Sigma 80-400 (test and pics)

[Leszek]

posted 05-05-04 10:25 AM

For those interested - I have written some review on this lense.
The only drawback - rather slow AF. Other than that - it is a keeper.

The link is here (or rather two links):

my first impressions are here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007sA5

test results including pixel crop comparison between Canon 100/2.8 macro USM, Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM, Sigma 80-400 OS and Canon 28-135 IS are here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007wjO

Folder with pictures is here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=395688


Any comments ? Frank ?

[Leszek]

Amazing: no one has anything to say !
I hoped I would be properly flamed, but no, not even that... :(

[nosquare2003]

Be patient. There are lots of people who are interested in this lens and EF100-400. And they will read your comments. Some members here have already expressed their happiness of having this Sigma lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks for the review.. but I can't see any thumbnails or images inthe last link.. :(

I was very interested in this lens haveing owned several very high quality Sigma's.. but the lack of an HSM put me off it.. I know some can do without.. but frankly I won't buy a Sigma unless it has the HSM.

Looks like another great EX lens though.

[Tom W]

Amazing: no one has anything to say !
I hoped I would be properly flamed, but no, not even that... :(

Still rubbing sticks together - no fire yet....

Actually, this is the first time I actually looked at the test. The 80-400 does well, though that 100 mm Canon looks incredibly nice.

I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the 1.4 TC and they are a good combination. That the 80-400 is comparable is credit to that lens.

[timmyquest]

Be patient. There are lots of people who are interested in this lens and EF100-400.

I'm very very impressed with what i've seen from this lens, but i have heard the OS is slightly less effective then the IS on the canon.

Also, the price isnt nearly low enough for me to not get the canon, if not for build quality, years of amazing pictures, and that aparently better IS system...then for the fact that i'm putting a canon on a canon.

If you were buying a truck and you wanted red but it was $500 more...spending 20 grand you'd prolly break out 500 more to get the one that you like better.

That said, were talkig $1200 for the sigma and $1350 for the canon...to me the choice is clear as none of the pictures from the canon i've seen are better then anything the canon could do.

[KennyG]

I borrowed one for a full day a while back and used it in anger on a race circuit. The AF is as slow as treacle flowing uphill which makes it absolutely useless for action sports. The image stabilization was not as good as the 100-400, and bear in mind the Canon IS used in the 100-400 is not the latest version. Image quality was OK, but nothing to get excited about.

A lot of money for a lens that is best used for shooting static subjects does not seem a very good deal to me. Just my opinion and based on what I expect from a lens.

[darrenb]

I'm going back to a great holiday location in Greece in August where they have a private sanctuary and wetlands area. My trusty 28-135 as expected just didn't cut the mustard although great around the pool with the kids etc. So I've been scouring these boards and Fred Miranda for help on deciding which lens to go for. As with a number of users the 70-200 L (any version) seems tempting but you are always going to be wishing you bought the top of the range (why couldn't Canon just make one version the choice is hard enough as it is)

Anyhow I went down to the local Jessops this week just to see if they had the Sigma versions of the 70-200 and possibly the 80-400 and they did. I have been tempted by L glass for many years but with that white body I could well walk round with a flashing beacon on my head and not get as many looks. I have to say that whilst there are many advocates of Sigma lenses and there is little argument about their build quality and optics (on the EX range) I was a tad disappointed with both Sigma lenses in that even thought the 70-200 was HSM the speed is nowhere near as fast as my Canon 28-135IS and is somewhat louder. The 80-400 isn’t HSM is very noticeably slower and very noisy, it reminds me of my very first AF lens on the Canon EOS 650 back in the late 80s.

A number of users have been critical about the Canon 100-400’s weight, but at 1380g this is a flyweight compared to the 1650g of the Sigma (you really will end up like Arnie) plus they put everything backwards on the darn thing, the zoom ring is up front and the focus ring towards the body (I kept turning the focus ring in AF mode instead of the zoom ring) not very good on the lenses motors. Then you miss that all important shot!

[darrenb]

Sorry
In relation to my last post above, I realised I was talkin rubbish when I said that the sigma 80-400 focus and zoon were back to front. Shows you what I know, only been using these things for 20+ years. I guess when you are just used to feeling your way around the camera/lens you don't need to look. What comnfused me about the Sigma was that the focus ring was larger than what I expect of the Canon lenses, which throws the zoom ring right to the end of the lens which is a good 8 inches or so away. It just didn't feel natural. I'm sure you will know what I mean....