I tried both the 120-400 and the 150-500. the 120-400's OS system jumped all over my viewfinder. Images were soft and AF was too slow and inacurate. the 150-500's AF was too slow and it took too long for the OS to stabilize. I used a 40D.
Yes, the OS "jumps" over the viewfinder. Also the bokeh is not best. tomorrow i give it a last shooting, if it doesnt perform much better i return it and buy what i should:
The good old 100-400l.
chrisko1 wrote:
Yes, the OS "jumps" over the viewfinder. Also the bokeh is not best. tomorrow i give it a last shooting, if it doesnt perform much better i return it and buy what i should:
The good old 100-400l.
Funny that it's that bad... mine doesn't jump like that at all?
It's sunny here today and the OS is ultra fast?
It's funny, my 100-400 was so soft over 325. But i have seen good copy of the 100-400. Still, for me, the 500+$ of the Canon is not justified. Same for much of the Canon lens line. I don't justified the price difference between my Canon 300 f/2.8L and the Sig 120-300 f/2.8. I'm no pro but i had camera's in my hand since a was 7 (dad).
I agree somewhat on the Bokeh but i didn't buy that lens for that purpose.
As to mine, over 500-600 shots. I'm still verry happy.
Again, it's a cheap and very light lens. Nice to cary around all day.
[quote
Did you browse my results? what you think about them. some are just so ok (mostly f8 or f11) but the rest.
I agree! Some are nice but some a barely acceptable. they even look to dark.
I don't know what to tell you... I have a 40D also so!
Maybe they have release this lens to fast.
I agree that the OS is ia bit slower compare to my ex 70-200 IS, well, i'm trying to be nice to Canon :-) I'm not sure how it perform in very low light but still, when i took mine in was a cloudy. I will do other OS test later compare to my 80-400.
chrisko1 wrote:
A little Update on http://all4photo.com
All not "Nautilus" images are handhold.
100% crops from RAWs out of the camera.
Thanks for sharing. your lens is way less sharper then mine!
Look at my crop compare to yours.
For fun, try tripod / OS on mode 1. the OS works fine with a tripod at 500mm.
also, for fun, try it at 450mm or so. Even if the AF wnet bad with my first copy, the lens was as sharp as the second one.
i will replace my copy and try once more. (last time)
Now i have a theory:
Sigma supplies us in Europe with their bullshit quality. In balance they charge a Euro for a Dollar. (same as the Canon Motherf.....ers, the 300/2,8 is here 6000 US)
I am soo tired in replacing lenses. This spring i replaced a Sigma 150/2,8 macro 3 times to get a solid copy. Years ago i ordered the 80-400mm OS and send it back. guess why.
Friends of mine ordered a Sigma and both had to calibrate them from the beginning.
So from 8 lenses 2 lenses are ok, that calcs for me 75% have no quality.
i will replace my copy and try once more. (last time)
Now i have a theory:
Sigma supplies us in Europe with their bullshit quality. In balance they charge a Euro for a Dollar. (same as the Canon Motherf.....ers, the 300/2,8 is here 6000 US)
I am soo tired in replacing lenses. This spring i replaced a Sigma 150/2,8 macro 3 times to get a solid copy. Years ago i ordered the 80-400mm OS and send it back. guess why.
Friends of mine ordered a Sigma and both had to calibrate them from the beginning.
So from 8 lenses 2 lenses are ok, that calcs for me 75% have no quality.
I have added a few more picture on my page. I took over 200 yesterday ( the AF is holding...).
In general i'm still happy. The lens is not as sharp as my 80-400.
Look at the chimney picture of the 150-500 (botom of page) and compare to the 80-400 one. (top of page)
At 400 on the 150-500 it about the same IQ. I have tried over 15 picture of that chimney and never i could get an image as sharp as the 80-400. But wait!!! my friend came with his Canon 100-400 and it was worse at 400. So what to think?
For 1K$ you get a decent 150-450mm lens with OS/IS. A pretty fast AF and an OK OS.
My same friend as also as a Bigma, after trying the 150-500 he said simply to me: The OS is a big + even is it's not that fast., Never but never i can handheld the Bigma at 500mm and get a sharp image like the 150-500.
So NO, the 150-500 is not the perfect lens we hope for. But not so far from it.
It's a good 150-450 lens, a strange and sometime a bit slow but effective OS, somewhat and sometime softer at 500mm.
Hey, it's a 1K$ lens, so don't expect Canon 500 f/4 result at 500mm.
I will still keep mine. I like the range, the weight and the image quality in general. It as good strength and some little flaws.
?