|
|
iammikie
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 114
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $888.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom Range, image stablilazion, sharpness, price
|
|
Cons:
|
a little heavy, but anything in this range will be,
|
|
I bought this for use on a Nikon, as I wanted to keep something inexpensive in my car for those unexpected moments we all run into when we have no camera handy. Was I shocked to find out that it is a great lens, fantastic zoom range, sharp, and the stabilization actually works and allowed me to get excellent HH images out to 500mm and at 1/90 sec wide open.
I think that this is the deal of the century at it's modest price and great performance. I am starting to look seriously at Sigma, with prices going out of controll on some equipment.
|
|
 Sep 23, 2009
|
|
teglis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 878
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
500mm; price
|
|
Cons:
|
A little soft; OS not that effective; cannot use with Canon 1.4x converter
|
|
Reading the some of the reviews, it appears that newer copies may be better than older ones. Mine was purchased mid 2008, so take this review with a grain of salt.
The image quality is not up to that of the Canon 100-400 (an admittedly more expensive lens).
It is also rather unwieldy. Press the shutter button half way and the viewfinder image does stop shaking. However, it continues to move around at a lower frequency. Images are more likely to come out motion blurred with the Sigma 150-500 than with the Canon 100-400.
This lens may work with a Sigma tele-converter, but you cannot attach the Canon 1.4x converter. The inside diameter of the lens is to narrow to accommodate the protruding part of the Canon converter.
All-in-all, the Sigma 150-500 has been something of a disappointment. I tend to forgo it and take the Canon 100-400 instead.
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2009
|
|
havasu_photo
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 143
|
|
Review Date: Sep 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, better balanced than the 50-500mm, OS works great. Best bang for the buck. Lens strap attached to the tripod mount rocks. It allows the camera/lens to hang at your hip, but ready to spring into action at a moment notice. Still has EX glass in it, even though Sigma won't tell you that.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, OS could work quicker, Sigma finish has a reputation of wearing or flaking off.
|
|
Well, I finally joined the "club" and purchased a used 150-500mm. My serial number started with 103, which from all the research I did, indicated that it was a newer copy, and less likely to have any issues.
That, and talking with the previous owner, convinced me to buy. I use it on my D300, and have previously owned a 50-500 Sigma.
Today I went out and tested the BigOS, taking the exact same shots at 500mm as I did with the Bigma. Same settings exactly.
I put the pictures(jpegs), side by side on my 30" LCD monitor, at a resolution of 2560X1600, and zoomed both to identical size. I could not tell ANY difference between the two, and both were acceptably sharp.
I've only had the lens for a day, and just did backyard testing, but it appears to be a winner. Everything the OP said, I agree with. I've owned the same lenses he has, and he was dead on.
OS takes about 3/4 of a second to lock on, and is a bit noisy. On the Nikon 70-300VR, it took about 1/4 of a second. On the Nikon, I never could hear the VR, so I was never sure if it was on or not, and had to keep checking the switch. Don't have that problem with the BigOS. But, the noise I'm talking about is almost like a wisper. If you were at an event, you would never hear it.
I also compared, side by side, my Tokina 300mm F2.8 lens, which is incredibly sharp, with the BigOS. And again, at F9(sweet spot?), and 300mm, the two pictures were identical in every way, including sharpness!!
This lens is better balanced than the Bigma, and that is on a D300 with grip. As far as price Vs. performance, I give this lens a 10. It has it's place in my bag, and serves a very useful purpose.
It's not a prime lens, and doesn't pretend to be, but for 90% of what I do, it works just fine.
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009
|
|
Neill Graham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build, surprisingly sharp IQ throughout focal length, excellent image stabilizing OS, fast AF, easily accessible buttons, effective handle "foot" that is easily managed,
|
|
Cons:
|
Very long, a tad heavy for long handheld shoots. Contrast not as crisp as preferred (same on the Bigma).
|
|
I tried a copy of this lens when it first came out in mid 2008 and was dissappointed with the image quality. It was pretty soft at the long end. Then a year later I tried a second copy and found it to be an excellent lens that I greatly enjoy using. I have just shot the full moon both handholding and on a tripod and I am amazed at the effectiveness of the OS on this equipment! The photos are better than what I was able to achieve with my Bigma a couple of year ago. Mind you, I am now using the Nikon D300 which marries well with this lens.
All in all, a very satisfying long lens at a good price.
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2009
|
|
J. Vallenduuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, Price, IQ, weight, focussing, with crop 750mm on D300
|
|
Cons:
|
OS is a bit noisy, with lenscap and fully extended very long. with crop 225mm on D300 (not a very big issue since I wanted long range)
|
|
I bought this lens an couple of months back because I wanted more range on my D300.
But, since I do not use it on a regular base I looked with a max budget in mind.
I've read a lot of reviews before choosing this lens and can now say that this lens is great! Image quality, focussing, weight are all very good.
At a little under 2 kilo's it is definitly not a real heavyweight, but after a couple of hours in the field you will notice it ;-)
After a few months I'm still very happy with it!
On my D300 focussing is fast and accurate, even in less than perfect light.
Pictures have good colour and contrast.
The OS works fine but is a bit noisy and seems to start a bit slow before realy stabilising the image, but thats also getting to know the lens and working with it I suppose.
I've also used it on my old Nikon F80 and it works great too allthough the combination was a bit front heavy. the positives coming out of the camera also were sharp with good contrast and very colourfull.
In my opinion this lens is a good choise for those looking for range and are on a budget.
Always check your lens when buying, QC from Sigma has improved a lot but still isn't perfect!!
