What about this lens?...

[deezeljuice]

While I would truly love to be able to go buy the lens of choice and obvious quality, that just isn't possible for awhile. I want/need a telezoom, and I have my eye on a Sigma 135-400 4.5/5.6 APO/Asph.
I currently have a Canon 75-300. I realize this lens doesn't rank high on the quality scale, but I have been able to get good, satisfactory results with it. The Sigma has 3 Extra Low Dispersion lens elements and is 100mm longer which I want for sports and wildlife photos.
I have read extensively on it, but does anyone have actual experience with it or can make comments on it's performance?
Thanks

[blackviolet]

my experiences with the 135-400: as it was $800 (australian) cheaper than the bigma, i thought it would be a good buy. picked it up, took it home, dreaded ERR 99 :shock: - it wouldn't focus or anything. remembering the words of wisdom from this site re: 'rechipping', i took it back, along with my 10D. out of the other 3 they had in stock, one of them wouldn't work (ERR 99) but the second one did. well, i thought it did... i went to my son's rugby game and started to take some photos. it focuses fine and took pics wide open. as soon as i stopped it down *at all* it made a funny 'soft click' noise and the dreaded ERR 99 happened again :shock: :evil: . it's a good thing i had my crappy 90-300 usm.

fwiw, the shots i took wide open were pretty soft. and after the trouble, i took it back on monday and picked up a bigma in all its 50-500 goodness. it's been my favourite lens ever since. i'm sorry i don't have any samples to post, but given that it was wide open, it may not have been a true indication. that said, the bigma fully open seems pretty darn sharp.

oh yeah, the 135-400 seemed to creep quite a bit when i tipped the monopod. it *does* come with the nice sigma case and massive lens hood. with any of the sigmas, i'd certainly recommend a uv/sky as the glass is right there at the end of the lens - but then that's just my $.02

oblio

[Blues67]

I bought the Sigma 50-500 monster, only had it a week and love it. Saves money, dont have to go to a gym. I lift weights taking pics now. No problems out of it yet as far as ERR99. I've had marginal results with the Canon 75-300, but now I think Ill get rid of it. or give it to the kids.

[robertwgross]

So, did you purchase the Sigma lens trailer for that monster lens?

If we go to mid-Missouri, are we going to see a big lens trailer with Canon and Sigma logos painted on the sides?

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you can swing the 50-500mm you'd be a lot better off.. the 135-400mm is an older design... yes there are new units that should work fine with the 10D etc.. but the point is that even so it does not have the advancements in design that the newer Sigma's have...

In other words.. it is not one of the Sigma's I would include on the "safe to buy" list...

Look to the 50-500mm EX or the 100-300mm f/4 EX..

Quick and dirty rule with Sigma... that really workls well.

If it doesn't say "EX" and "HSM" then leave it at the store.

:)

[blackviolet]

So, did you purchase the Sigma lens trailer for that monster lens?



actually, it fits - mounted on the 10d & big ed - in my crumpler shrinkle backpack, along with the flash (or 300d body as a backup), a few lenses and extender, cards, batteries, 190db tripod (lashed to the outside) and/or monopod, ipod (for the plane or long walks), as well as keys, mobile, etc.

the only downside is there is no waist strap so you start to feel it after awhile. also, the supplied laptop pouch will *not* fit a laptop with camera in the bag, so i remove it (it's velcro'd in).

[Blues67]

So, did you purchase the Sigma lens trailer for that monster lens?

If we go to mid-Missouri, are we going to see a big lens trailer with Canon and Sigma logos painted on the sides?

---Bob Gross---

Sorry, just a trailer with my company logo...I'm from the land of meat and taters, corn fed and that crap. I was used to packing an old AE1 with numerous lenses. When I added my Elan, I carried both. I did a 10 mile hike decending 1700 feet to get shots of a waterfall. Shedding the film cameras more than offset the Sigma. Excersise people.

[jimtfoto]

My vote also goes to the 50-500mm EX ... great lens ...

[Blues67]

My vote also goes to the 50-500mm EX ... great lens ...
Did you get the trailer?

[jimtfoto]

Opted for the roof-top carrier ....

[robertwgross]

Sorry, just a trailer with my company logo...I'm from the land of meat and taters, corn fed and that crap. I was used to packing an old AE1 with numerous lenses. When I added my Elan, I carried both. I did a 10 mile hike decending 1700 feet to get shots of a waterfall. Shedding the film cameras more than offset the Sigma. Excersise people.

Where in hell do you find a 1700 foot decent in mid-Missouri?

I always thought of mid-Missouri as the home of mosquitos and chiggers. (I'm a native).

If you can hit the seasons right, there is some good scenery between you and Columbia. Broadleaf trees and limestone cliffs.

---Bob Gross---

[eric1]

highest point in Mo. is Taum Sauk mtn. it's 1,772 feet. thats a little over
a mile. plenty of 3 mile decents in southern Mo., although the grade is not too severe. i'm a bike racer, and i know where most of the big hills
are(so i can avoid them!). you can get a pretty nice shot of the state
capitol from the bridge on highway 54, and as Bob said, the limestone bluffs are real cool.

thanks,
eric1

[phili1]

Then what your saying is what I call a mountain in new Jersey is but a mole hill. Only kidding. I have hearded allot about sigma and the 10D and newer digitals. I have three lenses that take better pictures then my Cnon Eos lenses. I called Sigma about this problem and they said they will re work the lenses to work with the new Cameras. But as I understand it from some good sources the new Tamron lens for Digital are awsome.

[dn7elson]

highest point in Mo. is Taum Sauk mtn. it's 1,772 feet. thats a little over a mile.

Having come from California, where there are real "mountains" :) we always considered a mile to be 5,280 feet. :shock:

[robertwgross]

I suspect that eric1 meant that it was that much descent stretched over a mile, which means that it is pretty steep for a bicycle.

On the other hand, here in California, we don't even start calling them real mountains until they get above 12,000' or so. Each year I carry one or the other of my Canon cameras up Whitney, 14,497'. Then I try to line up somebody else to carry my tripod.

Just joking. I carry only a 1.5 pound tripod for a long haul like that. And only two lenses.

---Bob Gross---

[Blues67]

Damn people, dont you travel? The 1700 decent was in the Blue Ridge mountains in VA. I've moutain biked at 9200 ft in Steamboat, hiked to 12300ft near Rabbit ear pass in CO. I've taken pics from Miami to Victoria BC. From the Bahamas to Cape Cod. I take my cameras everywhere. From shooting Humpbacks, Orcas, and Fla Gators in the wild, to the flora and fawna at 10000ft and snow packs at 12 and above. Ive cleaned Fla sand and CO snow from both camera and bike several times. Next scheduled trips--VA to photograph black bears and other wildlife, then skiing in McCall ID, Pics of the 1800 ft decent.....from skis...while skiing.......no my name isnt Bono or Kennedy. I've hit trees and lived. I do have a layout in July at the MO Dept. of Conservation Runge Nature Center.

[phili1]

I envey you. I cant seem to do what I want, nature photography. With my job I take my vacations to see my grand kids. Hey one year I will, get to do it.

[Andy_T]

Blues 67 ... sounds great!

(Post some pics :lol:)

Best regards,
Andy

[Blues67]

Take the grandkids, they can carry the stuff. I plan on using my son as a pack mule. Make the time before its too late.