|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 10, 2008, 12:31 AM
Post #1 of 8
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
... aka the Sigmonster, aka the Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 EX DG APO RF HSM.
Anyone used it? Anyone have an opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 11, 2008, 2:07 AM
Post #2 of 8
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I haven't used it but have heard good things about it.
Lots of Pentax people shoot it and it seems to be well regarded.
Personally I hate anything with more than 3x zoom on it. I kinda like the Sigma 135-400 4.5-5.6. Looks pretty sweet. Not anti-zoom, I just find the further along in Xx you get the worse the lenses tend to become.
135-400 has the usual Sigma mixed reviews. But out of 4 Sigma's I've owned, only one has been a problem. Maybe I'm lucky.
Or maybe the 300-800 5.6 looks like a great walking around lens, and the 5.6 is respectable even at 300mm.
|
|
|
|
|
rastafarout
Feb 11, 2008, 3:16 AM
Post #3 of 8
(3729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 76
|
Bigma is great specially in this price range!I couldn't find anything ,better at this price!300-800mm walkaround lens?Its gotta be a joke,that thing is huge and heavy + its like 5 grand more.Go for the bigma ,you gonna be happy with it.I was used it for wildlife ,and i think its pretty fast ,even for that(f6.3).
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 11, 2008, 8:33 AM
Post #4 of 8
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I've heard a few good things about it too, which is why I asked. To tell the truth, my next major acquisition will (hopefully very soon) be the canon 70-200 2.8IS. Great for portrait work and candid shots, but I'd dearly like to go longer for wildlife etc. I'll probably just end up going the 2X teleconverter route, but from what I've read the 50-500 beats this hands down in sharpness, and gets an extra 100mm at the long end. As a do-everything travel set-up, I'm not sure if this, plus a wide-angle and a 50 or 100mm prime (I'm thinking Canon's 100mm macro) could be beaten. Just have to convince my wife...
... oh, and short of a round of steroids, I don't think I'll be using the 300-800 as my carry-around lens any time soon!
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 12, 2008, 10:42 AM
Post #5 of 8
(3652 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I told a funny??
Yeah, I was joking about the 300-800.
80-200 with a TC still doesn't get you to 500mm. So the bigma is definitely your best choice if you need that reach.
If you can get by with less maybe a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x TC.
Primes typically handle TC's a bit better and 1.4x usually doesn't seriously degrade the IQ.
Of course I think I've heard Wes talk about people stacking TCs on top end primes and getting good results. But those aren't zooms he's talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Feb 13, 2008, 12:40 AM
Post #6 of 8
(3605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I think I would get the 100-400 5.6L IS, first. You loose a 100mm, but gain IS, and much better optics. From what I have heard, it will take a 1.4 TC OK, but if you want AF still, the TC needs to be a non-reporting one, or you have to tape pins. I use my 300 2.8 with the 1.4/2 TC, and the IQ is great with the 1.4, though you can see a change with the 2.0. Saving my pennies for a 500 f4IS. I have seen guys with 500/600 f4 lenses with the 1.4 and 2.0 stacked. I guess they get pretty decent IQ, but you need a really good tripod and amazing technique to make it work well.
Not sure I would put the 2.0 on the 70-200 though, I think the IQ drops off pretty noticeably.
(This post was edited by wes_allen on Feb 13, 2008, 12:41 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 13, 2008, 4:54 AM
Post #7 of 8
(3581 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
wes_allen wrote: I think I would get the 100-400 5.6L IS, first. You loose a 100mm, but gain IS, and much better optics. From what I have heard, it will take a 1.4 TC OK, but if you want AF still, the TC needs to be a non-reporting one, or you have to tape pins. I use my 300 2.8 with the 1.4/2 TC, and the IQ is great with the 1.4, though you can see a change with the 2.0. Saving my pennies for a 500 f4IS. I have seen guys with 500/600 f4 lenses with the 1.4 and 2.0 stacked. I guess they get pretty decent IQ, but you need a really good tripod and amazing technique to make it work well. Not sure I would put the 2.0 on the 70-200 though, I think the IQ drops off pretty noticeably.
Thats been my experience with 2x's, if you need the reach that a 2x+XXXmm gives you better to go with a slower but longer lens without the TC. Good 1.4x on a already good prime or even a zooms seems to be pretty decent though. I'm not certain I'd toss a 1.4x on the bigma though as it's already a 10X slower zoom. focusing and sharpness would be a real issue.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 13, 2008, 6:56 AM
Post #8 of 8
(3567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
wes_allen wrote: I think I would get the 100-400 5.6L IS, first. You loose a 100mm, but gain IS, and much better optics. From what I have heard, it will take a 1.4 TC OK, but if you want AF still, the TC needs to be a non-reporting one, or you have to tape pins. I use my 300 2.8 with the 1.4/2 TC, and the IQ is great with the 1.4, though you can see a change with the 2.0. Saving my pennies for a 500 f4IS. I have seen guys with 500/600 f4 lenses with the 1.4 and 2.0 stacked. I guess they get pretty decent IQ, but you need a really good tripod and amazing technique to make it work well. Not sure I would put the 2.0 on the 70-200 though, I think the IQ drops off pretty noticeably.
I see where you're coming from, but a 100-400 plus 1.4X, while reaching an extra 60mm, would add around $1000 to the price tag here in Oz. With the wife keeping a white-knuckled death-grip on the purse strings, that's probably a bit too much for me to swing in the short-medium term.
Like most Sigma lenses, QC on the Bigma seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. Good copies get rave reviews, and compare favourably (even when pixel-peeping) to high end Canons. Bad copies are... well, bad - but they do seem to replace them fairly readily, or so I've heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
