Sigma 120-400 or 150-500?

dougie1978

dougie1978

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Edit My Images
Yes
I am currently looking at purchasing one of the above and wonder what people would recommend. It is to go with my Canon 450d and I would hope to use it for wildlife and aircraft.

However, an extra point to note is that I am currently serving overseas and can purchase either lens from Amazon and reclaim the VAT. This would make the 120-400mm £542.85 and the 150-500mm £591.25. A possible problem could be the weight. There is a limit of 2Kg which I am unsure of how strict they are at enforcing. The 150-500mm is 1.78kg according to the Sigma website which would allow 220g for packaging. The 120-400mm is 1.64kg so 360g to spare. I would try the 150-500 if necassary though as if it is too large it will just get returned to Amazon.

I would appreciate hearing peoples thoughts.
 
Many reviews of these around the web, but the 150-500 (having used it) is a better lens and the extra reach speaks for itself. I'd still go for a 50-500 though (non-OS, I know) over a 150-500 as having used them side by side the former had better IQ I found
 
I've just bought myself a Sigma 120-400. I compared these two lenses in Jacobs and decided that the extra reach of the 150-500 wasn't that significant. Obviously this is my personal opinion.

The 86mm filters on the larger Sigma are about double that of the 77mm filters on the 120-400 (cost wise!!).

I only got it on monday so haven't had a chance to go out with it yet but I'm more than happy with my choice.

So, I'd recommend the 120-400.
 
I've used a 150-500mm, with my Canon 450D, to photograph the flamingos at Chester Zoo. I needed every one of those 500mm to reach them, since they have a habit of hiding at the far end of their pen, as far from the punters as possible. My advice is to go for the longest lens you can afford.
 
I have the 120-400, my uncle the 150-500, which he says is a beast compared to mine. The OS is amazing, my hands are not all that steady, but can easily get shots at 400mm light permitting of course. Have used it on a 40D, 1D Mark 2n and 1D Mark 3. For the cost difference, it is very hard to call, that would down to you as to which suits your needs best, but from my experience, cannot go wrong with either lens
 
Thanks for all your replies so far. Am still reading the older threads when I get chance so haven't made my mind up yet. Just have to hope it is not too heavy to be sent to me, whichever I get.

I will also have to wait until the beginning of February to use it as I don't have my SLR with me but if I can get one without the VAT it will be a good saving.
 
As a general rule of thumb you can never have too long a lens for wildlife. I have the 150-500 and love it. The IQ is great and the OS system amazing. I've carried it around a wildlife reserve hanging off my 350D and didn't notice the weight.
 
I own the Sigma 120-400 and love it. It's an excellent lens for the money. However, if you're mainly shooting wildlife, the 150-500 may be the way to go, even if the image quality is not quite as good in the reviews I have read.
 
I have the 120-400mm and use it a lot. Whatever you choose you will be unhappy. Not because of the image quality, that is superb. The problem is that you buy the 120-400mm and you realise that 500mm would be better to get the long shots you wanted. You buy the 500mm and wish you had a shorter lighter lens, because it is to big and heavy to lug around. I use a monopod a lot of the time with my 120-400mm and it seems to work out well.

Although the longer focal length would be useful I'm contented with my choice. It's heavy enough for me.
 
x777 said:
..... I'd still go for a 50-500 though (non-OS, I know) over a 150-500 as having used them side by side the former had better IQ I found
Click to expand...
No complaints this end on the 50-500mm Bigma, it's yielded some damn good results for me, and imo it's a great bit of glass for the money. :thumbs:
 
I've had the 150-500 for several months and find it brilliant hand held with great results at 500mm. Posted some shots on TP and will see if I can find the thread and let you know it:thumbs:
 
Dougie - I posted pics hand held and with a tripod in a thread on 24 Oct 2009 at 22.04 entitled ' FIRST SHOTS WITH A SIGGY 150-500' in the TALK EQUIPMENT FORUM. merv:nikon:
 
artyman said:
As a general rule of thumb you can never have too long a lens for wildlife. I have the 150-500 and love it. The IQ is great and the OS system amazing. I've carried it around a wildlife reserve hanging off my 350D and didn't notice the weight.
Click to expand...

You must have arms like a body builder's! I use my 150-500mm with a Canon 450D and I really do notice the weight.
 
I've read on another thread/forum that having such a heavy lens on the camera mount may be bad for carrying so I'm now using a tripod strap on the lens now so the weight of the camera is on the lens mount instead of the weight of the lens being on the camera mount.
 
malc1 said:
I've read on another thread/forum that having such a heavy lens on the camera mount may be bad for carrying so I'm now using a tripod strap on the lens now so the weight of the camera is on the lens mount instead of the weight of the lens being on the camera mount.
Click to expand...

I did physics at school. Your "other thread" is absolutely right. When carrying a lightish camera and a very heavy lens always carry the lens rather than the camera. This will put the least possible strain on the lens mount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top