New Bigma with OS + HSM

[Ukwildlifeo]

Sigma have announced that they are re-releasing the bigma (50-500mm)with HSM + optical stabilisation
Sigma stabilizes 50-500mm ultra-telezoom: Digital Photography Review

The old/current version has OS already on Pentax and Sony (and Oly) anyway (like all lenses as its built into the body) so to start with I thought so what but I read on and was intrigued by this bit

For Sony and Pentax mount, the built-in OS function of this lens can be used even if the camera body is equipped with an image sensor shift anti-shake system. As compensation for camera shake is visible in the view finder, the photographer can easily check for accurate focus and ensure there is no subject movement.

So double anti-shake!? Its either going to be fantastic or an abject failure. Certainly an intriguing prospect.

[Chukie]

That has made me re-think a bit as I was looking at getting a 150-500 because of the os I am going to the imaging show at the NEC so hopefully be able to take a look and then decide

[Jim Ford]

I've seen commented elsewhere that the additional complication will be something else to fall prey to Sigma's lax Q.C.!

Jim

[DrNickBurton]

The Sigma line up including 50-500mm and 150-500mm now looks a little odd IMO. The differentiator of the 150-500mm was always the OS and the HSM. I wonder if the 150-500mm will be discontinued at some stage.

[RichBrew]

Although cameras with built-in anti-shake work well enough with wide to moderate focal lengths, it has diminishing returns with telephoto lenses over 200mm. The elements controlled by the servo motors have to move considerably more in super telephotos than wide angles to help eliminate camera shake.

It ought to be a benefit to Sigma users, although I can't help but think Jim Ford has raised a valid point.

Sigma - ARE YOU LISTENING?

RichBrew

[glsammy]

Another interesting point in the new one is the magnification factor. The old one was only 1:5.2, whilst the new one is 1:3.1.
This lens interests me. On the few lenses I've tried with OS I've not so far been over impressed. This was mainly the Canon 300 F4. The problem with that one was probably because it is now old technology, being some 10 years old and only a two stop version. It'll be interesting to see how this new lens performs.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by RichBrew

Although cameras with built-in anti-shake work well enough with wide to moderate focal lengths, it has diminishing returns with telephoto lenses over 200mm. The elements controlled by the servo motors have to move considerably more in super telephotos than wide angles to help eliminate camera shake.

It ought to be a benefit to Sigma users, although I can't help but think Jim Ford has raised a valid point.

Sigma - ARE YOU LISTENING?

RichBrew

Well I have to say based on what Nikon/canon users have said about their in lens OS the in body on my cmera seems to work much better. I often hear the 'in body is not as good as in lens' arguement but Im yet to see any evidence.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

I often hear the 'in body is not as good as in lens' arguement but Im yet to see any evidence.

I've mentioned before that lens based image stabilisation is a legacy technology from film days, which I believe will ultimately be a museum curiosity. If I.S. had just been conceived and Canon and Nikon were starting with a clean drawing board, I'm sure they would opt for sensor based I.S..

Lens manufacturers take great care to ensure all elements are in precise alignment. To then 'jiggle' a lens element out of alignment must inevitably result in optical compromises. Basically, lens based I.S. just doesn't make technical sense! It may make commercial sense because of the investment made in it by the 'Big Two'.

Jim

[RichBrew]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Well I have to say based on what Nikon/canon users have said about their in lens OS the in body on my cmera seems to work much better. I often hear the 'in body is not as good as in lens' arguement but Im yet to see any evidence.

I have no complaints about the VR system in my 300mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor. If used judicially it has its benefits, and has enabled my to shoot from a monopod at full aperture before the sun has broken the horizon.

Once shutter speeds above 1/500 second are available I switch the VR off, as it can have a detrimental effect on image sharpness. Other than that, the system works very well.

RichBrew

[squishy]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Well I have to say based on what Nikon/canon users have said about their in lens OS the in body on my cmera seems to work much better. I often hear the 'in body is not as good as in lens' arguement but Im yet to see any evidence.

I'm not a fan of IS at all, but if i did want it on a DSLR, i'd rather have it in body.

just look at the difference in price/weight/size between IS/non IS lenses! it seems to close to double all of those a lot of higher quality lenses!