would anyone on anything about them, i have a 400D camera. Only they are a lot of money and i would like to get the right one,,,,,, i have been taking wildlife photo's just over a year now and love it, but i do need optical stabillzer as i think it will me more, HELP

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
30 Apr 2010 6:55PM
I've been researching this myself - from what I have gathered the original sigma 50-500mm was superior in image qulaity to the 150-500mm and the main difference was that one had OS (optical stabalization) whilst the other did not. Now that both have the optical stabalization its my understanding that the 50-500mm is the overall superior lens in most respects.

The clincher though is that the 50-500mm OS is now of a similar price to the canon 100-400mm L lens. I've been eagerly looking around at reviews and comparisons of the two and there are (sadly) not many outside of user opinions. However what I have gathered is that the 100-400mm L still manages to have an edge over the detail resolution of the 50-500mm OS - also there appears to be some quality control problems with sigma OS (possibly) with some underperforming. This latter part is hard to define since its very much based on user opinion - but most using it have had good sucess with the OS system whilst in the review linked below the reviewer found the canon IS of the 100-400mm L vastly superior.

Overall I would want to wait for more comparative reviews for a better overall appreciation of the market but as it stands right now I would say the 100-400mm L - even though around 80mm shorter (the 500mm zooms from sigma are not true 500mm lenses and are somewhere around 480ishmm in focal length) it still delivers an overall superior image and at least an equal quality one (if not better) when results are upscaled to match image reults from the 50-500mm at the 500mm mark.
Review with the original 50-500mm, 150-500mm, 120-400mm and 100-400mm lenses
Comarison review of the superzooms
review of the 50-500mm vs 100-400mm

edit - on a 400D also here - ps you might want to also look at the canon 300mm f4 IS L (plus a 1.4TC for more reach) and the 400mm f5.6 L - as they are in a similar price bracket as the 50-500mm OS
roxpix 16 2.2k 11 Scotland
30 Apr 2010 7:03PM
Not exactly the lens you're talking about but I got the sigma 120-400 OS a few months ago and am mightly impressed

Worth remembering that when looking/comparing the extremes/fine detail of the different len's it useful to keep in mind that togs don't use their lens at extreme settings most of the time, most shots we take are well with the lens capability (otherwise why take the shot) So forking out extra hundreds of 's for extreme performance gains can be counter productive
StrayCat 16 19.1k 3 Canada
30 Apr 2010 8:42PM
No OS or VR, but take a look here.
betts 11 1 England
2 May 2010 12:23PM
Thanks you for all the info guys. Overread have got one yet???????????
Sounds good roxpix thats another one i will consider,,
Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
2 May 2010 4:19PM
Not yet no - and I have not even made a choice yet. I've been debating selling my 70-200mm f2.8 IS and upgrading to the new one and using that with a 2*TC though I am waiting to see how well in tests and the field it stands up to the 100-400mm quality.
glsammy 13 209 1 United Kingdom
7 May 2010 8:16PM


edit - on a 400D also here - ps you might want to also look at the canon 300mm f4 IS L (plus a 1.4TC for more reach) and the 400mm f5.6 L - as they are in a similar price bracket as the 50-500mm OS

I tried the 300mm F4 with a 1.4TC. Whilst I couldn't complain about the image quality, the AF performance was not good, and that's on a 40D never mind a 400D. I wasn't over impressed with IS either. I found it often led to poor image quality, especially when trying to track moving birds. I ended up switching it off altogether.The performance of the 300mm without the 1.4 was much better but for me the 1.4 was essential. I later sold the lens and bought a 400mm F5.6 L. Much better all round. Couldn't fault the AF performance but of course there's no IS. Being the awkward old so and so I am, I sold that one as well, deciding to use my Bigma instead. I accept the Bigma images are not quite up to the overall quality of the 400mm F5.6, but you gain enormously with the flexibility of the zoom.

the OS system really does offer a 4 stop advantage and IF the image quality is at least as good as my old style 50-500mm, then the new one would be a very tempting lens.
Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
7 May 2010 9:42PM
If its any help from what I've read of the OS on the 50-500mm Juza has recently said that he too wonders if he got a duff copy of the lens in that reaspect, - many of the other reviews and opinions I've read have been far more favourable of the OS in the lens. Though I'm still not sure which wins out of it and thecanon - I suspect that if you get a good copy of both and compare it would be hard to tell them apart - though teh canon might (and I stress might) still have the upper hand.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.