Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Bigmos

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5952018
Yeah England are good at that. (I'm Australian BTW).

I hear the 100-400 is difficult to find a sharp version of.

Hey, naughty!!! Lets not talk about the Rugby!!

AlexinS.A. wrote in post #5952120
Hey, naughty!!! Lets not talk about the Rugby!!

I come from the South part of Australia, Rugby isn't popular there.

But to keep on topic...

I went to a shop here in Hong Kong today and the guy hadn't even heard of the 150-500. It wasn't even on his computer (this is Citicall - quite a big chain electronics store in Hong Kong that normally has more lenses/camera stuff than the other 2 big chains here (Fortress and Broadway)).

Maybe I should try in a proper camera shop.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5952018
Yeah England are good at that. (I'm Australian BTW).

I hear the 100-400 is difficult to find a sharp version of.

15 minutes and not lost a wicket. Perhaps if S.A or Aussies find a grannie in their past who once owned an English cat they could qualify to play for England and we might then win something.

edit: Still prefer my 200L with converter when necessary.

Roy P wrote in post #5952194
15 minutes and not lost a wicket. Perhaps if S.A or Aussies find a grannie in their past who once owned an English cat they could qualify to play for England and we might then win something.

edit: Still prefer my 200L with converter when necessary.

Any Australian with any English roots has long since denied it.

200 2.8L?

Would you take the 200 2.8L with converters over the 150-500?


(notice how we're keeping on topic (sort of) mods?!)

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5952241
Any Australian with any English roots has long since denied it.

200 2.8L?

Would you take the 200 2.8L with converters over the 150-500?


(notice how we're keeping on topic (sort of) mods?!)

Seeing some of the results from 150-500 particularly as it has OS could swing me to the Siggy, but at 200 the 200L would always be my choice, I really like this lens.

We have Aussie bowling for us, Pattinson or more usually 'What's his name?"

Please keep this on topic. We're here to see samples...

stephen76 wrote in post #5937010
Last sunday about 4:30 took loads of this memory card was saving just as it went across the moon has been cropped a bit to fill frame...get loads of buzzards round here don't think i'll get the moon there again though..
Happy with lens so far

This is a very good shot. I like it.

evandavies wrote in post #5952374
Please keep this on topic. We're here to see samples...

Yes I agree, keep on topic you guys.

Roy P wrote in post #5952339
Seeing some of the results from 150-500 particularly as it has OS could swing me to the Siggy, but at 200 the 200L would always be my choice, I really like this lens.

We have Aussie bowling for us, Pattinson or more usually 'What's his name?"

Who?

great wooly jeebus!! You guys are AWESOME!!!

I just got mine this afternoon and only had time for smoe test shots but did get one not awful crop at 500mm from about 50-70'. We have a BIG dog show this week starting on Thursday so I am planning on giving this Bigmos a real workout. Good thing my only other two lenses right now are the 10-20 and my 55-250 or else I might need a hand truck!!

Here is the crop of the rose in my neighboor's yard:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

This lens only got 6/10 in Digital Photographer mag.

Any comments?

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5966204
This lens only got 6/10 in Digital Photography mag.

Any comments?

I have had the thing a total of about 5hrs so I dunno if I can offer an opinion. But from some of the test shots I have taken around the house as well as those amazing shots in this thread...easily 8-9/10. Nothing is a 10...so even if it was an 8 I would be thrilled with it as I am now...

I like the weight, it's easier in my hands than a light lens like my 55-250, which thank you very Sigma, much feels like a toothpick now...the zoom ring is stiff like most mention and I do expect it will loosen. It feels about as solid as I could imagine a lens feel.

But, I have never handled other lenses...there is a POTN get together here is SoCal on the 9th. Turns out there is gonna be at least one other of these there...and a LOT of L's...including Dwights monster 400L f/2.8 Still it is gonna be a fun chance to see and hopeully try out a few lenses to develop a better feel for comparison.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5966204
This lens only got 6/10 in Digital Photography mag.

Any comments?

Im planning to get this lens so would be interested in their reasoning for the score.
IQ, build quality, OS function, etc?
cheers

AndrewOz wrote in post #5966548
Im planning to get this lens so would be interested in their reasoning for the score.
IQ, build quality, OS function, etc?
cheers

Seems (from the gist of the article. IQ was the letdown. Not good enough for the price.

Features 7/10
Build Quality 8/10
Performance 8/10 (HSM and focus)
Quality of results 5/10
Value for money 6/10


They said the 50-500 was sharper. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I just want facts.

Small quote:
Quality of results: At shorter focal lengths the sharpness isn't bad, but at medium and long-range zoom settings the image quality is disappointing.

DANG it I just copied a lot of the article here, then for some reason it deleted when I edited... arrghh.

Basically, they said it was a bit hard to focus because of the lack of DOF. But they did 2 sets of tests and both confirmed the image looks "visibly soft" from 250mm-500mm and you should expect better IQ for the price.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5966569
Seems (from the gist of the article. IQ was the letdown. Not good enough for the price.

Features 7/10
Build Quality 8/10
Performance 8/10 (HSM and focus)
Quality of results 5/10
Value for money 6/10

They said the 50-500 was sharper. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I just want facts.

Small quote:
Quality of results: At shorter focal lengths the sharpness isn't bad, but at medium and long-range zoom settings the image quality is disappointing.

DANG it I just copied a lot of the article here, then for some reason it deleted when I edited... arrghh.

Basically, they said it was a bit hard to focus because of the lack of DOF. But they did 2 sets of tests and both confirmed the image looks "visibly soft" from 250mm-500mm and you should expect better IQ for the price.

Thanks for that.
Given the discrepancies seen here on POTN maybe they got a bad one. Certainly most here are happy with theirs or have swapped it for a better example. Buyer beware I think - watch out for the bad ones.

Then, I think they are relying on test charts too much or maybe they didn't focus correctly. Because here is a sample they included with their mag (on a disk) - hope I don't break any rules here.

Seems to me the focus is on the nose/whiskers. Shallow DOF is not the same as "soft"...

DATA:
400D
1/250
f/6.3
500mm
No flash

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

That is a very strange thing for any competent reviewer to write. DOF is not dependent on an individual lens and would be the same for any lens at the same focal length and aperture.

Besides, narrow DOF makes focusing easier because there is a greater difference between focused and unfocused. That is one of the reasons SLR's focus with the aperture at its widest.