Thoughts on this lens...?

[Cody]

I have been saving up for a while now and in early 2011 I have plans of upgrading my main telephoto from the Canon 75-300mm F4/5.6   to a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO.     My budget is extremely limited so please don't suggest anything like the mouth drooling Canon 800mm f/5.6L lens  :lol:      

My questions:  What do you think of this lens for Wildlife and Aviation?   If anyone has experience with it, how do you like it; problems; likes etc..?


Thanks,
Cody

[Kin Lau]

I used the older 50-500 for a few years. My main lens now is a EF 300/4 IS + 1.4x TC or the 400/5.6L, mainly for the much faster AF and lighter weight.

I'm more interested in the replacement 50-500 OS version for the flexibility.

[Michael Tam]

I have never used the Bigma but do have the Sigma 400 5.6 APO.  There are many discussions in the past about the QC of Sigma products.  As a result, there is the issue of a "good copy".  Please see these links that may be helpful:

http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm
http://regex.info/blog/2010-04-14/1492
http://www.stockholmviews.com/sigma_150 ... page1.html
http://www.lenstip.com/244.1-Lens_revie ... S_HSM.html

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WIwp
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WcFU
http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00MaZH

Good birding and photography.

[Cody]

Thanks Kin and Michael. I will look through the links.

[BirdingDoc]

Hi Cody,

I purchased the Sigma 150-500 a bit over a year ago. It is on my Sony Alpha-350. In this configuration, the image stabilization is in the Sony camera body rather than in the Sigma lens.

For comparison, I also have a Canon 400 f5.6 with a Canon 40D body.

The Sigma 150-500 had its greatest workout when I spent a number of weeks in Peru, in everything from rainforest to 16,000 feet elevation. Ever tried to take a photo from the back of a mule, while on a narrow mountain ledge??? I managed to get some acceptable photos while bouncing in a small boat on the rain-swollen waters of the Amazon. The camera and lens were abused, including falling onto the ground on a number of occasions. And it never missed a beat.

While the Sigma is hard to hold steady from a shoulder position when extended to the 500 mm length, if you have a rifle grip (e.g. Bushhawk), it can be done. As well, when fully extended, you need reasonably good light. Nevertheless, I did get some good photos as early at 6:30 in the morning, a half-hour after sunrise (when the sun still had not penetrated the deep canyons where I was working). I found that most of the time, I use it at the 500 mm extension.

When I have done side-by-side comparison shots using my Sigma/Sony and my Canon, both on tripods, there is little appreciable difference in the images when they are cropped to yield a bird of identical size. (For those comparison shots, I photographed a Kestrel that was on a tree at Windemere Basin.) The Canon's images might be just a bit brighter, but I find that is something which can be adjusted on the computer.

In my experience, the greatest downside to the Sigma is that it does not capture and hold its focus on a bird as readily as does the Canon. I have missed a number of shots because of this. The problem is greatest when trying to get a shot of a bird in flight, but it can also be confused by foliage near the bird. I found that aircraft in flight are easier to capture than birds, perhaps because their flight path is more predictable and the Sigma is able to hold the focus better.

However, the equipment you use is determined by your budget. And, for the money, I don't think you can get a better lens than the Sigma.

I don't live in your area, or I'd be happy to lend it to you to test drive. Perhaps if we connect on an OFO outing, you would be most welcomed to try it.

Charles

[Cody]

Hi Cody,

I purchased the Sigma 150-500 a bit over a year ago. It is on my Sony Alpha-350. In this configuration, the image stabilization is in the Sony camera body rather than in the Sigma lens.

For comparison, I also have a Canon 400 f5.6 with a Canon 40D body.

The Sigma 150-500 had its greatest workout when I spent a number of weeks in Peru, in everything from rainforest to 16,000 feet elevation. Ever tried to take a photo from the back of a mule, while on a narrow mountain ledge??? I managed to get some acceptable photos while bouncing in a small boat on the rain-swollen waters of the Amazon. The camera and lens were abused, including falling onto the ground on a number of occasions. And it never missed a beat.

While the Sigma is hard to hold steady from a shoulder position when extended to the 500 mm length, if you have a rifle grip (e.g. Bushhawk), it can be done. As well, when fully extended, you need reasonably good light. Nevertheless, I did get some good photos as early at 6:30 in the morning, a half-hour after sunrise (when the sun still had not penetrated the deep canyons where I was working). I found that most of the time, I use it at the 500 mm extension.

When I have done side-by-side comparison shots using my Sigma/Sony and my Canon, both on tripods, there is little appreciable difference in the images when they are cropped to yield a bird of identical size. (For those comparison shots, I photographed a Kestrel that was on a tree at Windemere Basin.) The Canon's images might be just a bit brighter, but I find that is something which can be adjusted on the computer.

In my experience, the greatest downside to the Sigma is that it does not capture and hold its focus on a bird as readily as does the Canon. I have missed a number of shots because of this. The problem is greatest when trying to get a shot of a bird in flight, but it can also be confused by foliage near the bird. I found that aircraft in flight are easier to capture than birds, perhaps because their flight path is more predictable and the Sigma is able to hold the focus better.

