Sigma 80-400 OS ~ any good ?

[Box Brownie]

Hi All



I am planning on getting a long lens for a safari (3 days in the whole 2-3 weeks) in South Africa later this year and also for use therafter for birding, motor sport, airshows etc

Initially I was considering the Canon 75-300 DO but having read the Fred Miranda reviews of the Sigma 80-400 which comes at a similar price in the UK & with the extar range I have put that on my list.

So, I asked my 'local' camera store whether they had the Sigma in stock or available for viewing & the sales guy was quite disapargaing about it, certainly at varience to the Fred Miranda reviews in all but the noisy AF motor reference. He tried to steer me towards the Canon 100-400 with IS which is £200 more expensive "not a lot more says he....". Also, being white is too much of a thief attractant.

Therefore, does anyone here have the Sigma 80-400 and feel able to answer these questions (especially if they have used the Canon as well):-

1) How fast is the AF for moving subjects?

2) How noisy is it really? (The sales guy felt that if Sigma kept the price down by not using the HSM, what other shortcuts did they take?)

3) What is like for contrast & bokeh?

Basically, is it worth the money and will it be reliable & meet my planned usage needs?

Lastly, any insight that I may not have considered would be very welcome?

TIA :)

[condyk]

This is the lens I have chosen for a year end walking safari in Namibia. I research the lens a lot a month or two back and lots of people like it ... no one who owned one criticised it. A few 100-400 IS owners criticised it, but I doubt any had used it. Most mention lack of HSM but when I used it the only 'issue' was some hunting, but light was not that great when I tested and not an issue at all in normal daylight.

In ZA I think you will be fine. I know the country and conditions very well (lived there for 18 months!) and other than early morning game drives it will be excellent. Not sure about tracking fast objects as that isn't something I tend to be interested in: for most African wildlife it's no big deal. There is a risk you may miss a Cheatah running shot, but maybe it will be OK. Owners will know. I didn't notice noise or AF as an issue ... maybe I'm deaf :lol:

I bought mine based on feedback and images I saw. Generally quality was very similar to the superb Bigma. Unfortunately mine was backfocusing and with the refund I got my current 100-300 f4 as a stop gap. I intend to try another OS before I leave at the end of the year.

It handles nicely, looks good and seems the ideal option for those who refuse to pay inflated L prices but want length and OS/IS. I would opt for the Canon if it was significantly better but it doesn't seem to be from what I saw. I believe it is only marginally better,comparing best with best for both lenses, but for me not worth the extra at UK prices. In the US or HK I may choose different

[Box Brownie]

Hi condyk

Thanks for your feedback.

Hmmmm!!! back focusing. Shortly after I got my 350D (with kit lens ~ which i have found to be a real gem of a lens) I bought the Sigma 70-300 APO II Macro and that had back and front focus problems depending where in the zoom range to looked. The second copy in the shop also had a variable similar problem, I got a refund.:cry:

As a stop gap I am going to get the Canon 55-200mm II USM (first 'run' for it will the Goodwood Festival of Speed) but as described in my opening post I do want a lens that will be up to the job for the safari (to start with) but do not want the white 'unwanted attention' getter Canon lens(es).

If the Sigma suffers from too much copy to copy variation (and yes, I know only those with trouble tend to post on fora) them maybe the Canon 75-300 DO, which gets mixed but generally good reviews, will be my best bet ~ especially if it is sharp wide open at the 300mm end so that cropping can make up for the 'missing' 300 to 400 range. And the images will lend themselves to a touch of PPing. Of course for the safari etc IS or OS is a must.

:D

[ssim]

I personally have not had the opportunity to use this lens but one of things that I would certainly look at is the weight difference between this and the 100-400 lens. The Sigma comes in at 1750grams or 3.8 lbs. vs the 100-400 at 1360grams or 2.9lbs. It may not seem like much but packing that extra pound and trying to stabilize the lens when holding, that extra pound will make a difference, in my opinion. Is it worth the extra money. Only you can decide that based on your finances:

Also, being white is too much of a thief attractant.

I walked around New Delhi India in what I would call some rather sketchy areas with two bodies, one sporting the white 70-200 and the other the 100-400. Sure they draw looks but thieves are thieves and will steal anything that looks big and expensive and the sigma would fall into that category.

[Jack W.]

I have a few samples taken with the Sigma 80-400OS on my PBase.
They're the ones of the cardinals, a blue jay and a finch:
http://www.pbase.com/jackspics/inbox
I'm just learning the lens, and so far I'm very pleased with it (considering I'm a rookie LOL).
Look at the original size for the best quality.
As for weight, the Sigma is 3 1/2 lbs., the Canon 100-400 is 3 lbs.
Build quality on the Sigma is excellent.
Jack

[condyk]

As for weight, the Sigma is 3 1/2 lbs., the Canon 100-400 is 3 lbs.
Build quality on the Sigma is excellent.
Jack

Yes, the weight is no big deal. I walked around for a few hours when I had mine, just hand holding. The handstrap helps and is a GREAT accessory to buy.

Also, remember that the Sigma has a FREE hood and tripod mount which add to the weight. With Canon these essentials often cost extra. Be worth checking out if that's the case. It was with the Canon's I've had, tho' only had one L lens personally (70-200mm f4 L).

I think the only worry is the image quality: handling is fine throughout. Try and get some images in front of you and if the very best are up to standard then go for it.

Jack W. the images look heavily post processed and/or cropped to me. Do you have the original Blue Jay image straight from the camera?

Here is a useful thread with some good images and user input:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/238513/0

I think you need to register on that forum if you've not done so already, but worth it :D

[ssim]

[QUOTE=condyk]
Also, remember that the Sigma has a FREE hood and tripod mount which add to the weight. With Canon these essentials often cost extra. Be worth checking out if that's the case. It was with the Canon's I've had, tho' only had one L lens personally./QUOTE]

All of the canon L series lenses that I have bought have come with standard tripod mounts and hoods.

[condyk]

SSim ... thanks for the clarification. I have changed my post to say the L lens I had, which had no tripod mount with it when bought.

[LightRules]

One "L" that doesn't come with tripod collar is the 70-200 f4. Otherwise, most of the "higher-up" L's come with tripod collars, etc. As for the 80-400 OS, it's built extremely well and delivers excellent optical performance. I've shot with it several times, along with the 100-400L and the Bigma DG, and optically they are very close. The AF is probably the one main thing; I wish they had put HSM in it. But its AF is still plenty good.

[raylks]

I am an ex-owner of Sigma 80-400mm. The Af, though without HSM, is still acceptably fast. Some complaint that it hunts during low light or indoor but no matter how high end a lens is, AF will still hunt, right?
The optic is excellent with good built. The reason I sold it eventually is my shift of perference in favour of prime tele lens. If you wanna buy a zoom tele, this is one of the best choice available. The focal length is also more versatile than Canon's counterpart.