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

BurBunny wrote in post #5982109
Must be! And this is the more feminine version, too. It got changed waaay back around 1990 because my original screen name on the old CIS CB was misinterpreted by the Channel 33 gay men... (LONG story)

Ninja, hope you know this is all in good fun. Appreciate the compliment and happy to get it. Regardless of what gender is ascribed! After all, it's a higher compliment that you thought they were taken by a man, right?

::: running from all the sisters who should *know* I'm really kidding now :::

I'm terribly offended.

Don't worry, I'm not American, I understand sarcasm. According to Family Guy only only foreign guys get it.

Oh an of course I assumed a man would be photographing that photo. I mean what WOMAN would have the guts to photograph a FLY! I mean they're DIRTY!

I sound like I'm joking, but seriously, I am really offended. I hate you all.

test ends here.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5982107
The term "dudette" is sexist IMHO.

TOTALLY agree! Anything "ette" is a diminutive. Just call me Dudess

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5982128
I'm terribly offended.

:kiss:

BurBunny wrote in post #5982143
TOTALLY agree! Anything "ette" is a diminutive. Just call me Dudess



:kiss:

Arrghh girl's germs (cooties as you'd call it ).

A dudess kissed me... arrghhhh...

I am only 8 years old tonight.

Amber can be a boys name right?!

Anyway, I always pull threads off track for some reason. Back to the 150-500.

Worth it over the 100-400? Which one is better for "birding".

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5982128
Oh an of course I assumed a man would be photographing that photo. I mean what WOMAN would have the guts to photograph a FLY! I mean they're DIRTY!

Ah, now I understand the confusion. You saw the underwater photographer in my sig and knew I *had* to be a man. No WOMAN would get all wet and sticky to get a picture.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5982151
Anyway, I always pull threads off track for some reason. Back to the 150-500.

Worth it over the 100-400? Which one is better for "birding".

The only hesitation I'd have about this for birding is the (hopefully only initially) tightish zoom ring. I do think that with a long, heavy lens, the push pull zoom is easier for moving critters, since if you have the tension set correctly, you can easily adjust and hold zoom with even your little finger while still holding fairly steady. A bit more difficult to adjust to an in-flight change of distance with the 150-500. But the extra reach is perfect for birding, and "George" will be taking lots and lots of pics of flightless water birds, I can assure you!

BurBunny wrote in post #5982210
Ah, now I understand the confusion. You saw the underwater photographer in my sig and knew I *had* to be a man. No WOMAN would get all wet and sticky to get a picture.



The only hesitation I'd have about this for birding is the (hopefully only initially) tightish zoom ring. I do think that with a long, heavy lens, the push pull zoom is easier for moving critters, since if you have the tension set correctly, you can easily adjust and hold zoom with even your little finger while still holding fairly steady. A bit more difficult to adjust to an in-flight change of distance with the 150-500. But the extra reach is perfect for birding, and "George" will be taking lots and lots of pics of flightless water birds, I can assure you!

You can use the Sigma as a push pull zoom. Just grab the barrel and push/pull. I prefer a zoom ring, especially if tripod or monopod mounted as I tend to rest my left hand on top of the barrel.

In2Photos wrote in post #5982232
You can use the Sigma as a push pull zoom. Just grab the barrel and push/pull. I prefer a zoom ring, especially if tripod or monopod mounted as I tend to rest my left hand on top of the barrel.

True, though when handholding, not as easily as with the 1-4... unless you have *much* larger hands than I do.

But, with the weight of this lens compared to the 1-4, I'll probably be using a monopod more often, at which point either will be pretty easy.

I found an area near where I live (a small park). I can hear the darn bird, but spotting the little blighters was a pain in the.... you know what (ladies present, don't want to "offend" them).

200mm is way to short for it. This lens (150-500) seems like something I could afford one day.

Scared of non-sharp 100-400 copies (heard a lot of stories).

BurBunny wrote in post #5982256
True, though when handholding, not as easily as with the 1-4... unless you have *much* larger hands than I do.

But, with the weight of this lens compared to the 1-4, I'll probably be using a monopod more often, at which point either will be pretty easy.

So it's OK for a man then?!

Sorry couldn't resist. I love women, I use to be one.

Then I got that Y chromosome.

how good would you guys say this lens is for surf photography?

I think it should do well for surf shots as there is usually plenty of light and the surfers aren't going too fast.

I've updated the 150-500 examples: http://www.pbase.com/e​vandavies/sigma_vs_can​on
For my particular copies the 150-500 is a tiny bit sharper than the Canon at 400mm and then gets a bit softer at 500mm.
Sofar I like the 150-500 and it will probably replace my 100-400.

I can't understand why people don't like push-pull. Its so much easier than trying to twist the lens off its mount.

BurBunny wrote in post #5982143
:kiss:

omg, this is getting to be enough to make a cat puke.... :::smooches::: is far more appropriate....

azneric3 wrote in post #5983131
how good would you guys say this lens is for surf photography?

DUDE! Like, you should totally get out in those gnarly waves and take some closeups with a 10-22mm dude. Like that'd be totally gnarly.

Check this out dude:
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=n-5F_7DwPpo



I actually lol'd.

azneric3 wrote in post #5983131
how good would you guys say this lens is for surf photography?

I took some the other day. I will try and post a few tomorrow - I thought a few turned out pretty good. The bad ones can be fully blamed on the lens and the camera - not the photographer - I think I last shot surfers 25 years ago - so I am in great practice

Actually I thought the lens worked well - nice lens hood and good AF. I will post a few good ones tomorrow.

Thanks
Ed

Got mine yesterday. Took it out and about for an hour or so and managed to get a few initial impressions of it which are similar to those posted already by other users:

A touch soft wide open, but sharpens nicely at f8. It gets less sharp towards 500mm, but it's still VERY useable (for me at least...). OS works very well and I can get sharp shots right down to 1/100th if I'm careful. Panning mode works well also. Focus speed is not the fastest, but it holds its own. Carrry it around for a while and your arms ache

Some samples..............

So far I'm very pleased with it. Just the right mix of cost, flexibility and quality to make it very good value I reckon.

azneric3 wrote in post #5983131
how good would you guys say this lens is for surf photography?

I have used it for Surf Shots and here is a link. All taken with Sigma 150-500 OS except the last shot taken with Canon 70-300IS. All the Sigma shots were taken in very poor conditions as it is winter here and weather pretty foul (except again for last shot taken on a rare nice day).http://good-times.webshots.com/alb​um/563863023WXowEH

Well, any fault I have with the 150-500 is with the photographer making the right choices. Like I should pay more attention to my ISO settings.

First up--at 3200 ISO, 500mm @ f6.3, 1/60s, OS on, handheld (1DM3)--a Florida red-bellied woodpecker fledgling. The first image is full-frame, the second a crop. CS3 smartsharpening only.

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

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