Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 25 Mar 2013 (Monday) 15:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Opinions on 2 Sigma lenses

 
waylandcool
Senior Member
485 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Far NW Suburbs of Chicago
     
Mar 25, 2013 15:46 |  #1

I've been putting together a plan for some lens upgrades and found 2 Sigma lenses I found interesting. Namely the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 lens and the 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 zoom.

I shoot some outdoor events that occansionally require some long range shots and the 150-500 looks like a decent lens to shoot from a tripod with and I was thinking about the 8-16mm lens for some fireworks or landscape shots.

What the general opinion on these lenses?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dpds68
Goldmember
Avatar
1,464 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Trinidad and Tobago W.I.
     
Mar 25, 2013 17:50 |  #2

My 150-500 is my Birding Lens and it serves me well for that wish I had money for the Canon 800mm :-( .


Gripped Canon 7D,20D,XT / Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 , 70-200 2.8L,EF50mm1.8 II,Sigma 150-500mm OS, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Vivitar285Hv x2,Canon430EX,Nissin Di866,CTR-301P Triggers,
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpds68/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 25, 2013 20:15 |  #3

Many people like the 150-500. I'm iffy about it. I've used one, and while the results weren't bad, I didn't actually like the lens itself and wouldn't buy one.

The 8-16 is a very wide and optically very good lens. The problem with it and landscape photography is the inability (or difficulty) of using filters. If you don't use filters for landscapes, then it could be the right choice. But I do use filters virtually every time I shoot landscape, so for me it was a no-go. I got the Canon 10-22 instead (which I no longer have as I went FF).


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Mar 25, 2013 21:33 |  #4

waylandcool wrote in post #15754433 (external link)
I was thinking about the 8-16mm lens for some fireworks or landscape shots.

It's a superb lens, but there's not chance I'd get it for landscape because you cannot put a polarizer nor neutral density filters on it. Those are both essential for landscape work.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Mar 25, 2013 21:41 |  #5

waylandcool wrote in post #15754433 (external link)
I've been putting together a plan for some lens upgrades and found 2 Sigma lenses I found interesting. Namely the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 lens and the 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 zoom.

I shoot some outdoor events that occansionally require some long range shots and the 150-500 looks like a decent lens to shoot from a tripod with and I was thinking about the 8-16mm lens for some fireworks or landscape shots.

What the general opinion on these lenses?

On the Sigma 150-500mm optical stabilizer, a now obsolete technique of judging the lens' potential was looking at actual pictures created by the lens, such as these.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


However, on forums such as these, the best way to judge equipment is by what someone has said somewhere else, even if someone has never used the equipment.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vboer
Member
Avatar
83 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Mar 25, 2013 22:16 |  #6

I have the 150-500 and I'm not happy with it. Not sharp enough unless you go to f/11 or higher.
I would not recommend this lens. Look at a Canon 100-400 instead.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Mar 26, 2013 05:03 |  #7

Another vote for the 150-500, great lens

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i139.photobucke​t.com …raphy/Birds/Img​_5951c.jpg (external link)

Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Joe ­ Ravenstein
Goldmember
2,338 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: E Tx
     
Mar 26, 2013 07:15 |  #8

I have both of the listed Sigs and for my needs they do the job required of them. I like my Canon 60D but like the cost of Sigs better than the = in Canon glass


Canon 60D,18-55mm,55-250mm,50mm compact macro, AF ext tubes. Sigma 8-16mm uwa, 18-250mm, 85mm F1.4, 150-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cputeq007
Senior Member
Avatar
570 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Mar 26, 2013 07:32 |  #9

Having owned the 100-400L and the Sigma 150-500 AND the 50-500 I would have a hard time recommending either of the Sigmas over the 100-400. I found the 100-400 optically superior and better in AF, and the build is also superior. Yes, more expensive, but IMO warranted.

I didnt shoot the 8-16 Sigma but owned the 10-22 and thought it was great, plus it took filters.


