p.1 #1 · Sigma 150-500 (initial thoughts/review and comparison to 100-400)
Just received a brand new 150-500 that I picked up at a very good price. I wanted to try it out and compare it to my 100-400 and see whether I could save a few bucks on long focal lengths I rarely use. The Canon is about $1600 new. The Sigma is $1069 (or quite a bit less if you know the right people ). So the Sigma is anywhere from around 500 to 800 cheaper. used Sigmas seem to go around 800-900. Used 100-400s around $1100-$1200 so the savings is a bit less used.
First, the lens is quite large, easily a couple of inches longer than the 1-4L at minimum length. The difference is less when extended (and less important). The Sigma is also heavier of course. Build quality seems quite nice. There is a little zoom creep when unlocked, but not nearly as bad as an unlocked 100-400. The tripod ring is very nice and doubles as a convenient handle.
Now to the important part: How does IQ measure up. Unfortunately, I literally just got this and haven't had a chance to do much but take a few snaps in the fading light outside or with flash inside. And inside you pretty much need flash.
The OS works well, better than the older generation IS on the Canon L. I was able to take a shot at 1/15 and 500mm that was reasonably sharp (not perfect, but surprisingly good). My indoor shots with flash (just the popup on my 60d) show that it is reasonably sharp, but it doesn'tquite match the L here. I've got a good copy of the 100-400 and the Sigma makes a good effort, but can't equal it. That said, my first impressions are nonetheless positive given the added focal length, improved IS, and better than expected optical results.
p.1 #2 · Sigma 150-500 (initial thoughts/review and comparison to 100-400)
Damn I thought this was going to be one of them post that says the 150-500 is better IQ wise. The last 1-400 I had was so darn sharp I have been kicking my butt ever since I sold it
p.1 #3 · Sigma 150-500 (initial thoughts/review and comparison to 100-400)
Would love to see a follow-up on this when you can do more side by side. I have a couple Sigma that are tack sharp but the IQ on the "L's" justify the price for "some" shooting.
p.1 #5 · Sigma 150-500 (initial thoughts/review and comparison to 100-400)
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Damn I thought this was going to be one of them post that says the 150-500 is better IQ wise. The last 1-400 I had was so darn sharp I have been kicking my butt ever since I sold it
yes, not likely unless Sigma has really changed this lens!
p.1 #6 · Sigma 150-500 (initial thoughts/review and comparison to 100-400)
I've got a 150-500 as well, it's OK. I mainly use it for airshows and I don't believe a 100-400 would suit me any better in that use. If I did more wildlife I might look into one seeing as second hand prices are much cheaper than when I picked up the 150-500.
p.1 #7 · Sigma 150-500 (initial thoughts/review and comparison to 100-400)
I'm interested in your findings also. I have the 100-400 but would like more reach. When I was researching I was suprised to find that the 150-500 is 1.3" longer and only 1.4 oz. lighter than the 50-500 OS. I've heard the 50-500 is sharper than the 150-500 but then it's a lot more expensive to.
). So the Sigma is anywhere from around 500 to 800 cheaper. used Sigmas seem to go around 800-900. Used 100-400s around $1100-$1200 so the savings is a bit less used. 