Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM

[Sylvie_h]

Hi,

I am looking to buy a new lense by the end of the year. I have a Sigma 300mm f/4 at the moment but it is getting old and there is mould growing inside the lens and on the optic. It does not affect the quality of the picture yet. I've had it for 15 years and I feel that it is not going to last for ever.
A zoom lens is quite attractive. The Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM is within my budget and could maybe be a good choice for photographing birds, dragonflies and butterflies. However, I wonder if somebody in this forum could shed some light on this lens regarding its weight , easy of use in the field, autofocus performance, optical stabilisation performance and quality of the picture.
I have read many reports and one excellent report (and totally unbiased) stated that it was soft at 400mm but at other focal length it was performing as well as its rival Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS, although the latter was performing a lot better at 400mm (I would hope so considering its price).
Any ideas or suggestions as regards to this?
Sylvie

[Rogerdodge]

I have no experience of this Sigma lens.
However, I do use a Canon 100-400, and it is really superb - as you say sharp at the long end. This is pretty significant as a study I read years ago showed that 80% of all photos taken with telephoto zoom lenses were taken at the long end of the zoom.

The point of this post is - hold your horses.

There are very very strong rumours of a replacement for the Canon 100-400 this year.
It is rumoured to be a two ring type (not the push pull dust pump as at present), may be a little faster at the 100, but, most significantly, it will have the present generation IS and coatings.

Price? Who knows. It won't be cheaper than the 100-400, but it won't be a "sell a kidney" lens either I reckon. Probably a little north of £2,000.

However - it may mean you can pick up good second hand 100-400s at reasonable prices?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/cano ... -2012-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/tag/100-400/

[Paul Wetton]

Hi Sylvie

I have a Sigma 120-400mm lens which I use for bird photography and I also use it on my Canon XL2 video camera. The lens performs very well on both the still camera and the video camera. I have performed comparisons against a Canon 100-400mm and found the Sigma to be very similar. As you say it does become very slightly soft at the 400mm end but with post processing this is not a problem. I think you'll find all zooms to lose some sharpness at both ends of the scale.

The lens is fairly heavy but not more than the Canon version and the OS performs well but is a little noisy (not a problem, as it's never scared anything away). Just remember to switch mode if holding still or panning and switch off when on a tripod as it makes the photo less sharp if the OS is on when the camera is on a tripod.

The first lens I ordered from Warehouse Express was a little soft but they replaced it for me free of charge. I then found that a filter I had purchased softened the picture so now only use Hoya pro digital filters.

One thing I found was that it seems to focus behind the subject (back focus) a little when for example photographing hairstreaks in trees. I would therefore, not recommend this lens for butterflies unless using an extension tube.

In summary good for birds at distance not so good for butterflies but each lens is different so I would go and have a play with one in a shop on your camera with a card in and check the photos at home. I like the lens but also have a Sigma 150mm macro for close up work.

I know I've waffled on a bit but I hope this all helps your decision. P.S. have you thought about the 150-500mm which is not much heavier.

[Sylvie_h]

Thank you both for your reply. It has been useful.
Roger,
I have tested the Canon 100-400mm and it is an excellent lense. The only thing I am not sure I can get used to is the 'push and pull pump'.
I have small hands and find it difficult to move (or is it just something I need to get used to?). Interesting to know the rumors about Canon and I will certainly look out for the older version when the new one comes on the market.

Paul,
Thank you for your report. It is good to know that another person is happy with this lense. It is always hard to decide and I will need to test it when I go into a shop (although I may not be able to test it on butterflies....). Did you try the lens with a teleconverter? I would be interested to know as I have both sigma TC 1.4EX and 2.0EX DG. Do you use this lense at 400mm for other species than birds? When you say "One thing I found was that it seems to focus behind the subject (back focus) a little when for example photographing hairstreaks in trees" I had also problems with the autofocus on the canon lens when trying it on vegetation and in good light, I had to switch to manual focus.
The Sigma 150-500mm is not a lense I wish to buy, I'd rather have less focal lenght but more light.
Sylvie

[Marc Heath]

I Had the Sigma lens you talk about and used it with a Canon 400d. A good lens although quite weighty I thought. I changed for a Canon f4 300mm lens which simply put the Sigma in the shade, the quality of the Canon being obvious in the shots taken. If you have the money I would go with the Canon lenses, just personal opinion though.

Marc

[MikeOxon]

I would tend to agree with Marc, especially since you say you'd rather have less focal length but more light. A 'prime' will usually beat a zoom for image quality any day and provide a wider aperture.

