|
 | 
25-01-2008, 08:39 AM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Sigmonster
I know this lens has been reviewed a few times but is there anyone on this site that owns and uses one?
Your comments would be most usefull as I am seriously considering one or the Canon 600 mm
Cheers, Dave |
25-01-2008, 10:18 AM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hastings, Sussex
Posts: 417
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Remember to buy a wheelbarrow to carry it around in also!
Sorry can't help other than to post a silly comment  |
25-01-2008, 10:36 AM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SE Northumberland
Posts: 2,164
| | | Re: Sigmonster
A mate of mine bought one of these last year and seems happy with it. It is one beast of a lens though, and does limit his mobility a lot.If I bump into him again soon i`ll try and find out more for you.
Mark H |
25-01-2008, 11:17 AM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Cheers Mark, much appeciated.
Dave |
25-01-2008, 01:15 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Basingstoke, Hampshire
Posts: 1,253
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Either way you are talking some serious money and consequently I have not been privileged enough to own either.
Both are monsters and as already mentioned you will need to budget for the wheelbarrow. The Sigmonster is over half a meter long,weighs in at nearly 6 kilo. maximum aperture f5.6. The canon 600mm is 100mm shorter and weighs in at half a kilo less, maximum aperature f4 and IS.
If the choice were mine I would go for the better image quality of the prime lens and not hesitate to go for the Canon EF600mm f4.0 L IS USM and reap the benefits of slightly better mobility, larger aperture and IS. Add a 1.4 convertor and you would retain AF and have a very nice f5.6 840mm lens.
The choice is yours but If I were to spend that sort of money on a lens I would want to rent them and try them out for myself before making a decision.
Gerry
p.s. have a look here there are some sigmonster size comparisons and images Equipment and Test Photos Photo Gallery by romy ocon at pbase.com
Last edited by GerryNick2; 25-01-2008 at 01:25 PM.
|
25-01-2008, 01:52 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: West Lothian
Posts: 1,509
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Quote:
Originally Posted by GerryNick2  Either way you are talking some serious money and consequently I have not been privileged enough to own either.
Both are monsters and as already mentioned you will need to budget for the wheelbarrow. The Sigmonster is over half a meter long,weighs in at nearly 6 kilo. maximum aperture f5.6. The canon 600mm is 100mm shorter and weighs in at half a kilo less, maximum aperature f4 and IS.
If the choice were mine I would go for the better image quality of the prime lens and not hesitate to go for the Canon EF600mm f4.0 L IS USM and reap the benefits of slightly better mobility, larger aperture and IS. Add a 1.4 convertor and you would retain AF and have a very nice f5.6 840mm lens.
The choice is yours but If I were to spend that sort of money on a lens I would want to rent them and try them out for myself before making a decision.
Gerry
p.s. have a look here there are some sigmonster size comparisons and images Equipment and Test Photos Photo Gallery by romy ocon at pbase.com | Very interesting Gerry.
Romy Ocon's site is certainly worth a look. He is certainly not short of 'hardware'.
John D  |
25-01-2008, 02:15 PM
|  | Wild Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 156
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfilmsuk I know this lens has been reviewed a few times but is there anyone on this site that owns and uses one?
Your comments would be most usefull as I am seriously considering one or the Canon 600 mm
Cheers, Dave | Dave, I know someone whith this lens but its so heavy he has hardly used it. Go for the Canon and a teleconverter for the extra reach. Artie Morris uses this combination to great effect.
Peter |
25-01-2008, 04:01 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Many thanks. Yes I am familiar with the size, price and weight etc the only thing I haven't done is tried it, as you say, hiring one might be the answer in order to evaluate.
I am leaning towards the Canon even though it is considerably more expensive but it's the sort of purchase you only make once.
You may like to have a look at this guy's pics taken with the lens-pretty impressive. romy ocon's Photo Galleries at pbase.com
Dave |
25-01-2008, 04:04 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Just realised that I've given you the same link that you gave me. Well it is Friday! |
25-01-2008, 04:06 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
One question I have from your comments. Would you still use the IS with it tripod mounted? What are the benefits of this?
