Sigma 80-400 OS For $570? Should I?

http://www.keh.com …CC=9&CCC=2&BCL=​&GBC=&GCC=

its missing the hood sadly [Though I might give them a call and find out if i cant get a hood for it somehow...] theres another one in "slightly better" shape with the hood, but its $725...

Anyways heres the thing, I was waiting for PMA hoping for a 50mm f/1.4 MkII, but thats a few months off, and on top of it I was starting to think of getting the Canon 100-400, but it would -really- stretch my budget to nab it right now..a lot more than what I want to be honest...

Basically, I need a general purpose walk around nature lens for birding, flowers and etc [And i keep thinking about it a lot] I'm trying to be "efficient" with my spending and also hopefully get something that extends below my 200 and fills in the gap I currently have....

I know only a couple things about the sigma, for one I know it uses a traditional motor for AF, but its supposedly not that slow [Not as fast as the Canon obviously, but i also never heard "inaccurate" or "hunt happy" in the couple reviews i found...] the OS is supposedly quite good too, at least as good as the Canon, and sharpness is close enough


I understand the hesitation when it came out..but used at $560 from a dealer I trust [And know is conservative with their ratings/has an excellent return policy] Its just tempting me a lot..and at $570 its hardly a bankbuster...i can hold on to the rest of my money and probubly end up with the money if the 50mm f/1.4 Mk II comes out

Only sad part is I know this thing is probubly not the best portrait lens in the world, I'm thinknig i might have to rent something when i go visit this friend of mine [Or use my 200mm prime...i guess i can heheh...or maybe I'll rent the ZE Zeiss from LensRentals] or heck, i could even just try it, Nowone gets anywhere in photography without experimentation :3

So guys, what do you think?

Any thoughts? Anyone? Recommendations?

[QUOTE=KenjiS;7224788]Any thoughts? Anyone? Recommendations?[/quote]

i don't think the lens is that widely owned and what i've heard about the lens hasn't actually been glowing.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=223&sort=7&cat​=37&page=3

me...i'd get a TC for your 200L and save up for the 100-400L .

ed rader

[QUOTE=ed rader;7224841]

KenjiS wrote in post #7224788
Any thoughts? Anyone? Recommendations?[/quote]

i don't think the lens is that widely owned and what i've heard about the lens hasn't actually been glowing.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=223&sort=7&cat​=37&page=3

me...i'd get a TC for your 200L and save up for the 100-400L .

ed rader

Eh, the only bad part is the TC doesnt fill my gap in my system at all whereas this does...and if i was going to get a prime id just nab a 300 or 400 instead of that

And the reviews dont seem that negative to me, they're saying its like the 100-400 with slightly worse AF...but one guy with a 30D said its fast enough for him...and i know my 30D isnt exactly blazingly impressive with focusing [my 200 prime struggles sometimes and is nowhere as quick as it was on my EOS-3, thats expected though

its a tough call really

[QUOTE=KenjiS;7224862]

ed rader wrote in post #7224841
Eh, the only bad part is the TC doesnt fill my gap in my system at all whereas this does...and if i was going to get a prime id just nab a 300 or 400 instead of that

if your goal is to fill a gap relatively cheaply go for it .

ed rader

I personally would do it. I'm sure you could sell it for that if you don't like it.

DDCSD wrote in post #7224884
I personally would do it. I'm sure you could sell it for that if you don't like it.

Probubly, I see them new still going up near $1k...

I'm going to call on monday to ask specifics on it I think..make my decision then

KenjiS wrote in post #7224940
Probubly, I see them new still going up near $1k...

I'm going to call on monday to ask specifics on it I think..make my decision then

My attitude would be that if it is still there, it was meant to be. If it isn't, then it wasn't meant to be.

I've seen some shots taken near the long end, and some have looked better than you might think. The real issue is that the lens appeals to people looking to shoot some BIFs and maybe sports in daylight, but it has a glaring issue:

I think this must surely have turned off those who normally shoot in burst mode.

