Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2224 posts, RR: 34 Reply 1, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1891 times:
I can tell you later this year when I've swapped my 80-400 for the new 150-500.
Although the 80-400 is not a top lens in terms of AF speed it is a solid lens for the money and never let me down(unlike the equivalent Canon 100-400 better known as the Dust Pump).
The new 120-400 and 150-500 are basically the same but now equipped with a HSM motor for top notch AF speed, optically they were on par with the Canon anyway and unlike Canon the new price didn't go UP but DOWN which in my logic means you can't go wrong.
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1514 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1876 times:
I've been using Sigma's 170-500 for over a year now, and I am very happy with it.
However, I do find that often I cannot use it, because when you need slower shutter speeds (low light), it becomes just too darn heavy (time to get a monopod, maybe), and - of course - it's too big to fit through fences...
The last shot was taken from our swimming pool on a day when I was just too lazy to go to the airport... love that 500mm capability. At the airport, I often find that even 170mm is too much though.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2224 posts, RR: 34 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1874 times:
Quoting TransIsland (Reply 2): I've been using Sigma's 170-500 for over a year now, and I am very happy with it.
Mike is talking about another lens, no way comparable with the old 135-400 and 170-500 APO series.
The new EX series 120-400 and 150-500 which are follow ups of the 80-400 are stabilized(like the Canon albeit called OS instead if IS) and have no problem with low light(to a certain extend of course).
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1514 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 3): The new EX series 120-400 and 150-500 which are follow ups of the 80-400 are stabilized
I realised that he wasn't talking about the 170-500, but I didn't quite notice all the differences - sorry. I have a Pentax K10D with the built-in SR; I guess that's why I didn't look at the OS in the lens.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
ANITIX87 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 2285 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 3): Mike is talking about another lens, no way comparable with the old 135-400 and 170-500 APO series.
No, it's nothing like the older ones, but I will chime in regardless and say that the old 135-400 is a fantastic lens! I've been using it for a year and am completely in love with it. It's fine in low light is you have a monopod and I've been thrilled with my results. You can't beat it for the money, though I am going to agree with Aviopic that the new 150-500 is far better (though MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE!)
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
OK, so the 150-500 is good and so is the 135-400, but what about the 120-400? I've seen some good reviews but it seems a lot cheaper than both the 150-500 and the 80-400 - does this mean it's quite inferior? Also, I've seen a cheap 135-400 (discontinued I believe) but have read one review that says the 120-400 (its replacement) is far better and that the older lens has serious softness issues above 300mm.
Forgive me, I've no experience with Sigma lenses. I'm looking at a more economical alternative to the Canon EF100-400L, if that helps narrow down what I'm looking for.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2224 posts, RR: 34 Reply 8, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1799 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): OK, so the 150-500 is good and so is the 135-400, but what about the 120-400?
120-400 and 150-500 are the same albeit that the 500 is a bit longer and heavier, don't expect different results though.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): I've seen some good reviews but it seems a lot cheaper than both the 150-500 and the 80-400 - does this mean it's quite inferior?
No it doesn't.
A couple of years ago the 80-400 was Sigma's first and only OS(IS) lens and development costs are paid for you by the current 80-400 owners, like me
The 80-400 is now replaced by 2 new types with HSM added so development costs are lower and so is the price you have to pay for them.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1794 times:
Thanks Aviopic.
One thing that concerns me is that neither the 120-400 nor the 150-500 are EX lenses, and apparently the EX range is the closest Sigma gets to Canon's L series. I notice a large price difference between simple, APO-only lenses (e.g. 120-400 and 150-500) and EX lenses (e.g. 80-400 and 50-500), which obviously indicates the EX ones are superior.
I also read a couple of consumer reviews and I must say the results from the 120-400 weren't startling. The guy concluded that, "This lens is good value for money and you get quite a bit for what you pay, however I have taken mine back to the shop for a refund as it just isn't the kind of quality I'm looking for. It's very soft wide open at 5.6 and doesn't improve too much at F8+. I'll definately be getting the Canon 100-400".
I know it isn't going to be as good as the Canon but if it's really not too far off L standard the price is awfully attractive and you may just get a lot more lens than you paid for. I have looked at the EX range - namely the 50-500 and 80-400 - but the price they're at I may as well pay the (insignificant) extra and get the Canon.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2224 posts, RR: 34 Reply 10, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1790 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): Also, I've seen a cheap 135-400 (discontinued I believe) but have read one review that says the 120-400 (its replacement) is far better and that the older lens has serious softness issues above 300mm.
Sorry forgot some of your questions.
Personally I would not go for the 135-400 eventhough you can get it cheap.
