SIGMA 50-500mm f/4-6.3

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Thanks Wilf. If I had the zoom I would imagine I would use it at 400mm the vast majority of the time. That's certainly the case with my current FZ30. In which case it probably does make sense for me to go for the prime.

Matt

Hi Matt.

You know I've got the Bigma, but I'm seriously thinking of selling it and getting the 400mm Prime. I'm not happy with the images I get from it, especially when comparing with 400mm images.
Like you though, I can't make my mind up between the 100-400mm or the 400mm prime....

[John D]

What about the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX HSM DG, it is claimed by many 'web sites/forums' to be the best lens Sigma has produced. It is lighter than the 'Bigma' at 1440g and has a constant length of 8.9" and f4 throughout its use. If required it is claimed to produce very sharp images with either a 1.4 or 2 times converter. They can be bought for around £659 to £699, which is quite a savings compared to some outlets.
Anyone have any views on this lens?
John D

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by GerryNick2

have you considered the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM

The 100-400mm ........ You can add the 1.4 converter and maintain autofocus

I have the L 100-400 and agree it is a great lens.
It is large, heavy and chunky, but that is unavoidable.

I had thought that the 1.4 convertor / extender did not allow autofocus?

Has anyone used both together in anger ?

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by John D

What about the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX HSM DG, it is claimed by many 'web sites/forums' to be the best lens Sigma has produced. It is lighter than the 'Bigma' at 1440g and has a constant length of 8.9" and f4 throughout its use. If required it is claimed to produce very sharp images with either a 1.4 or 2 times converter. They can be bought for around £659 to £699, which is quite a savings compared to some outlets.
Anyone have any views on this lens?
John D

I don't know much about that lens specifically John, but 300mm is generally a bit short for bird or other wildlife photography. You can add a converter but then there tends to be a loss of quality. I think that's why discussion has tended to focus on the 400mm Canons or the 500mm Bigma.

Matt

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

I have the L 100-400 and agree it is a great lens.
It is large, heavy and chunky, but that is unavoidable.

I had thought that the 1.4 convertor / extender did not allow autofocus?

Has anyone used both together in anger ?

Apparently, if you tape over three of the pins on the teleconverter AF should still work, although I think it is slower than normal.

Matt

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Hi Matt.

You know I've got the Bigma, but I'm seriously thinking of selling it and getting the 400mm Prime. I'm not happy with the images I get from it, especially when comparing with 400mm images.
Like you though, I can't make my mind up between the 100-400mm or the 400mm prime....

that's interesting Graham, I didn't realise you weren't fully happy with your Bigma. It is tricky deciding between the two Canons but I'm now 99% decided on the prime.

Matt

[Ollie]

Hi Matt,
As you know I use the bigma and am very happy with it, but saying that I think the only way to get the best out of this lens is by using a tripod all the time. The only times I don't use a tripod is for in flight shots which I do hand hold. The extra 100mm on the bigma is an advantage over the 400mm prime lens but at a price if you see what I mean. If you are always going to use a tripod I would say go for the bigma, if not the 400mm would probably be the better bet, that's only my opinion of course.
Roger

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Apparently, if you tape over three of the pins on the teleconverter AF should still work, although I think it is slower than normal.

Matt

Thats quite right Matt. I have taped the three pins for use with the 400mm prime - tends to hunt a bit but works ok (you can buy a cheap kenco converter that does not need taping as it has not got the electrical contacts to report back to the camera therefore the camera will attempt to autofucus - not sure of the quality of this tc)
Here is a shot that I took with the 400mm prime + 1.4 Canon tc, Handheld

[Wild-Woman]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

that's interesting Graham, I didn't realise you weren't fully happy with your Bigma. It is tricky deciding between the two Canons but I'm now 99% decided on the prime.

Matt

Mmm. That's interesting as we're saving up for the 50-500. I'd be interested to know more before we purchase if Graham isn't entirely happy.What do you think the problem is? Julie

[GerryNick2]

Originally Posted by John D

What about the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX HSM DG, it is claimed by many 'web sites/forums' to be the best lens Sigma has produced. It is lighter than the 'Bigma' at 1440g and has a constant length of 8.9" and f4 throughout its use. If required it is claimed to produce very sharp images with either a 1.4 or 2 times converter. They can be bought for around £659 to £699, which is quite a savings compared to some outlets.
Anyone have any views on this lens?
John D

The sigma 100-300mm is a very nice lense and will produce fairly sharp images although a little soft at 300mm f4, better results stopped down to f8. The build quality is excellent, built like a tank. The f4 right through the focal range has its advantages but you pay for this in weight. Will take a 1.4 converter with no loss of AF.Tried it out and found it a bit cumbersome for my requirements weighs 1480gm and is 224mm long. If you use filters it can be exspensive with a 82mm thread.

I finally opted for the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 DO IS USM and never regreted it. In image terms it is comparable with Canon "L" glass lenses. The real bonus for me is that it only weighs 720gm (half the Sigma) and 100mm in length (half again) I can walk around all day and hardly notice it hanging from my neck. It takes a 58mm filter which meant I could use my existing filters and saved a small fortune in the process. If your a Canon man I can strongly recommend this lense at £799 in the UK only £50 extra than the Sigma but superior optics.

The real issue here is that I find 300mm falls just short of my wildlife shooting and 400mm just gives me that extra edge.

Gerry