From what i have heard who owned it..the lens has good IQ its only drawback it does not have HSM motor in it and the focus is a little slower..$570 seems like a decent price. I think though maybe I would look at the 120-400.it has OS and HSM..its not that much more either..about mid $700

05Xrunner wrote in post #7226538
From what i have heard who owned it..the lens has good IQ its only drawback it does not have HSM motor in it and the focus is a little slower..$570 seems like a decent price. I think though maybe I would look at the 120-400.it has OS and HSM..its not that much more either..about mid $700

The 120-400 has some pretty large reliability issues, and its not an EX lens, unlike the 80-400

I dunno, Part of my hesitation stems from the fact that I can barely get out to shoot now because of the temperature and etc, theres just not much use for it right now, I know it will be used in the spring [Most likely a lot] But thats months away and after PMA..and who knows what we might get then

KenjiS wrote in post #7226925
The 120-400 has some pretty large reliability issues, and its not an EX lens, unlike the 80-400

Let me guess your getting that from the lensrental article.
other then that I dont think I have heard many people complain about the lens who owns it. That was also in the very beginning of production. You will def hear from mr ED that its an awful lens and he will regurgitate that article over and over cause unless its canon he looks down on it like its garbage. Personally about the 100-400 I dont feel its worth its price tag. If it was $1000 new then that would be better..the push pull design is kind of annoying.

I had a Sigma 80-400 and didn't have any issues with it. However, after my son bought a Caonn 100-400 and I compared some of my images to his, I decided to upgrade to the Canon. The Canon images are sharper and it handles low light better than the Sigma. Assuming the used copy is a good one, the $570 price is a bargain. I sold my used one for quite a bit more than that.

I haved owned one for several years and like it. It may be a notch below the Canon 100-400, but it was 40% less when I bought mine, so I can live with that.

The only real nit is the AF is relatively slow, if you were after pictures involving rapid movement it might be an issue, but I am happy with mine.

KenjiS wrote in post #7224570
http://www.keh.com …CC=9&CCC=2&BCL=​&GBC=&GCC=

its missing the hood sadly [Though I might give them a call and find out if i cant get a hood for it somehow...] theres another one in "slightly better" shape with the hood, but its $725...

Anyways heres the thing, I was waiting for PMA hoping for a 50mm f/1.4 MkII, but thats a few months off, and on top of it I was starting to think of getting the Canon 100-400, but it would -really- stretch my budget to nab it right now..a lot more than what I want to be honest...

Basically, I need a general purpose walk around nature lens for birding, flowers and etc [And i keep thinking about it a lot] I'm trying to be "efficient" with my spending and also hopefully get something that extends below my 200 and fills in the gap I currently have....

I know only a couple things about the sigma, for one I know it uses a traditional motor for AF, but its supposedly not that slow [Not as fast as the Canon obviously, but i also never heard "inaccurate" or "hunt happy" in the couple reviews i found...] the OS is supposedly quite good too, at least as good as the Canon, and sharpness is close enough

I understand the hesitation when it came out..but used at $560 from a dealer I trust [And know is conservative with their ratings/has an excellent return policy] Its just tempting me a lot..and at $570 its hardly a bankbuster...i can hold on to the rest of my money and probubly end up with the money if the 50mm f/1.4 Mk II comes out

Only sad part is I know this thing is probubly not the best portrait lens in the world, I'm thinknig i might have to rent something when i go visit this friend of mine [Or use my 200mm prime...i guess i can heheh...or maybe I'll rent the ZE Zeiss from LensRentals] or heck, i could even just try it, Nowone gets anywhere in photography without experimentation :3

So guys, what do you think?

05Xrunner wrote in post #7227008
Let me guess your getting that from the lensrental article.
other then that I dont think I have heard many people complain about the lens who owns it. That was also in the very beginning of production. You will def hear from mr ED that its an awful lens and he will regurgitate that article over and over cause unless its canon he looks down on it like its garbage. Personally about the 100-400 I dont feel its worth its price tag. If it was $1000 new then that would be better..the push pull design is kind of annoying.

Yeh thats a hangup for me on the 100-400, i dont like pushpull, at all...

I actually went and spent the money picking up a macro now, the justification is its been so cold out i cant even go out to do anything, theres no birds right now, and i got to go to my local camera store, And they had a 400 f/5.6L in their used department for $950 [Shame i was trying to get something shorter] and a macro lens is lots of fun INSIDE comparatively..[I'll be posting an article shortly bout it]

I gave it a whirl and I was impressed...I might just get one of those, I even took some handheld shots indoors for ****s and giggles

EOS 30D - Canon 400mm f/5.6L - 1/30 - f/5.6 - ISO800