However, the equipment you use is determined by your budget. And, for the money, I don't think you can get a better lens than the Sigma.

I don't live in your area, or I'd be happy to lend it to you to test drive. Perhaps if we connect on an OFO outing, you would be most welcomed to try it.

Charles

Hi Charles,

The trip that you went on sounds amazing!  You should post some of the pictures on the forum,  I'm sure many other members would love to see them!

Do you think that a monopod on the Sigma--"Bigma" 150-500mm  would be a good idea?  

Cody

[ravynne40]

Cody, Most of my pics are done with the sigma 150-500 I love it. I learned on it, hand held flight shots, the only  drawback to it is sometimes there is that close shot that is too close for the lens, my solution was to get a 2nd body and carry another lens for close ups.
I have had the Sigma for a year now and wouldn't trade it in for anything.

Irene

[Cody]

Cody, Most of my pics are done with the sigma 150-500 I love it. I learned on it, hand held flight shots, the only  drawback to it is sometimes there is that close shot that is too close for the lens, my solution was to get a 2nd body and carry another lens for close ups.
I have had the Sigma for a year now and wouldn't trade it in for anything.

Irene

Thanks Irene. What is your close-up lens/body?

[Cody]

Just a quick note... I am buying this Used. I would have to wait MUCH longer if I were to buy it new

[BirdingDoc]

Hey Cody,

Thanks for your response. My trip to Peru was mainly to do volunteer medical work in remote, impoverished communities, so I didn't see as many birds as would be expected on a proper birding trip. Indeed, I was able to identify few of the birds I saw while I was there, because I had to choose between taking its photo and looking it up in a book. Instead, I took as many photos as possible and then I sorted through thousands of images when I got home, to identify the birds using reference manuals. There are only a few birds which I was not able to identify from my photos, which probably speaks to the quality of the Sigma lens.

And, predictably, the first bird I saw in Peru was the House Sparrow!

(Parenthetically, I found that my GPS unit on the camera was absolutely invaluable, as the birds of South America are seen in environments which are altitude dependent. Hence, when I was looking through the reference manuals, the altitude information on the photos' EXIF data was more important than the latitude/longitude.)

You've asked a good question. I should have mentioned that possibility. A monopod is a good substitute for a rifle grip (Bush Hawk or equivalent brace), and in many instances, is better than a rifle grip. The downside to a monopod is that it can be difficult to get birds in flight.

Instead of a photographic monopod, I used good hiking sticks, which were invaluable in climbing down Peru's steep mountain slopes. They doubled as a monopod, and worked well. Most of the better quality hiking sticks have a camera attachment at the top of the handle.

Because I didn't use a standard photography monopod, I don't know how much better a proper monopod would work as compared to a hiking pole. But my hiking poles were of very good quality, and indeed may be better than many inexpensive monopods.

If you want to look at hiking sticks for use as a monopod, you could visit the Mountain Equipment store on Brant Street in Burlington. And even though hiking sticks usually come in pairs, the folks at Mountain Equipment will likely let you buy just one, for half the price of two. They offered to do that for me. (Maybe it helped that my MEC account is only a three digit number, obtained when MEC was little more than a small storage closet in a shabby building on Vancouver's storied East Side.)

Charles

[ravynne40]

Cody, Most of my pics are done with the sigma 150-500 I love it. I learned on it, hand held flight shots, the only  drawback to it is sometimes there is that close shot that is too close for the lens, my solution was to get a 2nd body and carry another lens for close ups.
I have had the Sigma for a year now and wouldn't trade it in for anything.

Irene

Thanks Irene. What is your close-up lens/body?

ihave the regular 18-105 and also the AF-S micro 60mm 2.9G ED both Nikkor lenses

I also bought the Sigma 2nd hand (it was mildly used)

[Cody]

Cody, Most of my pics are done with the sigma 150-500 I love it. I learned on it, hand held flight shots, the only  drawback to it is sometimes there is that close shot that is too close for the lens, my solution was to get a 2nd body and carry another lens for close ups.
I have had the Sigma for a year now and wouldn't trade it in for anything.

Irene

Thanks Irene. What is your close-up lens/body?

ihave the regular 18-105 and also the AF-S micro 60mm 2.9G ED both Nikkor lenses

I also bought the Sigma 2nd hand (it was mildly used)

Great equipment Irene!

[newfoundlander61]

A friend of my has had that lens in the shop 3 times in a year. May be just a bad lens, can happen to almost anything you buy.

[ravynne40]

how old is the lens? maybe its like those cars..you know when you end up buying a lemon..and nobody knows how to fix it?

I use my sigma almost every day (when I get out to take pictures) and its been a year so far no problems (hear me knocking on wood!!)
its been through extreme cold and warmer climes..I do keep a moisture absorber in my napsack as well so as soon as I am finished the camera and lens go into the napsack and get sealed until it gets back into room temperature (especially in winter)