sigma telephoto lenses

[michael23]

hi, i was just wondering if anyone on here has experience with either of these sigma lenses
50-500
150-500
120-400

[Joe stockwell]

ive just bought a 120-400, i really like it, its only downside is the focal length but to be honest, being as clear as it is cropping isnt too much of a problem
below is a shot i took the first day i got it, i havent had a lot of time to really go out with it yet

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3276469935_1cfa3e16e4_o.jpg

but i got it for the sharpness and image stabaliser which works really well,

wheras the 150-500 can be a little soft especialy at 500

i know that there are a few people on here who use the 50-500 so wait and see what they say

[shearwater2002]

I had the Bigma 50-500mm. I had the chance to test it against the Canon 100-400mm and stayed with the Canon.The 50-500 was softer at the edges of every bird shot I took.......
......and of course the Bigma weighs in very heavy.

[michael23]

hi joe, superb shot, certainly looks a very good performer, what camera was it taken on? thanks to shearwater2002 for ur reply, i had been told that once b4, would like to hear other peoples opinions. joe have you used the os yet?

[Joe stockwell]

A canon 30D

that was with the os switched on

Iso 800 (then noise removed)

[Nigel Lindsey]

Hi

I have a 150-500 which I find excellent. The OS is very effective and the magnification fine for my purposes (walk and shoot). In effective it is a good value for money. If you want the quality of a £2K lens spend £2k - for £650 this a very good lens. The website below has some good test images

http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm


Nigel

[Colin Key]

Michael,

I do not know which (Canon?) body you are using (which is an important consideration), but I would be very wary about Sigma lenses - their reputation, if you follow the photographic forums (DPR and FM being the most respected), is not that good.

You also give a list of lenses which are very different and used for different types of bird photography. If you are looking for a lens to give you the best BIF images then you can do no better than the Canon 400 f/5.6.

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/108845882.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/102160345.jpg

The Yellow-legged Gull was taken with the 400 f/5.6 + x1.4TC, the Red-rumped Swallow with the same lens without a TC (both using a 1D MkIII).

Colin

[michael23]

i use a canon 350d, superb shots colin, i will have a look through the forums at dpreview and see whats said.
thanks nigel for the link, will check it out.
joe, what sodtware was used? canons own or adobe?

[Colin Key]

joe, what software was used? canons own or adobe?

I think that Joe is probably using "Neat Image" (I also think he has overdone it a little bit and as a result some detail has been lost from that gorgeous Bullfinch's plumage) - certainly better than the noise reduction tools in either Photoshop Elements (or CS4) or Canon's DPP.

Colin

[Joe stockwell]

thanks colin, no-one else had noticed :wink:

went out again today and managed some nice distant stuff on the loacal lakes

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3285095038_4efc55e5bf_o.jpg

75% crop, to show how quite nice this lens really is

[Colin Key]

Very nice Joe, the right hand bird shows great detail, but I still think your "shadows & highlights" need adjusting a bit.

Out of interest, when you say "75% crop" do you mean that this image is 75% of the original or that you have cropped out 75% of the original? This term "crop" is often used rather "willy nilly" causing some confusion.

Colin

[Kenwin5]

I am using the 150-500. Overall I find the images a little bit soft, and that's frustrating, nevertheless I think it's good value for money. The trouble is that once you're into this bird photography game you always want even better pictures! And too often we expect miracles from our equipment - photos of small birds taken at 50 metres, why aren't they sharp?! For me the 150 - 500 has been a major improvement on the digiscoping I was doing previously, allowing respectable pictures of birds in flight, and good results with hand held shots. If I ever learn to shoot in RAW and edit them properly, maybe I'll be able to satisfy my desire for better quality for a while without further investment!

[michael23]

thanks for the comments guys, i to always expect better than what i get, when i do manage to upgrade lenses, i will be wanting to upgrade my dslr too, im not happy with my 350d as it is inconsistant with what it produces, so more research too be done, plus i might hold out for later on this year to see what canon decide to bring out.

[Joe stockwell]

120-400 still performing brilliantly

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3359663875_a8a90aec52_o.jpg

just wanted to share these, cracking lens when used at F8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3360469762_a7f1125a24_o.jpg

joe

[MichaelF]

cracking lens


Not sure I'd want a camera with a cracked lens :eek:

:laugh:

[Colin Key]

120-400 still performing brilliantly

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3359663875_a8a90aec52_o.jpg

just wanted to share these, cracking lens when used at F8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3360469762_a7f1125a24_o.jpg

joe

Joe,

The bird is the only "cracking" thing here, a very nice Spotted Redshank - the images are "soft" (first one is out of focus) and lack any "sparkle" and have a load of "noise"; I would be interested in the exif data and what PP you have done.

Colin :nah:

[Joe stockwell]

Joe,

The bird is the only "cracking" thing here, a very nice Spotted Redshank - the images are "soft" (first one is out of focus) and lack any "sparkle" and have a load of "noise"; I would be interested in the exif data and what PP you have done.

