 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3
|
|
|
|
mscooper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 27, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great power for price, sharp focus, lens hood included, OS works fairly well, works with 300D
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, difficult to hand hold
|
|
|
I am using this with the 300D with absolutely no problems thus far with hundreds of photos taken to date. OS doesn't really work as well as expected however doesn't matter since I find it nearly impossible to get sharp photos hand held due to size and focal length. Best used only on tripod.
|
|
 May 8, 2005
|
|
atsi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Location: Chile
Posts: 405
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great price to performance ratio, pretty sharp all round, OS is very effective, versatile.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, stiff zoom, slow optically, really slow AF on 300D
Apparently not compatible with Digital Rebel/300D
|
|
|
I was searching for my "everyhting" lens and this fit the bill almost all way round. I found it to be sharp and has all the range and reach most people could want. But....
It would not work correctly on my Digital Rebel. I got the OS to track properly maybe 10 times over a week. When it did kick in proplerly I was able to do a 1/15 second exposure at 400mm handheld and it was razor sharp!
So what was the problem? It would seem that the Digital Rebel's circuitry can't supply enough current to reliably power this beast. Another symptom of this is sometimes very slow shutter response. I went back to the camera shop and switching the lens to a 20D made it perform 100%.
So I would reccommend this lens as a great all round and quality lens, but not for the Digital Rebel.
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2005
|
|
alan sh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images at both ends. Fast and accurate AF. OS works well. Colour balance is good. Tripod socket & collar works well.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy ! Slow to zoom.
|
|
|
I bought this for wildlife, motorcycle racing and shooting the moon.
So far, it has been excellent. It would autofocus on the moon with my 20D at night. I have taken sharp pictures of birds in flight. Not tried the bikes yet.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2005
|
|
CurtPick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3260
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $999.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp ! Sharp ! Sharp ! Very well built. High quality glass. OS rivals Canons IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit slower than th Canon USM to focus but would not let that hold me back.
|
|
|
This lens rivals the Canon 100-400 IS in picture quality no questions ask. I will base this review on comparison to the Canon 100-400 IS.
Focus Speed : Not as fast as the Canon USM but still fast.
Build : Its built better, more rugged than the Canon .
Picture : Equal too the Canon 100-400 , maybe sharper !
Contrast : Equal too 100-400
Bokeh : Like butter ! Very pleasing to the eye !
OS/IS : Sigma beat out Canon on image stabilization
Warranty : 4 years compared to Canons 1 year
Color : Sigma Black ! Canon White .
Zoom: Canon uses Push Pull, Sigma Zoom Ring ( Slower )
For the price this lens is the Equal in picture quality. Is the better on build quality. It's the sharper of the two lenses. Zoom speed is slower than Canons but only because Canon uses Push Pull which is good and Bad. Good, its gets to prefocus faster, Bad it sucks dust like a vaccum. Sigma is the standard RIng Zoom. The Sigma is built much better and rugged. Buying new, Canon Cost $1499, Sigma $ 999.
I have owned 3 Canon 100-400's and couldn't deal with the 50% bad pictures that came out of all of them. Nearly every picture that comes out of this lens is a keeper !
So for Cost, Picture, Build it was a no brainer for me.
Well done Sigma !! Well done !
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2005
|
|
piski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very well built, great optics, OS works excellently
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow autofocus, stiff zooming, difficult to hold with tripod collar
|
|
|
I was in a need for a long telezoom, so I bought this after seeing so many positive reviews. I wasn't disappointed at all. The image quality is just stunning, the same as what I've seen from the Canon L series. OS works even better than on my 28-135 IS, it's more intelligent and effective.
on the downside, the autofocus hasn't got HSM... why on earth not? sometimes focus starts hunting, goes from infinity down to 1,8m and back... its annoying when you have to capture something INSTANTLY. so it's definately not a sport or action lens. but since i rarely shoot anything that needs to be captured in less than a second, it's enough for me.
The lens IS easy to hold with hands, i cannot understand why someone says the OS is of no use because the lens weighs so much... i've had no troubles at all keeping it steady.
I like the zoom range very much, actually pretty much everything is great but the autofocus which is only "good".
if this lens would have cost ~800 euros i would rate it superb for the price, but for nearly 1100 euros i really want to see hsm.
i would highly recommend this lens to anyone needing long reach (up to 640mm on 10D) without tripod and high image quality.