The comments about needing to 'select' a good Sigma lens are often made and suggest to me that their quality control is somewhat lacking. Lenses are more important than your camera, so don't buy second-best. Also, as Paul says, avoid cheap filters, as these also adversely affect image quality, especially on fast tele lenses.

Mike

[Gruditch]

There are quite a few affordable options out there Syilve, I would have a closer look at several lenses before buying.

Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6 os £629, I used the older version 80-400 I think, wasn't impressed, but I believe that this latest version is much better, and it is the cheapest option.

Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 os £719, I had the rubbish old 170-500, but judging buy the bird images that Frank Zonda knocks out with this new lens, its bl@@dy good. http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankinzon ... 964617549/

Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 os £949 this is the replacement for the legendary Bigma, so it must be good. I used Rogers old Bigma for 4 days, it didn't really click with me, but that was probably because he was walking around with a 500mm prime.

Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3 £811 Must admit I've never even seen anyone with this lens before, but its an option.

Canon 300 f4 is £1099 fantastic lens, a joy to use, sharp a tack, and still pretty good with a x1.4 fitted.

Canon 400 f5.6 £1049 I only had a brief play with one of these, equal in every way to the 300 prime, but no image stabilisation.

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is £1169 I personally like the push pull zoom. there are reports of the odd duff model getting past quality control, but for the most part they are super sharp.

If I were only after a birding lens, I would probably go for the Sigma 50-500. But as you say you are thinking of using the lens for Butterflies and Dragonflies, I would go for the lighter Canon 100-400. With the 25mm Canon extension tube fitted, its great.

But as you said you have small hands, I'm guessing you may be more suited to a lighter lens. The Canon 300 f4 which also works great with the tube, is the lightest, and must to be the sharpest lens of the bunch, the build quality is also probably the best, the built in lens hood is genius. Fit a x1.4 converter and your up to 420mm at f5.6. I agree with Marc, and Mike, you should give this lens some serious consideration.

Kind Regards Gruditch

[Sylvie_h]

Thank you very much for your replies which have been useful.
Does anybody know whether I can fit the Sigma teleconverters with the canon 300mm f/4 or the Canon 100-400mm?
I have been looking through the internet but some people say 'no' and others 'yes'. I know that the Canon T/C only work with the L series so I guess my Sigma T/C will work with these lenses but may give an inacurate reading.
Sylvie

[Gruditch]

Unless you have a 1 series Canon Body, 1D mk2, 1Ds mk3 etc, then the following should apply. The x1.4 Sigma TC will work with the Canon 300 F4, and you will retain AF, the x2 TC will fit but you will loose AF. With the 100-400 both TCs will fit but you will lose AF.

Regards Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

I have a Canon fit, Sigma EX 1.4x Teleconvertor surplus to requirements.
I have only used it a handful of times.
A reasonable offer will be accepted.
p.m. me if interested (any one - not just Sylvie)

It goes on E-Bay in a week if not sold previously.......

Cheers

[Sylvie_h]

Thank you very much Gruditch for the information on the Sigma TCs' compatibility with Canon L lenses. This is good news as I now can look at buying a Canon lense without having to buy the Canon TC to go with it.
Just another question: if I fit a Canon 25mm extension tube with the 300mm f/4, what would be the minimal focusing distance from the subject ? What kind of magnification would I get? Would I loose any light? Sorry for all these questions, I have never used extension tubes before so don't really know how they work.
Thank you,
Sylvie

[Gruditch]

Not sure what magnification you get, no doubt JKT could tell you. But it will enable you to get some nice diffused backgrounds. Yes you will loose a little light, I think the minimum working distance is around 34" from the end of the lens.


Clive uses this lens for all his bird work, and with tube attached for all his butterfly work.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clive_sandel/

Regards Gruditch

[MikeOxon]

You'll find loads of data about Canon lenses with close up lenses and extension tubes at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm

For the 300f4 with 25mm tube he states:

TABLE 8: MAGNIFICATION (x), FOCUSING DISTANCES & WORKING DISTANCES WITH
EXTENSION TUBE EF25

Lens------------------| Mag. |Focusing Distances | Working Distances
------------------------| (x) | (mm) | (mm)
-----------------------|--------- |------------------ |-------------------
EF300mm f/4L USM | 0.24~0.09 | 1661~3925 | 1385~3649

(afraid the table doesn't come across too well but you can see where the columns should be)
I assume that focusing distance is from the sensor plane to the subject and working distance is from the front of the lens to the subject.

Mike

[Sylvie_h]

Thank you Mike and Gruditch for all your advice and website links. This will help me to make a decision.
Sylvie