Colin :nah:

Right first of all, shot no.1 is not out of focus, it may not be pin sharp but what im trying to show is this lens can focus fast, if sat having lunch on a reserve somewhere and a unknown sandpiper sp.flushes by some incoherant dog walker it will focus quick enough to get a decent, detailed shot of the bird in question, Job of the lens number one

secondly yes the bird is cracking... at no point did i say the images were, i dont aim to get stunning shots of birds its just a bonus if i do as most of the time it is while i am out birding, if i spend ages trying to get a money earner (for want of a better term) it takes all the viewing pleasure away. The thing is, what can you depict from shot 2? that i had brilliant and close views of the spotted redshank, thats all that matters to me, and i have captured this. Just out of interest, if you spent £500 and managed to get consistant results would you feel dissapointed? im cirtainly not

Joe

[michael23]

i am very impressed with the results of this lens. you wont better it for its price. unless very lucky!
i agree, too many times i have messed around trying to improve the shot i just took, i am guarenteed to miss a corker of a shot, i remember a buzzard flying 100yds above--i didnt notice until its tail was disappearing behind a tree!, so lesson learned, dont try to be perfect just be happy with what you get.,
Saving time, and talking to the wife of course!:laugh:

[Joe Ray]

Joe,

The bird is the only "cracking" thing here, a very nice Spotted Redshank - the images are "soft" (first one is out of focus) and lack any "sparkle" and have a load of "noise"; I would be interested in the exif data and what PP you have done.

Colin :nah:
Colin, I fail to see how this can be seen as in any way constructive?

Not everyone has the finances/inclination to purchase the most expensive gear available. In what way would you personally improve on these, when using the same lens?

To my eyes (maybe it's my monitor) these shots are not out of focus or 'noisy', neither do they look 'soft'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely not all photos have to be pin-sharp headshots, and I think such tactless criticism is a little out of place here?

Nice images Joe, looks like an excellent lens.

[Simon Wates]

I think this lens is light years more sensitive and much more potent than certain misplaced comments on this thread. Some equipment can get away with blue murder and this is one. On the other hand anyone remember the exact wording of the old saying that means - better a poorer camera in the hands of one with a sympathetic eye than ..... or words to that effect??

With this lens and camera I for one would be overjoyed! Tools of the trade for sure!

Simon

[Kenwin5]

I agree. I think Joe's photos all show this to be a good reliable lens and Joe to be good at using it.
I take photos for three reasons:
1. to ensure I can have time in peace and quiet in front of the computer to make sure I have got the i.d. of the bird right. Particularly as I'm new to birding. Beats trying to remember every detail you saw in the field. I still get some surprises.
2. to try to get that "perfect" model shot like you would want to see in a bird book
3. to try to create more "artistic" pictures with some background, context and "attitude".

To me the least motivating is the second kind, although I do work hatrd at trying to achieve them. I sense a preoccupation with that type of shot in some quarters, and a sort of competitive approach in terms of the perceived quality, sharpness and detail, which is a bit unfortunate considering that all our circumstances and equipment investment opportunities are different.

My preference by far is to try to create the third type of shot. To me they are much more satisfying, and the beauty of the picture is in the overall effect, not in the detail. I'm not very good at them, and I think you have to be very patient and a little bit lucky as well. They will always be the type of picture that I would print and put on the wall, and even my Sigma 150-500 lens is capable of producing them. The 120-400 even more so from what I have seen.

The attached picture of two coots shows what I mean. Everyone who sees it says "Ah, that's a lovely picture", not "That picture's a bit soft".


Ken

[Colin Key]

Colin, I fail to see how this can be seen as in any way constructive?

Not everyone has the finances/inclination to purchase the most expensive gear available. In what way would you personally improve on these, when using the same lens?

To my eyes (maybe it's my monitor) these shots are not out of focus or 'noisy', neither do they look 'soft'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely not all photos have to be pin-sharp headshots, and I think such tactless criticism is a little out of place here?

Nice images Joe, looks like an excellent lens.

Joe R,

I assumed that from Joe S's statement he was putting up those two shots to illustrate how good ("cracking") that lens performs; those photos do not do that. If you look at them in Photoshop you can see that the leading edge of the right wing of the first bird is in focus, the bird itself is not, which is rather surprising at f/8 which should give more DOF. The second shot is soft which may be slight blurr due to camera movement. As I said, I would have liked more info on camera settings, processing, etc.

If an image is excellent, good, O.K., poor or bloody awful then I say so - no point in doing otherwise (but I do not go out of my way to pick on 'orrible shots in order to make some poor sod commit photographic suicide! :eek:). Joe S has produced some excellent shots and I have commended him for them. I have also criticised some of his images, particularly regarding exposure levels.

Joe S is mature enough, and knows me well enough, to not take offence at my comments above. The Spotted Redshank photos are O.K. but they were an unfortunate choice to exemplify the performance of a particular lens, which is how I read the post, rather than the performance of the photographer and his compositional and artistic skills.

Colin :smile:

[Colin Key]

The attached picture of two coots shows what I mean. Everyone who sees it says "Ah, that's a lovely picture", not "That picture's a bit soft".


Ken

Ken,

I would have said: "That's a lovely picture, but it is a bit soft" !!

Colin :wink:

[MichaelF]

I would have said: "That's a lovely picture, but it is a bit soft" !!
Have you measured it with a sclerometer? :ohdear:

[Colin Key]

Have you measured it with a sclerometer? :ohdear:

No, we would have to capture the birds first in order to test the body tissue :ohdear:

I actually would not have used the term "lovely" as an adjective, either - one of my most hated expressions. Nice, innit? :biggrin:

Colin

[Colin Key]

Since the OP (michael23) was initially inquiring about lenses, I have just spent a bit of time on web-searching. (I personally would never touch third party lenses, and my experiences of 'borrowed' Sigma and Tamron lenses have been disastrous). I invite anyone who thinks that the Sigma 120-400 is a good birding lens to Google "Sigma 120-400 reviews".

Not good reading.

Colin :smile: