Sigmonster

[jasongallier]

Hi gfilmsuk

I have a canon 500mm F4 IS so it maybe relevant to your choice.

It depends what you want to photograph. i can't see in the posts what are your intended subjects? For most wildlife except small birds from more than 5m away the 500mm (with converters) is more than ample.

When I had finally sold enough photographs to afford a 600mm lens I realised that I would need a good tripod and head as well as insurance and other bits and bobs - like a wemberly sidekick. All of that support to justify such a lens cost in the region of £1000 which meant the 500 and the tripod came to as much as I could spend.
When buying a 600mm you will need serious support for sure. Insurance is expensive too. On top of that I bought a good bag like a lowepro that will set you back another £200. And the lens coat that prevent scratches an to cover up all that loud white which spooks animals and attracts folks from miles away.
I personally don't think that IS makes the support any less important. Most of the time my exposures are in the 1/30 - 1/500 range and wind/vibration/mirror slap means using good long lens technique and good support is essential even with IS.

I must admit I have a 1.4x on the lens 50% of the time and so the extra reach of the 600mm would be nice.
I do short hikes and like to be mobile and the 600mm is just a little too heavy for me especially when you are lugging all of that tripod set up as well.

That said if you can afford it then go for it!!!! The first time you peer through a supertelephoto you'll never go back!

Read Art Morris' Art of birds for some excellent tips. and do some power lifting!

Jason Gallier

[enthusiast jules]

I bought my Sigmonster last September after years of deliberation.As a Nikon fan I had also considered the 600mm f4 and 400 mm f2.8, reasoning you can extend the 400 but you can't make a 600 faster.Finally after viewing the 3000+ wonderful pictures online(some viewable at full res), made by experts like Romy Ocon, with the Sigmonster I decided I couldn't wait any longer.It didn't hurt that the Sigma had dropped nearly £2000 due to changes in the exchange rate.
I would like to make a few observations after taking about 8000 shots with this lens.
All the reviews say the Sigma is heavy at 13 lbs, but they don't say that is 3 pounds more than the svelte 800mm 5.6.Canon, and a pound more than a 400f2.8 Nikkor.Only Canons incredible 1200mm f5.6 and Nikons literally man sized Nikkor 1200-1700 zoom (both about £25000 on ebay if you can find one) are less portable 35mm options.Also the lens is only the start, your camera adds about 3 pounds and the minimum support I would recommend, the Manfrotto 475 B/393 head combo another 12 lbs.Many small bird specialists also use an off camera flash with Kirk extender, adding another 3 pounds or so with it's bracket, so you're looking at about 30 lbs of delicate equipment which can't just be thrown around like a sack of potatoes when you get tired .You need to find a good spot and pretty much make camp there,unless you are incredibly dedicated and fit with it !
This brings me to my first gripes about this lens.The supplied case will not fully close with a camera fitted .One of the main reasons I chose this lens was to have extreme reach without the need to change lenses or tele converters in the field and risking the ingress of moisture dust and dirt, the last thing I wanted was having to fit my camera outdoors.I got round this by buying the superb Lowepro Lenstrekker 600 AWII, which is a perfect fit and has every permutation of straps and handles anyone could wish for, though a TC will still need to be removed.Be warned the older Lenstrekker 600, currently being sold by Jessops, is also too short.A little more thought from Sigma could have saved me £180.Also the supplied lens cap, it really looks like a hat!, doesn't fit when the hood is in use, or reversed for transit, so it is a waste of time.
Getting the best images fom this lens takes an enormous amount of discipline and patience.My background of astrophotography was a help here, as you must consider the toll atmospheric conditions take on your Images.Astronomers say you can use 100% of a small telescopes performance 90% of the time and only 80% of a big telescopes ability 10% of the time, the sigma is just like the big telescope.There is constant debate about which long pro lenses are sharpest, in truth they are all sharper than the atmosphere lets us see.
The rare ability (among superteles) to frame your subject at 300mm then keeping it in view ,quickly zoom to 800 mm has allowed some virtually "impossible" action shots.Remember on DX I have a 450- 1200 mm f5.6 auto focus lens.I also think zoom gives movies a livelier feel.
Most people worry about camera shake and see IS or OS as the great saviour, which the Sigma lacks.I disagree, at 800/1200mm subject movement spoils more pictures, a bird turns it's head in the blink of an eye and flaps it's wings even faster. I normally use ISO 800 to give between 1/2000 and 1/6000 at f9 and movement is still visible at close range.I've heard Hummingbird specialists use flash exposures of 1/100,000! to freeze their quarry,IS is no help here.
One feature the Sigmonster does need is a focus limiter.My D7000 boasts the most advanced AF around, but you still miss many fliers as it searches from 20 feet to infinity(beyond 200 ft).
The Sigzilla 200-500 f2.8 comes with a dedicated 2 times converter as standard, and I don't think it would kill Sigma to throw in a 1.4 Ex or even just extension tubes with the Sigmonster. It would help that lo.....ng minimum focus.
Despite all these gripes the 300-800 is one of the most amazing things I have ever used, and I don't regret my purchase for a moment.It has, like my Micro Nikkor, opened up new photographic worlds.

[enthusiast jules]

Just a few more points about the Sigmonster.
I have just watched Nikons video of the new 200-400 f4 AF-S VRII and noticed they claim significant weather sealing, and also the lens has a removable clear filter protecting the front element's coatings.The Sigmonster unfortunately has no such protective filter, and makes no claim to any weatherproofing(i didn't even think this was possible in a zoom).Canons latest pro lenses also have front element protection and weather sealing. I am very careful with my equipment, if not downright precious,my 14 year old F5 looks brand new, but anyone forced to face extreme conditions like blowing salt spray,whale watchers perhaps, would be wise to choose other options.
Let's hope if the Sigmonster gets an update weather protection is top of the list.
On another note, the introduction of the £6000 SD1 presents the mouthwatering prospect of 1200mm reach and near medium format quality.I'm hoping some Sigma fan, with magic wads of David Copperfield proportions will be posting some pics soon.

[enthusiast jules]

I would like to make anyone contemplating the purchase of the Sigmonster, or any other lens over 600mm,particularly those without VR/IS, aware of a little known piece of kit called the Manfrotto 359 long lens bracket.This is not to be confused with the 393 long lens Monopod head.This is recommended by a Swiss street photographer who ,for the last year, has been taking full face candid portraits.To do this he uses the huge 800mm f8 Pentax with it's supplied 1.4 TC.For months he was frustrated by "not quite sharp images",despite his Gitzo/Wimberly support.
The problem is, no matter how good your gimbal or ball head is, the lens is only supported at one point,normally at it's centre of gravity.This is the worst scenario as regards controlling high frequency vibrations.Similarly sized astronomical telescopes always feature two points of support to control this problem.If I zoom in my 300-800 and view at 100% in live view,it is clear the vibration from the slightest touch takes about 5 seconds to die down.This makes manual focusing,the only option with a TC, slow and frustrating, as you make a micro adjustment then have to wait to see the result.What the 359 does is anchor your camera to the tripod leg,hugely increasing stability.It allows mirror lock up to have maximum effect and the Swiss photographer said he had sharp images right down to 1/30.
The 359 consists of a tiny ball head,an adjustable tube up to 60 cm long and a very substantial metal clamp.It weighs about 750 grams and costs an affordable £60-70.
The 359 has two locking screws which are left slack until you have framed your shot,you still keep quite an arc of movement.When you need the extra rigidity, simply tighten the screws.Of course this is no help for "fliers" but shooting relatively static subjects sounds a great idea.
Ihope this has been helpful
Regards Enthusiast Jules

[enthusiast jules]

Some of my recent pictures with the Sigmonster.I realise there are technically far superior examples on the net ,but I am still climbing that learning curve








And yes the big Sigma can take fliers





This very long shot illustrates the problem of atmospheric distortion I
mentioned



I think this is my favourite shot, trying to focus as it scuttled around was a nightmare




Regards Enthusiast Jules

[enthusiast jules]

This shot gives an idea of the Sigmas reach in better conditions than the Heron shot.The tractor was 1100 yards away and about 200 yards beyond the low hedge in the foreground The 3 inch lettering on the roller is clearly legible at 800mm.A 475B Manfrotto and 393 head was used with a hahnel cable release and if I remember correctly mirror up.



Regards Enthusiast Jules

[momji1971]

Hi Jules. This is a possible for me in the new year as I'm going full frame and will need the reach.

I noticed none of your posted images seem sharp. By that I mean no small detail. Do you have to stop the lens down like the 500?

cheers.
Stu.

[enthusiast jules]

Hi Stu
There are two reasons my shots lack fine detail.
Firstly I try to take shots too far away, which is so tempting with a lens that looks and feels like an artillery piece! I am just beginning to realise, that real quality can only be achieved at very close range, ie less than 50 ft,most of my shots were over 120 ft.When I took the Avocet chick, a photographer was next to me with an 800mm Canon, and he didn't even bother to take a picture.According to him, anything over 75 ft was a waste of time.
The second reason is directly linked to the first.
All the shots I have posted are cropped.Many represent less than 1/4 of the frame, and though the D7000 sensor has very good resolution, it has it's limits.
The Sigmonster has extremely consistent performance at different apertures, though the optimum is said to be f 11 at shorter lenths and f8 at 800mm.Also diffraction sets in late and f16 is very usable, in fact the optimum with a 2x TC.The Sigmonster is certainly sharper at mid lenths than 800mm, though this may be more of a stability, than optical problem.Remember on my DX bodies it is a 1200 mm which is impossible to keep steady in the slightest breeze, even with excellent support.God knows how you keep a 36x bridge camera steady by hand, even with VR.It's a pity we can't put video on this forum, to illustrate the problem.
Going to full frame, I think anything less than 800mm will be far too short.A 500 mm f 4 though brilliant, no doubt, will give you virtually the same view as my Sigma at it's widest on DX,and I usually use the Sigma at 7-800mm .I am beginning to think I would have been better off getting the sigmonster in 4:3 fit and buying an E5, to give me a 600-1600 f 5.6! and "in body" stabilisation.
I give a detailed account of how I use my Sigmonster, and some interesting accessories on page one of this thread.
I hope this has been helpful
Regards Jules

[enthusiast jules]

Hi Stu
I have finally got some close shots, for you to judge the quality, nothing exotic, I'm afraid. They are still cropped by about half, at around 30ft and 700-800 mm at f8 and 1/2500.










Regards Jules

[momji1971]

Brill, thanks for your help jules. Really do appreciate the time taken.

kind regards.
Stu.