Dave |
25-01-2008, 04:16 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Basingstoke, Hampshire
Posts: 1,253
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfilmsuk One question I have from your comments. Would you still use the IS with it tripod mounted? What are the benefits of this?
Dave | If I recall correctly the 600mm has the 4 stop IS version and does not need to be switched off if tripod mounted. With this length of lense you would no doubt get a certain amount of movement/vibration as the mirror locks up which could be enough to spoil an otherwise pin sharp image. The longer the lense the more pronounced it becomes at the far end.
Gerry
Last edited by GerryNick2; 25-01-2008 at 04:20 PM.
|
26-01-2008, 01:18 AM
| | Wild Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 156
| | | Re: Sigmonster
I've just got the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR and leave the Vr on as it detects tripod mounting and adjusts itself. It is brilliant and I'm getting much better results without having to bother so much about mirror slap. Now I'm a complete convert to IS/VR and swear by it. |
26-01-2008, 01:07 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Many thanks for your valuable comments. I think I'll go for the Canon 600
Cheers, Dave |
26-01-2008, 07:24 PM
|  | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kenninghall, Norfolk
Posts: 5,407
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Do tell us how you get on wont you Dave?
Nick
P.s- When I come home to Thetford in Summer, I'll probably be able to see it just above the treeline just as I cross the Norfolk border  |
26-01-2008, 07:38 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 3,655
| | | Re: Sigmonster
If I had the available cash then I would go for the Canon 600mm, the results from all Canon primes are Stunning.
Just to throw a spanner in the works have you considered the 400mm f2.8 prime and a 1.4x converter, very nearly the same magnification but slightly faster, lighter to carry and more adaptable in a variety of situations. |
26-01-2008, 07:42 PM
|  | Knight Grand Cross of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,181
| | | Re: Sigmonster
The Canon 600mm works superbly well with the Canon 1.4X TC. This was the combination I used at Bempton Cliffs last year. 
The original of this image is awesome. The quality of the lens really shows well.
I don't own the set up, some extremely kind bloke let me try out the 600mm with my camera. Much as I loved the images I got with it, I could never manage it. Way too large and heavy for me..I'm jealous of everyone that CAN use them though! |
26-01-2008, 07:43 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Thanks Fourwings, just when I thought I had is sussed. I used to be indecisive, now I just don't know!
Will check it out.
Dave |
26-01-2008, 07:46 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
''Way too large and heavy for me..I'm jealous of everyone that CAN''
Is it really that heavy?
Dave |
26-01-2008, 07:56 PM
| | Frozen | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Near Fakenham, Norfolk
Posts: 212
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Just been looking at the spec for the 2.8 400mm, it's actually heavier than the 600mm
Looks like I need to spend some time at the gym before making a choice.
Dave |
26-01-2008, 09:33 PM
| | Knight Grand Cross of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,181
| | | Re: Sigmonster
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfilmsuk Just been looking at the spec for the 2.8 400mm, it's actually heavier than the 600mm
Looks like I need to spend some time at the gym before making a choice.
Dave | It's all relative Dave. If your used to using a tripod, and your fit, the 600mm or the 500mm are about as good as they get. |
26-01-2008, 11:36 PM
| | Active Member | | Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28
| | | Re: Sigmonster
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 | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
| | | 46 members and 133 guests | | >>> Click Here to become a member...it's completely free! | | Africa, agrumpycow, Alan Hills, Amiguru, armata, Bruce Williams, Chas, Deer Stalker, ellen h, Ferret, Gerel, Gill Catton, Gypsy Orchid, Jason Green, JB9302, Jim Ford, John D, kiltoncomp, Lancashire Lad, leifus, Meta menardi, monkey, NickCantle, NJP87, No.9 Spider, oitsnik, oxycera, Pigeon feather, PMG, poschiavanus, riggy, rlchew, schnuzer, shei111, sidewalkdoctor, Stomperone, Tormentil, Tornado, Tracey.A, tufftie, VinceS, wildliferescuer, wizneyme, WW, wyevilla | | Most users ever online was 3,128, 24-07-2008 at 09:12 PM. |  » WAB Development Posts | |
No Threads to Display.
| » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