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2009
|
|
cmosbum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Nice Build Quality
Image Stabilization Appears to Work Well
Discount relative to Canon's 100-400 f4L
Zoom mechanism is a rotating ring, rather than push-pull
|
|
Cons:
|
Starts at f5.6
Soft due to apparent coma, even stopped down
|
|
I bought this lens based on several reviews suggesting that I might be able to get a reasonably good copy that would be roughly as good as a good copy of Canon's 100-400 dust buster. Unfortunately, the copy I received just didn't cut it. Nothing was critically sharp and there were subtle halos surrounding the sharpest features.
It went back in trade for a new Canon 100-400, at a lot more money, but the Canon is beautifully sharp even at the longest focal lengths. The 100-400 is even sharper than by 300 f4L at 300mm!
Sorry, Sigma, I really tried hard to give you some business. I suspect there are some copies that are very good, however.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2009
|
|
RichardB_photo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
OS, Alot of bag for yuh bugs.. prety sharp at 500mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens cap is fiddely.. when lens hood is on.. en dont use cheap UV filters on it..
|
|
if had this lens for about 8 months now.. and im getting more and more in love with it.. if used it in a local zoo.. (see pictures here) and i used it in open nature.. this lens is greate..
there was a lot of negative things around this lens on the net.. but i can say the only thing that i found is the loud OS.. and its a bit heavy.. but all in all.. its a good lens..
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2009
|
|
markdennis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great value for money, terrific range and not too heavy:) Good to very good IQ.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy OS (but works well). Not EX build but close.
|
|
I've had this lens a couple of days now. It's been purchased to photo a cricket match for a school where the parents have requested some shots of their kids in action. I will try to sell the images I take to the parents. Hopefully I will cover the cost of the lens. In my tests I have been really surprised how good this lens is considering the cost. Even at the long end and with an F stop of 6.3 this lens delivers. At this aperture the images are slightly softer than at F8 but are perfectly usable and with a bit of USM look great. Sure, it is not built like a Canon L long lens and has no weather proofing etc but on the other hand it doesn't weigh like a Canon L either. As others have said, the OS is noisy but works. I'll be interested to see it's effect on the MK III batteries. No doubt this lens needs good light to get the best from it, and I would imagine that it may struggle to achieve quick AF in gloomy conditions.
I have never owned a Sigma, and perhaps I have been lucky and have a good sample, but based on what I have seen so far I would say that this is a good lens for anyone starting out in wildlife or Sports photography who needs a long lens but cannot afford the price of Canon L glass.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2009
|
|
dlborges
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,000.00
|
|
Pros:
|
awesome lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
for about half the day, the lens would not respond properly in AI servo mode, even though the lens is a late model and the serial number falls outside of the early identified models having that problem. I shoot a 40d. I'm going to keep testing with it though because I did have a problem with the thumb dial on the camera while in AE mode, almost as if the software had locked up. Turning camera on and off didn't help, but eventually it freed up and things returned to normal. Jury still out on that.
|
|
This is my second post on this lens. I've now had some more serious time and days shooting waterfowl with the lens, the primary point of buying the lens in the first place. To get these shots in the wild on birds this close, it takes a setup very similar to a duck hunter. Boat out to an isolated wildlife refuge location (Napa/Sonoma DFG Refuge, California), setup up deeks, get the mallard and gadwall calls out and gently coax the birds into your large decoy setup.
http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/cwa/hfdeccae#hef6967e
and
http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/cwa/hfdeccae#h138ba47d
and the toughest shot of all on a drake gadwall, demonstrating the len's ability to track well. f/8,@403mm, 1/2000 with ISO 400.
http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/cwa/hfdeccae#h152e25e2
I'm still working hard with this lens, frankly it shoots way different than any other lens. I think it's contrasty, softness is tough at 500mm, killer at 400mm and below (which puts you in there with the canon 100mm-400mm) and compares to the canon no problem. I've compared both lenses side by side and could not justify an extra $500 for a shorter lens.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009
|
|
kane513
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 26, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 632
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $999.00
|
|
Pros:
|
see below
|
|
Cons:
|
see below
|
|
Please see this thread for my full review including lots of pics at 500mm.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/777145
I really like this lens, and as long as you get a good copy, it is just as good as the bigma.
|
|
|
May 27, 2009
|
|
kane513
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 26, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 632
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $999.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light compared to the nikon 200-400 +1.4, fast focus, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
f6.3 is slow in poor light, 86mm filters are expensive, lens hood is crappy.
|
|
Please see this thread for full review. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/777145
|
|
|
May 27, 2009
|
|
dlborges
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great value, great focus speed, compares head on with the Canon 100-400mm in AF speed, and quality. If you don't mind a more contrasty image, then you should buy this lens and save over $500 compared to the canon.
|
|
Cons:
|
A tad contrasty, at 500mm it's sharp but don't expect to crop or zoom in on the image too much or you'll start to loose sharpness. But, at 500mm I believe it's as sharp as the canon 100mm-400mm because I tested them side by side.
|
|
sharpness? http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/p875585347/h12be85f#h12be85f
and
http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/p875585347/h12be85f#h127b15a5
af focus speed? These Gadwalls were at 50 yards, and while I wish I had my shutter speed at greater than 1,000 and my f-stop down a tad to acheive that, this isn't bad while standing on a boat that's moving in the waves.
http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/p875585347/hf740253#hff075d4
I haven't even started using this lens at it's full capacity on a real birding shoot, and I can already tell it's going to produce a high volume of waterfowl images. If the lens happens to get destroyed in the process of being exposed to salt marshes and water, well then at least I didn't spend $6,000 on it. You don't take lenses like that to the locations I go to. Here's another shot:
http://dlborges.zenfolio.com/p875585347/hf740253#h5db2f73
|
|
|
May 18, 2009
|
|
|
