rate these long lenses - too many to choose from

richard plumb · 29-04-2009, 10:08 AM

Looking at getting a long lens again - in hindsight I probably shouldn't have sold my 100-400L (especially now the prices have shot up).

Sigma seem to have a few long ones that seem to overlap, hence some confusion on my part.

Was looking at:

- sigma 120-400 OS
- sigma 150-500 OS
- sigma 50-500 (not OS but EX glass)
- Canon 100-400 L IS

any others in that kind of range? Could people that have owned one or more give their comments? I'm trying to get an idea of price Vs performance. The canon is a lot more than any of the sigmas. The 150-500 OS is about half the price, only about half a stop slower on the long end, but 100mm longer.

I recognise that most of the time you get what you pay for, but I'm no pro, so maybe the more affordable lenses will be just fine for occasional airshow/motorsport use, maybe a bit of wildlife. It won't be a main lense most likely

anthony566 · 29-04-2009, 10:54 AM

Richard I have just picked up the 50-500mm APO EX and I love it I like you will not use this all the time but I wanted to get one lens that would give me a long reach but cover as much range as possible. Im going to use it in anger this weekend as i have only played around with it so far but I did get some good feedback from AV users on this lens I started a Thread here :-

http://www.avforums.com/forums/digit...-3-ex-apo.html

the only minus to this lens is its size & weight....

and on APS-C this works out at 75-750mm

jenufa · 29-04-2009, 11:00 AM

A good copy of the Canon 100-400 L IS for me is the one.

Fleabay have a few 2nd hand going with this one looking interesting.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-100-4...1%7C240%3A1318

Mike.P® · 29-04-2009, 11:13 AM

Skip the 120-400mm (I have the predecessor 135-400mm and it gives reasonable but not great results. The new 150-500mm is better but again softish at extreme lengths (tried one when looking at 50-500mm). Can't say anything about the Canon but I just got a 50-500mm and took it to Marwell last week where it performed very well. Thread here.

bren-escape · 29-04-2009, 7:14 PM

I have the 50-500mm and really like it. I had the 135 -400mm before and got some reasonable shots.

[IMGLINK]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f391/bren110/Chrisleadingthewayweb.jpg[/IMGLINK]
[IMGLINK]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f391/bren110/Chriswalkerweb.jpg[/IMGLINK]

An option could be changing your 70-200 F4 for the F2.8 and getting an extender?

richard plumb · 29-04-2009, 7:56 PM

didn't get on with the 70-200 2.8 IS. Tried it when buying my f4, and it was too heavy for general use for me. The 100-400 was about the same weight but that was ok as it only came out with me when I knew I'd need it.

how heavy is the 50-500?

Mike.P® · 29-04-2009, 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard plumb

how heavy is the 50-500?

Just under 2Kg.
It will also take the 1.4x teleconverter using manual focus.

richard plumb · 29-04-2009, 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike.P®

Just under 2Kg.
It will also take the 1.4x teleconverter using manual focus.

ouch! canon 100-400 was only about 1300g. Quite a difference. Do you handhold or use a tripod/monopod?

Mike.P® · 29-04-2009, 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard plumb

ouch! canon 100-400 was only about 1300g. Quite a difference. Do you handhold or use a tripod/monopod?

Hand held, I have both a monopod and tripod but just cant seem to train myself into actually taking them with me anywhere.

Kay-Jay · 05-05-2009, 7:15 PM

I have a Sigma 50-500mm, it's amazing. Took it to South Africa with me & the shots were incredible. The range is fantastic.
With regard to weight, it is on the heavy side for a lens, but I'm a girl with not very muscular arms & I hand hold fine and can wander around with it for a few hours & it isn't much of a strain.