Not really in the market yet for a new lens (trying to save some for a new car) but i would like to someday fill out my lens range with a longer telephoto, i had planned to get a canon 100-400 which ive seen can (if you get a good copy) be exceptionally sharp wide open at 400 and is manageable in the size/price range

however was just rolling the sigma site and noticed their new 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM , reviews are a bit lacking does anyone have any experience with this lens? going up to 500mm compliments my current longest lens better (a tamron 18-270) and ive seen the sigma for <$900 NIB so its much cheaper but you get what you pay for and i'm wondering if i should just keep the 100-400 on my wishlist instead

Here is a link with quite a few photos from that lens. Keep in mind that early results were not spectacular, but I'm not sure if that is because of the lens or because of the photographer (probably instances of both).

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=514846

I don't own this lens, but I will early next year. Everything I have read is that the image quality is very close if not equal to the Canon, it is longer and it has better image stabilization (OS is the term Sigma uses). It is also considerably cheaper.

Tim

Bump. I'm interested in this lens as well. Surely someone here owns it?

I have one. It is a pretty good lens, not a big white, but good. The IS works well. It is a big heavy lens.

Here is a review

http://www.photodo.com/topic_639.html

thanks for the info. the thread on that first site has tons of post and pictures. tho they make you register to see most of them :-/ . overall the lens looks pretty good and given the price and extra 100mm i think i might get that one over the canon 100-400.

ofc i still need to find a good comparison between the two. someone who has both and shoots the same subject ad the same time, it also seems the nicer shots are at f8, i know the 100-400 can be very sharp wide open (if you get a good one)

also considering the filter issue. IIRC correctly the canon used 77mm same as my 10-22 so i could swap filters the sigma is 86mm threads which are expensive and not directly compatible with anything else i have.

I tried the 150-500 and the 120-400 when they first came into the stores just after I sold my 100-400L . at the time none I tried (3 150-500's and 4 120-400's) could either focus properly or provide a sharp image that made it worth the money. main problem was the AF which on jmost was either erratic or just way off. I tried them on both the bodies I had at the time (30D and 350D). This may have been changed now as alot more good responses from these lenses seem to have come from later models.
I may well have another look at them in time.
But it is worth noteing that while the 100-400L is alot more expensive it is a better proposition to purchase 2nd hand than the sigma and will hold its value alot better than the sigma.
Also the 120-400 didn't seem to be as long as the 100-400 when shooting a target at about 50ft (and the 100-400 is not supposed to be as long as a 400 prime) and while the 150-500 was noticibly longer the L I doubt its anywhere near 500mm when shooting less than infinity

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
But it is worth noteing that while the 100-400L is alot more expensive it is a better proposition to purchase 2nd hand than the sigma and will hold its value alot better than the sigma.


i wonder about this the 100-400 has been around a while. most of the reviews for the sigma say its OS is better than the 100-400L. i'm wondering if canon isnt planning a new lens in this range soon. in which case the price will drop, i kinda wished i had waited on my 100 macro now theres a 100 macro with IS :-/

SpinningCone wrote:
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
But it is worth noteing that while the 100-400L is alot more expensive it is a better proposition to purchase 2nd hand than the sigma and will hold its value alot better than the sigma.


i wonder about this the 100-400 has been around a while. most of the reviews for the sigma say its OS is better than the 100-400L. i'm wondering if canon isnt planning a new lens in this range soon. in which case the price will drop, i kinda wished i had waited on my 100 macro now theres a 100 macro with IS :-/

A replacement 100-400 has been rumoured for so long now even the rumoured lens would be out of date
seriously if a new version came along I would guess that (from previous mk2 releases) it would be quite a bit more $£ that the mk1 would not loose so much. even if it did its a great lens

3rd party lenses do though generally loose a greater portion of their value quite quickly.

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
A replacement 100-400 has been rumoured for so long now even the rumoured lens would be out of date

lol, that's what I like about the Canon Rumors site... they actually grade their rumors so that you can differentiate between idle, random, baseless internet chatter from something that is actually grounded in something more legitimate and well-informed.

I wondered too, Spinningcone, about when canon would finally upgrade the 100-400 or add IS to the 400 5.6. [I kept the 300f4 + teleconverter for years waiting for something in the 400 range. People warned me and said they had been waiting for years and to give up on that thought.

So I bought the sigma 150-500mm, a dream length. [people would go crazy if canon would come up with one!]
Heres some sigma observations :
The colors were very nice.
The focus was quick enough for BIFs.
The OS did a good job.
Birds fairly close were really nice. Doable. But anything at a distance was softer than my 300f4+tele, [420mm with tele], so I eventually opted to go back to my 300f4+canon teleconverter, a tad sharper than the sigma.

For general use, the sigma is a great price. But if you want precision, go with canon, or wait for something new via canon. The canon 100-400 is also a tad sharper than the sigma for objects at a distance.

Netgarden wrote:
I wondered too, Spinningcone, about when canon would finally upgrade the 100-400 or add IS to the 400 5.6. [I kept the 300f4 + teleconverter for years waiting for something in the 400 range. People warned me and said they had been waiting for years and to give up on that thought.

So I bought the sigma 150-500mm, a dream length. [people would go crazy if canon would come up with one!]
Heres some sigma observations :
The colors were very nice.
The focus was quick enough for BIFs.
The OS did a good job.
Birds fairly close were really nice. Doable. But anything at a distance was softer than my 300f4+tele, [420mm with tele], so I eventually opted to go back to my 300f4+canon teleconverter, a tad sharper than the sigma.

For general use, the sigma is a great price. But if you want precision, go with canon, or wait for something new via canon. The canon 100-400 is also a tad sharper than the sigma for objects at a distance.



right now i'm leaning more towards the sigma, if i can get it used then the price difference would probably be worth it for my needs.

as for tele sharpness usually you can't compare a zoom to a Prime. ive seen reviews where even the 70-200L 2.8 doesn't fare very well against the prime lenses. tho i've heard that a good copy of the 100-400L can match the 400 5.6L, i think a little IQ is worth the zoom, better to be a hair less detail and properly framed then lots of detail but poorly framed.

I would still love to see a direct comparison. Sig at 400 canon at 400 then the sig at 500 and the canon enlarged to match 500.

I had the 100-400 for several years and used it thro' 10D, 20D and 40D. My copy was an 'average' one. I bought the Sigma 150 - 500 almost as soon as it surfaced in the UK. I find it an excellent lens. I used it on the 40D and then on a s/h 1D Mk ii to great effect , - even with a Kenko 1.4 converter on occasions ! I am now the proud owner of a 7D and have had two weeks experimenting with the combo. I am WELL satisfied.
I am a fairly fussy ameteur, not a pro, and for ME it all works. It is the best combo that I have had in twenty years.

Hi folks

I have been toying with the idea of getting another lens for wildlife. I shoot in the 300 to 400mm range often (primes) but none of my lenses have IS/OS. I also have a 1.4x TC (Sigma) that gets used occasionally. If I was to consider another lens but one that has IS/OS, is this 150-500mm worth considering? I guess I am keen to know its performance (image quality beyond 300mm up to 500mm). Do they go soft after 400mm?
Thanks.