I've used it for some time but never really liked it although sharpness never was a problem but it is slow and in less then perfect light it doesn't focus at all.
Afaik the 135-400 is like the 170-500(they are the same series) not discontinued but they belong the the consumer line of Sigma(non EX......like Canon L and non L) and are therefor cheap.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): Forgive me, I've no experience with Sigma lenses. I'm looking at a more economical alternative to the Canon EF100-400L, if that helps narrow down what I'm looking for
In my opinion you can't go wrong with the 120-400 or if affordable 150-500 compared to the price you have to pay for the equivalent 100-400, even if you are disappointed with the performance(which I don't expect) there will always be someone happy to take it over from you.
Lenses don't loose their value very much so in a worst case scenario it might cost you 50 buck or so.
I have been using the Sigma 170-500 for about 9 years before I got the new 150-500, but compared to the newer one the old Sigma was crap.
I have to say that the 150-500 is quite a heavy lens. Once you have bought it you needn't go to a gym. With OS Mode 2 I'm not happy at the moment, as there is some sharpness missing. I don't know if the exposure was too long or the OS is the reason. I have to try that out. But OS Mode 1 works perfect and I like it very much. With f-stop 6.3 the quality is good, with f-stop 8 it great. I made a shot using a tripod and f-stop 8 and that one is as sharp as a shot with my Nikon 2.8/80-200.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2224 posts, RR: 34 Reply 13, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9): One thing that concerns me is that neither the 120-400 nor the 150-500 are EX lenses, and apparently the EX range is the closest Sigma gets to Canon's L series.
This amazed me aswell, the 80-400 does belong to the EX series although I thought it should not because it lacks HSM.
Now they've corrected that by adding HSM and removed EX from it, it puzzles me.
Still I am going to swap my 80-400 in favor of the 150-500, EX or not.
Quoting Viv (Reply 12): Since I destroyed my 80-400 this morning (30 foot drop onto concrete) this Sigma lens looks very interesting!!!
It does take some effort to destroy it
For your next expiriment I have a working AMX tank here and since you need another camera anyway we might put your old in front of a track and see what happens.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9):
I know it isn't going to be as good as the Canon but if it's really not too far off L standard the price is awfully attractive and you may just get a lot more lens than you paid for. I have looked at the EX range - namely the 50-500 and 80-400 - but the price they're at I may as well pay the (insignificant) extra and get the Canon.
Any further advice much appreciated!
Cheers,
The 50-500 is a pretty good lens, but it's not without problems. For example, at 500mm - the vignetting is quite bad. I can correct that easily enough. And in low light, it is difficult to work with. For that, I'm getting a monopod. However, my 50-500 is suffering from the crackle finish peeling off. It has only just started - but I know it happens to others, because I've seen that happen before. Other than that, no problems to report.
The Canon 100-400L is a great lens, a photographer at work has one of those and she gets great images out of it. The IS makes the difference. I get great images out of the 50-500 as well, but the lack of IS/OS/VR feature makes it a bit more difficult.
Celestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
In Taiwan, I recently had a chance to try the 150-500 zoom lens of my friend for an afternoon of photo shooting - near the airport of course. I originally have high hope as I am an avid plane-spotter. The OS did not function like the Nikon or Cannon. First, you do not see the picture 'frozen' when OS is activated. Unlike Nikon or Canon, you can physically see the stablization at works. Lacking this feeling do make shooter feel uneasy when depressing the shuttle. I noticed, and since it was a windy day, the zoom perform badly with OS with lens hood on, well, since the sun was coming behind me, I later disengage the hood and image quality becomes better! I thought OS is supposed to prevent that!
Quality of image, not so good at long range 500mm (750mm on APS) I particularly do not like the fact that the zoom ring interfere with the focusing ring. You lost that focus. Sigma should fix this issue. I was going to replace my Nikon 70-300 VR but with the testing, I have second thoughts. Interesting enough, I also used the 70-200 Sigma 2.8 zoom, at the same long range, the 70-200 really shines! I think Sigma is a great company but if you are shooting mostly long range, this lens need further investigation before purchasing this. Just my opinion. Hope this helps!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
Well, having read reviews and comments I've removed the Sigma 120-400 and the 150-500 from my wish-list. For what we do I can really see some serious quality issues cropping up. You get what you pay for and these were temptingly cheap but in the end I guess that was the give-away!
The 80-400 and 50-500 are still in favour, however, with many a good review covering both. And of course the Canon 100-400L - the daddy - is still very much top of my list.
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2007, 21 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2224 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1514 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2000, 339 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 2325 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 103 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 61 posts, 
