 |
2nd Light Forums |
 |
 |
 |
|
join :
help :
calendar :
home
|
||
|
Latest News:
|
latest topics : statistics | |
Balsa Bills
Surfboards by Sammy Barker
Stealth Fishing Rods
Banana River Cafe
|
Topic Title: Sigma Topic Summary: Anyone using the Sigma 150-500mm Created On: 06/27/2012 01:26 PM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
 Topic Tools
|
06/27/2012 01:26 PM
|
|
|
Looking to take photos of surfing and film surfing. Good lens for that?? I have a Canon 60d and the 500mm reach sounds oh so good for the price. |
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 02:01 PM
|
|
|
had it, could not wait to get rid of it. It is a very soft lens, to the point when you crop a photo it looks out of focus. Not saying I didnt get some good shots, but it was more miss than hit witht hat lens. Save your money for the tried and true 100-400 L glass from Canon. Best thing I evcer did was sell the BigmOS and get the 100-400. If you need to see comparison photos go to my site, in the link below in my sig, and look at my older stuff compared to my newer stuff. Night and day difference.The Sigma also needs a lot of light to really get good shots. So if it is even a little cloudy it will shoot slow, or you will have to crank the ISO and introduce a lot of noise into the pic.
-------------------------  
RUSS-D'S PHOTOGRAPHY Suncoast Surfrider |
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 05:45 PM
|
|
|
Russ D. is correct about the quality of the Canon L glass and the 100-400mm is a fantastic lens. On the other side of the coin, you will spend a lot of money for any of the Canon L lenses.
If money is a concern, I would suggest another option..... the Tamron 200-500mm lens which I think you will find outperforms Sigma 150-500. It is NOT a stabilized lens, but it is very sharp, especially if you can maintain a f-stop from f8 to f11. It can be purchased locally for about $1000 or about $900 at online sources such as B&H. ------------------------- See more of my Photography at My Web Site |
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 06:59 PM
|
|
|
I do like my Tokina 12-24mm a lot. It takes sharp pics, focus is fast, and didn't break the bank, compared to it's Canon L-glass competition. Maybe even rent one or 2 of the lens' you like and see how they perform in your hands. borrowlens.com has decent prices on most of the leses you would be interested in.
-------------------------
RUSS-D'S PHOTOGRAPHY Suncoast Surfrider |
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 07:40 PM
|
|
|
I had its little brother the Sigma 135-400mm for about a year. It was good reach, but soft. By the time I stopped it down to decent sharpness I was shooting f/8. And still unsatisfied.. then I got a 2x tc for my Olympus 50-200mm/2.8 which is sharp wide open, and was far more pleased with the results. A thousand plus dollar price difference, though. I've heard that the real issue with Sigma is quality control- some get a nice lens, others a dog. I was told that mine was the good batch.. but I had higher expectations. I'd reccommend saving your hard earned cash and plopping down on a good L series that you can count on to deliver.. |
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 05:37 AM
|
|
|
I wish Nikon's 80-400mm was as good as the Canon 100-400L!
------------------------- 
|
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 07:00 AM
|
|
|
Thanks for all the advice! now time to start saving! |
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 07:05 AM
|
|
|
I had the bigma 50-500mm. Great starter lens but soft at the far end and no IS. I thought IS was no big deal because I shot for 20 years without it but once you do get quality glass with IS your shots will be sharper!
Sigmas are very loosely put together with nearly no protection from the elements, SAND will find its way into it! Had my canon around the beach for years and never had any issues as the L lenses are very well sealed.
If you are doing it for a hobby just for fun then yeah go for the less expensive if money is an issue, if money is no object always go with the quality then.
------------------------- DONZSHOTS |
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 08:48 AM
|
|
|
I had the bigma 50-500mm. Great starter lens but soft at the far end and no IS. I thought IS was no big deal because I shot for 20 years without it but once you do get quality glass with IS your shots will be sharper! Sigmas are very loosely put together with nearly no protection from the elements, SAND will find its way into it! Had my canon around the beach for years and never had any issues as the L lenses are very well sealed. If you are doing it for a hobby just for fun then yeah go for the less expensive if money is an issue, if money is no object always go with the quality then. Couldn't agree more Don! ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- . http://www.flickr.com/photos/42342058@N05/ |
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 11:23 AM
|
|
|
Couldn't agree with Don more on the build of a Sigma....... When my 100-300mm literally fell apart, you would have been amazed at how much sand came out of it.... !!
------------------------- Please don't mistake brain damage for stupidity... PHOTOGRAPHYBYJOEYWILSON |
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 07:45 PM
|
|
|
Ok one more question do you feel having a fixed focal length of 300mm would be annoying? and with canon 60d that would be like 480mm?? |
|
|
|
|
|
06/29/2012 03:08 AM
|
|
|
I thought about getting the 300mm prime, but chose to go for the zoom for the diversity. Witht the prime you can still zoom in and out, you just have to walk back and forth
 . But in all seriousness I hear that is a great lens. But if it is the one with the built in hood(that slides in and out of the front of the lens) they have a tendancy to not working after a while(the hood). They stop clicking in place and wont stay out without some assistance from tape or something. Not steering you away from it, just giving you info on it. Good luck with your purchase, with whichever lens you buy. I know it can be nerve wrecking trying to decide, and commit to a lens that cost so much.
-------------------------
RUSS-D'S PHOTOGRAPHY Suncoast Surfrider |
|
|
|
|
|
06/29/2012 07:50 AM
|
|
|
Totally agree here that Sigma 150-500 is a dog. A negelected stray at that.
I had a loaner for a week, think I kept maybe 5 shots the whole time. You're buying the "500" for the reach, yet when zoomed out to full capacity it's a bitch to get that thing in focus, let alone focus on a moving object. I like my Nikon 80-400, but yeah that Canon 100-400L is really nice. The Nikon 200-400 is a real winner though. But at 6-8 grand....juuust a little pricey.
------------------------- www.timebaughdesigns.com |
|
|
|
|
|
06/29/2012 09:58 PM
|
|
|
If only Olympus would create a 200-400mm f/4 I'd find a way to own one.. but alas Oly may not even continue the dslr lines. They're all about 'micro' cameras now with no optical viewfinder. OP, take that as a comfort with Canon; if you put money into one of their fine lenses you can count on them to back it up and be there when it's time to upgrade the body.. |
|
|
|
|
|
2nd Light Forums
» Nice Shot
»
Sigma
|
Topic Tools |
FuseTalk Basic Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.