Does anyone know anything about this lens ?

[quickben]

I'd like to know if anyone has any experience with this lens : Sigma APO 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX RF ?

Is it any good ? Is it as good as the 100-400L IS ?

They're in the same price bracket (kind of) so it's, purely, down to image quality and performance.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Gary.

[KennyG]

I'd like to know if anyone has any experience with this lens : Sigma APO 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX RF ?

Yes, had one. Big, heavy and no IS. Not as fast to AF as the Canon.

Is it any good ? Is it as good as the 100-400L IS ?

For the money it is OK as long as you resign yourself to a good tripod. No it is not as good as the Canon.

They're in the same price bracket (kind of) so it's, purely, down to image quality and performance.

See above. The Canon is faster and has better image quality (higher contrast and a tad sharper) as well as the faster AF.

Hope this helps.

[quickben]

Thanks a lot Kenny. This does help, I pretty much expected this review of the lens. I just wanted to know if it was worth going for the extra 100mm (or 160mm :D )

Cheers mate.

Gary.

[sjprg]

Personaly the 50-500 is the favorite lense in my collection. I now only carry my 24mm 2.8, my 100mm 2.8 and the 50-500 and leave the rest home.
Paul

[CyberDyneSystems]

Having owned both.. I'd say it is worth the extra $$$ for the Canon if you can go for it.

That said.. the Sigma is one nice lens too.. but just based on weight alone.. I'd go for the Canon at this point.

[aam1234]

We recently discussed this lens in this forum, have a look:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35209&highlight=bigma

[skiphoto]

Purely awesome. This lens is a great option for length at the wide and the tele end. I love it and shoot for magazines with it as often as the 100 - 400 L Canon.

A Tad heavy but worth it in every way possible.

J

[Cadwell]

Yes, had one. Big, heavy and no IS. Not as fast to AF as the Canon.



I remember you saying you had one. I'd been contemplating getting one to extend my reach (for those rare bright Silverstone days ;) ) but if the AF is slow then it's a waste of time for me.

Thanks for the info. :)

[blackviolet]

it's probably my favourite lens. it's not very fast, if you need to shoot at night. but in daylight, it's hard to beat - especially at the price.

imho, the af isn't slow at all. it works very well for my rugby photos and that's required quick af...

btw, if you are looking for opinions, you might try searching for 'bigma' on this board (or good heavens - other boards :shock: )

[danphoto1]

I own both lenses If you don't need the 50 range I perfer the Canon 100-400 IS and use it with a 1.4 extender. all of the functions Is and auto focus will work I shoot baseball and soccer with 100 to 400 is my favorite. also the 120 300 sigma even with a 2x it is still a5.6 and all of th auto fuctions work well that gives me a 600mm 5.6 lens and I beleive a 780 mm on my 1D with auto focus but no IS a monopod or tripod is a must. the 50-500 is not as fast focusing and sometimes is a little soft. You will need a momopod or a tripod I have still managed to get great keepers form all three lenses and combinations. If you have the knowledge and the right conditions. I beleive you can get a great shot with almost any decent camera. One of my best shots was taken in Fenway Park of picher it was a bright sunny day and I shot it at a a beleive 1/2000 of a second there are only two apature settings on the old Olympus 2500 but the shot came out clean and crisp. OH and I forgot to mention that I had a 1.7 video lens extender that screwed on to the camera with an adaptor and the shot came out