Sigma 150-500 APO DG OS - Opinions?

Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm quite interested in picking this lens up to fill the gap left by the passing of my 100-400L :'( Will I be vastly disappointed with the IQ? It's not for anything particularly tough to shoot, mostly as a long range travel lens to include with the rest of my travel kit.

Thanks for any opinions etc...

Edit - It's either this, or a 70-200 f4 with a 1.4xTC
 
Last edited:
It's a heavy bu99er so will eat into your weight allowance on flights (you did say it would be part of a travel kit!).
Slow maximum aperture so ideally needs a body with good high ISO performance.
Not razor sharp wide open but keens up stopped down a little (f/8 is pretty good) - again, a good high ISO body can cope with this.
Sometimes hunts a little when trying to aquire focus, especially agains a cluttered background. Once locked on can follow very well (think Red Arrows agains cliffs.)
Hard to beat as a budget long lens - way sharper than my f/8 mirror 500mm and a little faster (at f/6.3 @ 500mm against the f/8).
 
An excellent lens and good value for money, as said fairly heavy and if looking for a light travel combo perhaps not, depends how important 500mm is, quite a bit more than the 280mm that would give you. At 500mm it's hard to beat unless spending 6 times as much, I love mine.
 
I tried one in the shop next to a 100-400 and the difference in IQ was noticeable, especially wide open. The sigma does do very admirably considering it's price though.
I found that the sigma wide open was quite similar to the 100-400 at f/5.6
This comparison is quite good:
Juza Nature Photography 100-400 vs 120-400 vs 150-500 vs 50-500

The sigma's quite noticeably heavier and larger as well. Might make a difference when travelling.

It's a great cheaper alternative, but if you can afford it I would go with another 100-400.


If your budget is limited though, the sigma is a real winner :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
The siggy is much better at 500mm! ;)

I love mine and for the price you can't go wrong. As others have pointed out its a heftier lens than the canon.
 
menthel said:
The siggy is much better at 500mm! ;)
Click to expand...

Or is it?
This guy here compares a wide open shot with the sigma at 500mm to a wide open shot with the canon interpolated to roughly the same size.
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/sigma150_500.htm

I'm sure the sigma gets much better stopped down though.
The one tested there might not have been a good copy.


Worth mentioning though, I've seen lots of people with very varying experiences of both lenses.
The 100-400 has always been a bit variable, and sigma quality control is notoriously iffy. I'd be buying either lens from somewhere where it's easy to return if you get a lemon.


Have you considered the new 70-300L? Lots of users seem to report it has very high IQ, if you can do without the 300-400 or 300-500 range.
 
Last edited:
Strangely, I get decent photos from mine wide open at 500mm. I must have a faulty copy!
 
As others have said it is a tad heavy, i'm just getting used to hand holding it.

I like mine alot, very good value and I have found very acceptable pic quality wide open.

:)
 
menthel said:
Strangely, I get decent photos from mine wide open at 500mm. I must have a faulty copy!
Click to expand...
i got decent pics with mine but stopping it down made a world of difference.
DSC_5342.jpg

DSC_2824.jpg

DSC_3169.jpg

DSC_1389.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone.

By a travel lens, I should of stated, I usually drive to wherever we are going rather than plane, roadtrips essentially is my "travel" usually in mainland Europe, so weight isn't a huge issue. And I'm fit enough to have it in my backpack with my 7D, 17-55 2.8, 30mm 1.4 and other gear for daily trips out etc... Without an issue.

This lens really is tempting me, it's just the infamous Sigma focusing issues that concern me.
 
Even if it's nearly as good as the 100-400, I think you'll continue to wish you had the 100-400, so just go for that one again!
 
What infamous Sigma focusing issues, mine works fine chasing birds, always assuming I keep them in the viewfinder :lol:

This was a quick grab shot when it flew over.

http://SPAM/c3whur/feb/IMG_4316.jpg
 
Last edited:
For travel I would much rather use my 70-300 VR (Nikon semi-pro lens, don't know the Canon equivalent) and crop than lug my 150-500 around.

In fact, to be honest, I use my 70-300 much much more than the 150-500 in pretty much every situation. Oh, and before anyone says, my 150-500 seems to be exactly the same IQ wise as any others I've seen, the OS system is AWESOME though...
 
I'm a big fan of this lens myself..yes its a heavy piece, but it can produce some good shots :) The stabiliser is very good too, I was rather surprised to be honest!
 
Chilos said:
Even if it's nearly as good as the 100-400, I think you'll continue to wish you had the 100-400, so just go for that one again!
Click to expand...

I would but I wont find another mint copy for 825, and I'll be damned if I'm going to lose money on it!

I'm still debating on just going for something shorter, i.e a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC for the extra range if I truly need it. It's not for wildlife really, more for travel etc...
 
ptdborth said:
I'm a big fan of this lens myself..yes its a heavy piece, but it can produce some good shots :) The stabiliser is very good too, I was rather surprised to be honest!
Click to expand...

I once handheld 1/100sec @ 500mm with it and it wasn't blurred thanks to the superb OS :thumbs: great great lens for the money !
 
Skyline On Fire said:
I would but I wont find another mint copy for 825, and I'll be damned if I'm going to lose money on it!

I'm still debating on just going for something shorter, i.e a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC for the extra range if I truly need it. It's not for wildlife really, more for travel etc...
Click to expand...

I tried that when I initially got my 70-200 f4. It only goes to 280mm and it's just not that long. I noticed the lack of distance even coming from one of the crappy 75-300s. I have seen good results with the x2 tc and the 70-200 f2.8 II though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top