Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 10, 2007, 7:59 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

posted this in the sigma section but thought I would post here as well.
weighing up my options for my canon 30D. Wanting a 400mm focal reach and have ability to afford this one. does nayone know much about this lens?



Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO Lens
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 10, 2007, 8:54 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Obviously there's some trade-off here for the lower cost...

It's not going to be as sharp as the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX (even with a 1.4x TC), and this kens does not come with HSM, so there will be some sacrifice in AF speed as opposed to the EX series.
According to the MTF you need to close the 135-400 down to f/8 before it can match the performance of the EF 100-400 L:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...4556/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm
-> Lower cost = slower focus & f/8 - if this is acceptable then a fine lens indeed :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2007, 9:00 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
surfnron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 578
Default

With the quality of your work, I'd suggest saving up for a better lens. The reviews here are less than stellar:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...=37&page=1

Note the slow focus - not recommended for your bird shots.
Ron


surfnron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2007, 10:03 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

i don't know what these are going for down there in Oz, but here in the states, the 135-400 sells for around $600. if i were you, and i wanted to stay with Sigma, i'd save up another $300 and get the EX 80-400 OS. it still doesn't have the HSM, so focusing is a bit slower the Canon100-400L (though no one has ever been able to tell me exactly how much slower), but the difference is very slight, and i've had little trouble locking onto moving targets with my 80-400. the 80-400 also has image stabilization, which is a nice thing to have when you're tracking moving targets andshooting handheld. the 80-400 is optically about on par with the 100-400 L, but is about $300-$400 USD cheaper, and i've had absolutely excellent results with mine.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 3:51 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Thanks all, I think I will just get a 1x4 TC for my 70-200 L then. I like the look of the sigma 50-500 for wildlife but cant see myself affording it.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 6:33 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Im also looking at the sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 but cant find much online about this one
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 10:07 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

aladyforty wrote:
Quote:
Thanks all, I think I will just get a 1x4 TC for my 70-200 L then. I like the look of the sigma 50-500 for wildlife but cant see myself affording it.
a 1.4x on your 70-200 will give you the equivalent of a 110-320mm lens... not bad, certainly, but a bit short for wildlife. it will serve, though, till you can afford something with more "reach"... meanwhile, you can put the money you save buying a TC instead of a new lens into your sock drawer, and use it as a nest egg to save up for a good 400mm+ lens!

the 50-500 "Bigma" is also afine lens, but requires a good tripod, as it's not stabilized. if itwere, i'd have bought it instead of the 80-400...
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 5:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

thanks, given that im pretty good at getting close to wildlife I think the TC will be OK. I cant help looking at options though. I remember the days when i was happy just to have a DSLR and two cheap lenses LOL. Unfortunatly those days are gone:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 6:09 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
surfnron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 578
Default

I know how you feel. I have the Sigma 80-400, and it's great for posting photos online, but I'm not sure it's sharp enough to blow up to 16"X 20" or larger. For landscapes, you can always stitch several images together to get the data for a large print, but I haven't figured out how to get 2 or more shots of an animal to stitch. All I need is the 500L from Canon, but that's so far off I can't see it even with binoculars.
Ron
surfnron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2007, 8:01 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The Tamron 200-500 is probably the sharpest zoom in this range although it doesn't have the HSM of the Bigma:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._563/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._463/index.htm
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:03 AM.