Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 feedback?

I was pretty set on getting the Canon 100-400, but after looking around I see I can get either the Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM or the 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM for about $700 cheaper than the Canon.

I realize that these will be 9-to-5 plenty-of-sunshine lenses, but I can not think of a situation where I would use a telephoto in low-light situation. I will also buy local and test the lens at the store so initial quality should not be an issue at this point. They are both the same weight (heavy) so that won't be a factor in choosing one or the other.

Anyone who owns any of them could give me some feedback? And even if you don't own them, I would more than welcome suggestions/speculatio​ns/advice. Thanks!

i own the 150-500OS...it's a good lens, you pretty much nailed the problems with it...big/heavy/slow lens...but when used in the right circumstances it can produce some great shots(check out the sample archives)... https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=5148​46&page=50

i don't know much about the 120-400OS, i felt i needed the extra reach of the 500mm, but here's a comparison of the two lenses, plus the 100-400L, and bigma...
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …20-400_150-500_50-500.htm
the differences between the L, and the sigma weren't worth the extra money to me, but I'm on a smaller budget than many around here

AF does slow down a bit if there's not enough sunlight (i.e., deep in the woods, after sunset, etc), but it's still decent in cloudy days. Otherwise, a stellar lens to me (except the OS kind of died on me last weekend). Also, I don't find it heavy at all; the lens is handholdable. The weight is quite balance compare to 100-400, which is quite front-end heavy. However, a lens last you many years, and if you don't want headaches with future body compatibility, I would go with the 100-400. Anyway, if you're interested in example photos, I'm sure you can search for the 150-500, you will see some of my example photos.

All great shots! I know it's plenty of skill and out of my reach for now, at least it shows a great glass.
And i was watching the video on the sigma site- the girl was flipping this lens like it was nothing. I'm sure if a girl can manage the weight I should be able too

I also have the 50-500 and like it. The 150-500 gets good reviews and the OS is a big add. I have had one in my hands once and even on the camera for a bit and it is very similar in size and appearance to the 50-500. I'd trade my 50-500 for the 150-500 OS and never look back.

I've had the 150-500 for a couple of years, it's a great lens, it's only a 1/3 stop slower than the Canon so not worth losing sleep over, IQ is comparable, it's only disadvantage is the Canon is lighter, but then so would be your wallet. The OS system is awesome and far better than the Canon, I carry mine round for a few hours when out birding without problems.

This ones a bit of a crop

Returned my 120-400 OS after just one day. Never got sharp enough for me.

gasrocks wrote in post #12232438
Returned my 120-400 OS after just one day. Never got sharp enough for me.

May I ask if you tried a replacement? From what I've read there is a high percentage of duds out of the box with Sigma...

It seems like the 150-500 will be what I'd go for and use the $700 I'll save on other gear I usually don't go looking for wildlife, there is plenty in my front yard and we go camping quite often, so the weight should not be an issue, as long as I don't have to use tripod all the time.

Thanks to all that pitched in, you certainly changed my mind Beautiful photos all around.

It also appears that you can use the TC with the 150-500. Anyone tried going down this road?

atlrus wrote in post #12232526
It also appears that you can use the TC with the 150-500. Anyone tried going down this road?

I did. I use a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x on mine all the time. Taped, it will try to Autofocus (note I said TRIED ... didn't say WILL DO)
Sharpness takes a hit, but the results are totally usable if you don't crop much.

A sample (though not a good one):

500mm, f/8

Alex_Venom wrote in post #12232901
I did. I use a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x on mine all the time. Taped, it will try to Autofocus (note I said TRIED ... didn't say WILL DO)
Sharpness takes a hit, but the results are totally usable if you don't crop much.

A sample (though not a good one):

500mm, f/8

500mm @ f/8 + 1.4x

No PP done. SOOC.

I like that, I may just grab 1.4x with the money I'd be saving
Thanks for taking the time to post the pics

The 120-400OS has been in my kit for quite some time. It is a great lens for the money. I got it because takes 77mm filters and is lighter and cheaper than its big brother.

My use for the lens is primarily raiload photography and it is very sharp when stopped down one stop on distant subjects. AF on close subjects is more hit and miss at longer focal lengths. Some of the newer glass has floating elements to correct this, maybe the 120-400 doesn't (don't know for sure).

Interestingly, the 77mm Canon 500D Close Up filter works great with the Sigma all the way out to 400mm. The lens is great fun with the close up filter installed and is very sharp.

The Sigma OS isn't smooth like my Canon lenses. It is a bit jerky when it locks on. It is very effective stabilization though, just not as refined as other lenses in my bag.

Build quality seems to be very high and the hood and case is included. For a time Sigma offered a warranty extension (not sure if they still do) for those that registered their lens. Mine went from 1 yr (non EX) to 4 years! Take that Canon.

I do not think they designed the 500 close-up lens to work with 400mm. I'd think you'd be much better off just using a short ext. tube. Doesn't the 120-400 have a short MFD already by itself?

gasrocks wrote in post #12233514
I do not think they designed the 500 close-up lens to work with 400mm. I'd think you'd be much better off just using a short ext. tube. Doesn't the 120-400 have a short MFD already by itself?

I've tried a 12mm ext tube with the Sigma and wasn't nearly as impressed. The 500D Close up basically lets the parent lens focus at 1/2 meter. Longer focal length just means more magnification for that focus distance. The 120-400 / 500D combination works very well for me. It was a pleasant surprise, that's why I mentioned it earlier. It allows some nice working distance too. Another reason it was mentioned is that for someone looking at the 120-400 vs the 150-500, the 77mm threads of the smaller lens are usually an advantage. In the case of the 500D Close up, 77mm is the largest size Canon makes, so I wouldn't be able to have this close up fun with the 150-500 due to its 86mm threads.

I dunno, the 120-400mm already has a pretty nice min. focus distance. It's also lighter and much more compact. And faster. I'd suggest going and perusing the sample images threads here on potn. I personally didn't have a good experience with a 150-500mm (I returned it). However, others really like it (copy variation maybe).

Since you can go try them, you should go do that. Make sure they focus properly on things both close and far, and if you find one that is super sharp and that you love, don't second guess yourself, grab it.

If you do have the money, I'd highly recommend looking at the 100-400mm L and the Sigma 50-500mm OS though. The 120-400 and 150-500 are good values but imho the sharpness can't match up to the 100-400L. That's my opinion, some will disagree, which is fine. They can produce great images, though. I really felt like the 50-500mm OS was a cut above the lower priced models and that it was much sharper at 500mm than the 150-500mm OS. (Again, my opinion and personal experience, that's all). It wasn't as sharp as the 100-400L, but was quite good and the range is O.o joygasm inducing. Plus it focuses extremely closely. And has really really good stabilization--which may far outweigh the slight sharpness advantage of the 100-400L depending on your use. Anyway, check out the lenstip.com reviews of those four lenses, I find that the accurately reflect reality, except for the stabilization effectiveness.