I'm very satistied.
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2005
|
|
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
|
|
Review Date: Dec 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optics, OS and zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
No HSM motor, heavy.
|
|
|
Seems I rarely take this lens off of one of my 10D's. It is that good.
Very sharp photo's wide open, stunning at f/8. Excellent color and contrast. The extra 20mm on the short end has come in handy.
The lens could use Sigma's HSM motor, but even without it, it is still pretty fast. The Sigma OS system is every bit as good as Canon's IS.
The best thing I can state about this lens is the stunning photo's. The optics more then make up for the slightly slower motor.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2004
|
|
sgraham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image stabilisation, sharpness and colour rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, Zoom ring stiffness, tripod collar does not adjust to become a pistol grip
|
|
After having borowed a Canon 70-200 L IS 2.8 with a 2x converter I realised what I desired but could not afford and so looked at alternatives to use with my Canon 10D. A good ownership experience with a Sigma 15-30 lead me to consider their 80-400 offering.
I read some reviews and took the plunge and I am very pleased with the results.
Main area of critisism are the weight and stifness of the zoom action.
The strengths are the ability to handhold down to 1/15s @ 400mm (640 with 10D 1.6 multiplication).
The sharpness and colour saturation is very pleasing to my eyes and in my keen amateur status.
Would I recommend this lens? Yes. Why? I think it does everything that the equivalent Canon does for less money - but then again I suspect that the Canon's USM focus might be faster.
Some of the results can be seen on my website: http://www.simongraham.dsl.pipex.com
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2004
|
|
Fredrick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, but not wide open. Stabilizer enables wider range of handheld use, but...
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy as hell. Difficult to handhold well due to weight.
|
|
This replaced my EF Canon 70-300 IS USM, which was adequate but nothing special. I wanted the longer reach of the Canon EF 100-400 IS USM, but I didn't want to pay the exorbitant price of $1,4000.
Due to an "essential tremor" in both hands I have difficulty holding the camera stable, so I pretty much have to stick with a stablized lens or use a tripod or monopod. (I'm OK hand-holding my EF 17-40 USM as long as the light is good, but not otherwise.)
Because the Sigma 80-400 is so heavy at 3.6 lbs, I still have to use a tripod in most cases so the IS capability that I paid for is a moot point.
The Canon EF 100-400 is 3 pounds; would the 1/2 pound weight difference improve my ability to hand-hold? Probably.
Is that improved usefulness worth approx the approximately $400.00 in increased cost? That depends. Maybe, maybe not.
How does one draw up a theoretical cost/benefit analysis that realistically quantifies the benefit of being able to hand-hold the camera in certain situations as opposed to having to use a tripod or other support? What comparison parameters are valid, and how does one define said parameters and then validate them to ensure an accurate comparison between the two choices?
Once the testing methods are designed and validated and the values are defined and the calculations are done, how does one 'proof' the resulting answer?
Given these uncertainties, it appears obvious that such a comparison cannot be made accurately in an abstract environment. A valid comparison between the two lenses must therefore be done using real-world experiences.
Therefore, given these sundry circumstances beyond my control and in the interest of Truth, I will now pop over to Adorama and purchase a Canon EF 100-400 IS USM.
Neat, huh? 
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2004
|
|
john98026
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
OS and has rotating zoom (no trombone)
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy! No HSM focus. f/2.8 would be nice, too.
|
|
|
I was on a waiting list when this lens was announced and got one of the first ones to be delivered. It has been a pleasure to use, with excellent results. The images are tack sharp, have nice contrast and great color. The OS works quite well, allowing me to hand hold (only if I have no choice) at 2 stops slower than without it. Even at 1/125 and 400mm (640mm on my 20D), the images are quite sharp.
I have compared images to the Canon 100-400 and the results are quite comparable. The Canon lens made me nervous with the push-pull zoom and the potential for blowing dust into the camera body. No problem when using film but dust is a concern with digital.
I spent my summer in Moscow, Russia and tripods are not allowed in many places. Having the OS allowed me to get many shots that would have been lost otherwise.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
41
|
251972
|
Feb 12, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
93% of reviewers
|
$919.85
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.06
|
8.78
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