Flickr (external link)
I own camera stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
waylandcool
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
485 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Far NW Suburbs of Chicago
     
Mar 26, 2013 10:53 |  #10

DC Fan wrote in post #15755666 (external link)
On the Sigma 150-500mm optical stabilizer, a now obsolete technique of judging the lens' potential was looking at actual pictures created by the lens, such as these.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


However, on forums such as these, the best way to judge equipment is by what someone has said somewhere else, even if someone has never used the equipment.

Well I tend to go by actual pictures and those shots look great to me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,730 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3853
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 26, 2013 10:57 |  #11

I bought a new Sigma 150-500. I was slightly disappointed. The color cast was a bit off, compared to my Canon lenses. Also, the lens did not resolve fine detail quite as sharply as I had hoped. If you look at bird images that were taken with this lens, they often (but not always) lack critical sharpness and fine detail. Build quality was also not up to par with the Canon lenses I am used to. For these reasons I returned the lens, and have not regretted doing so. I am sure that the lens is capable of producing nice images when in the right hands, but I certainly don't think it qualifies as the best option out there.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
waylandcool
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
485 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Far NW Suburbs of Chicago
     
Mar 26, 2013 10:58 |  #12

Sirrith wrote in post #15755377 (external link)
Many people like the 150-500. I'm iffy about it. I've used one, and while the results weren't bad, I didn't actually like the lens itself and wouldn't buy one.

The 8-16 is a very wide and optically very good lens. The problem with it and landscape photography is the inability (or difficulty) of using filters. If you don't use filters for landscapes, then it could be the right choice. But I do use filters virtually every time I shoot landscape, so for me it was a no-go. I got the Canon 10-22 instead (which I no longer have as I went FF).

I was thinking about the 10-22 as well but there didn't seem to be as much info here on the 8-16mm hence the question. It seems like the only reason to get the 8-16mm is that you can't use the 10-22 if you have a FF camera (a 6D is on my wish list for next year). Maybe Sigma will release a new version of the lens that takes filters (seems strange it can't)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
waylandcool
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
485 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Far NW Suburbs of Chicago
     
Mar 26, 2013 11:00 |  #13

cputeq007 wrote in post #15756702 (external link)
Having owned the 100-400L and the Sigma 150-500 AND the 50-500 I would have a hard time recommending either of the Sigmas over the 100-400. I found the 100-400 optically superior and better in AF, and the build is also superior. Yes, more expensive, but IMO warranted.

I didnt shoot the 8-16 Sigma but owned the 10-22 and thought it was great, plus it took filters.

I may rent the 100-400L later this year and try it out for a weekend. Does anyone know of a place that rents the Sigma 150-500mm?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 26, 2013 11:10 |  #14

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15757223 (external link)
I bought a new Sigma 150-500. I was slightly disappointed. The color cast was a bit off, compared to my Canon lenses. Also, the lens did not resolve fine detail quite as sharply as I had hoped. If you look at bird images that were taken with this lens, they often (but not always) lack critical sharpness and fine detail. Build quality was also not up to par with the Canon lenses I am used to. For these reasons I returned the lens, and have not regretted doing so. I am sure that the lens is capable of producing nice images when in the right hands, but I certainly don't think it qualifies as the best option out there.

What did you end up choosing Tom? Or are you still looking?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,127 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2387
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Mar 26, 2013 18:54 |  #15

Vboer wrote in post #15755766 (external link)
I have the 150-500 and I'm not happy with it. Not sharp enough unless you go to f/11 or higher.
I would not recommend this lens. Look at a Canon 100-400 instead.

if you shoot stopped down past f11 you'll probably get worse image quality due to diffraction...

waylandcool wrote in post #15757232 (external link)
I may rent the 100-400L later this year and try it out for a weekend. Does anyone know of a place that rents the Sigma 150-500mm?

I don't think there's a spot out there that does...at least not online

I like my 150-500OS...when i bought it it was literally half the price of the canon 100-400L...now the canon has come down in price, and the sigma has gone up in price, so the difference isn't as large

if you have the money for the 100-400mm it's probably the better lens...if you don't the sigma is certainly capable of getting the same shots...it just might take a little more work than the canon.


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,578 views & 0 likes for this thread
Opinions on 2 Sigma lenses
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mstave
1110 guests, 296 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.