Opinions on 2 Sigma lenses

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?

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

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).

waylandcool wrote in post #15754433
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.

waylandcool wrote in post #15754433
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.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

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.

Another vote for the 150-500, great lens

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

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.

DC Fan wrote in post #15755666
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.

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

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

| 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.

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.

Sirrith wrote in post #15755377
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)

cputeq007 wrote in post #15756702
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?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15757223
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?

Vboer wrote in post #15755766
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
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.