Sigma 80-400 OS

I've been considering a Sigma 80-400 lens for my Canon 10D. I own a

28-70 EX and it takes great shots. My only complaint is the noisy

focusing motor (not hsm). I've read umpteen reviews of this 80-400

and it seems it's beating out the Canon equivalent in the reviews for

picture quality, sometimes by a lot. Has anyone heard any "rumors"

that Sigma plans to make this an HSM model? About the only complaint

of this lens in the reviews is the noisy focusing motor. I assume

it's the same one that's in my 28-70 and it's definitely noisy. If

this lens had HSM I think it would be perfect for my purpose. I've

been eyeing it for nearly a year thinking Sigma might release it as an

HSM model, but so far no dice.

 

Thoughts/Opinions?

Who (besides Sigma) knows what Sigma is likely to do? But I would be surprised if they

remodeled the 80-400 OS into an HSM version so soon after its introduction. The one

'review' of this lens that

I saw, in Popular Photography, was not particularly flattering at the 400 mm end. The

general impression of PopPhoto's lens reviews is that they are .... generous? optomistic?

inflated? so any time they aren't really enthusiastic, it's cause for concern. Then again,

there is probably sample variation so any one test -- favorable or otherwise -- should be

regarded with some skepticism. If you can, buy from a vendor with a good return policy,

test your lens immediately, and if it doesn't measure up, return it.

 

IMO, the price difference between the Sigma 80-400 and the Canon 100-400 isn't

enormous, and the Canon (besides having USM focus) is very probably better built and

won't have

as much likelihood of future compatability problems. So I'd recommend the Canon.

YMMV.

<p>As the previous response said, nobody other than Sigma knows what unannounced plans Sigma may have. I'd also guess that they are not planning to add HSM to this lens; if they wanted it to be an HSM lens, they'd have made it so in the first place. I'm surprised they didn't, actually.</p>

Well, we never know until we try for ourselves.

I think that Sigma is a very good piece of glass indeed (I have posted couple of reviews in the past).

If I am not mistaken, the DG version should be available soon. The DG treatment appears to work very well on Sigma's 24-70/2.8 and 50-500 lenses. So, the 80-400 may as well benefit.

My copy appears to be very good, I have no complaints.

 

No HSM, true...which makes it quite a bit slower than Canon 100-400 when there is not too much light. In good light it focuses quick, particularly on a good camera (I use 1V).

 

Anyway, in my limited experience all complaints about long lenses being soft at the long end at least partially are due to incorrect technique. This is not to say that all long zooms are sharp at the long end, that would be a nonsense.

But I am consistently getting better and better results with my Sigma 80-400: tripod, MLU, reducing tripod shake by holding it down firmly...and guess what, pictures are getting sharper and sharper.

And how do we attach pictures to the posts this days ? Something has changed again ?

<I>But I am consistently getting better and better results with my Sigma 80-400: tripod,

MLU, reducing tripod shake by holding it down firmly...</i><P>

 

It seem to me that by doing so, you are largely defeating what is probably the main

purpose

of stabilization, which is (in

part) to

permit better <I><B>hand-held</i></b> image-making by freeing oneself from the

constraints of a tripod. Yeah, I know.... stabilization helps with a tripod (I would be much

worse off without it with my 500 IS). But much of the utility a lens like the 80-400 (or the

100-400 IS) is its portability... and if you have to resort to MLU, you're going to deal with

the added inconvenience of MLU in the best of circumstances, and there will be

<I><B>serious</i></b>

problems in photographing anything that moves.

Thanks to all who responded. My thoughts were that maybe someone had read an article on "soon to be released" equipment that I might have missed that would give a hint as to any upgrades this lens might see (such as the DG designation one poster mentioned).

 

My issue with the Canon 100-400 is the push pull zoom. I don't particularly like that and prefer twist type zoom function. I'm just picky I guess. If the Canon were a twist zoom I'd give it more consideration.

Mark, I did not say that I am not using Image Stabilization on the 80-400. What i said is that my observations indicate that unsharp images at the long end can frequently be attributed to bad technique, and that there are ways to deal with it.

 

As far as tripod goes, it should beat image stabilization.I haven't done any direct comparison between images taken on tripod/MLU and with OS engaged, but OS/IS actually require some degree of lens shake in order to get activated and work. And when it works - there is always some lag in the system. OS/IS reduces the vibrations, but does not eliminate them. Having said that - I am perfectly happy with OS performance on my Sigma ;)

<I>My issue with the Canon 100-400 is the push pull zoom.</i><P>

 

Trust me, you get used to it. I've got both the 100-400 and the 70-200/4 (a 'twist' zoom

action), and I don't prefer one over the other. Depending on circumstances, each has

advangates.

I too have been eagerly awaiting a DG version of the 80-400, but was disappointed when Sigma released a slew of other DG-enhanced long zooms, including the Bigma, yet no mention of the 80-400 DG seemed to exist anywhere, not even with Sigma.

 

However, Warehouse Express in the UK is advertising them as in stock. Sigma doesn't acknowledge them, and the dollar trading on-par with Charmin makes buying it in the UK a bad deal all the way around, but they insist it exists. Perhaps these were manufactured in Roswell?

 

I absolutely love the 80-400. Directly tested it against the 100-400 for 3 weeks and ultimately sent the "L" back. Sure, I wish it had HSM, but then again, I wish the Bigma had OS. Optically, telling them apart was virutally impossible on the basis of optics alone, with technique accounting for more variance than design. Even more, I loved pocketing the difference and for an extra $150, picked up a dandy EF 200mm prime to go along with it.

I see the lens you're referring to as DG on the Warehouse site. Is there no way to confirm or get that lens? That'd be great.

OK, I called Sigma to get the answer directly.

 

They have designed this lens with the DG lens composition. It HAS NOT been released as of yet, but is slated, tentively, for mid July. The guy I talked to said that date could change, but that's what he has currently for a release date. I'm going to wait for that.

After having just purchased both the 80-400 and 100-400 L for the express purpose of comparison shooting before selecting the keeper, my results were very surprising in that the quality of their images was essentially equivalent throughout their FL and focus range. It would be impossible for me (after shooting more than 1,000 images with each) to distinguish them in terms of clarity or state that either outperformed the other.

 

In the midst of the test, I went to Europe, where I found a pre-release listing for the 80-400 DG version, which I first thought to be a mistake, probably by someone who added it to their item list with the other new DG versions of the Bigma, etc. I actually contacted Sigma Japan; and the DG version is in production and scheduled for mid-July worldwide release to distributors.

 

My question it this... despite their apparent optical equality, and since the DG treatment means new flare and aberrtion-reductive coatings, how much is this likely to improve the 80-400? True, it shares the rest of Sigma's warmer cast, but why hasn't Canon jumped into the fray, "digitizing" their legacy lenses to compete?

 

True, Canon's Flourite and other L features may inherently mitigate digital-specific problems and a change may not be warranted, but is there no more that can be done? Despite only owning Canon lenses to this point, I want to like the Sigma best, as the 80-400 fits perfectly above my 17-85 IS, I don't like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400, and I prefer black to white housing. While each had its particular idiosyncrasies and other unique characeristics, they are both superb lenses, and neither is a bad choice. Plus, I would LOVE to have the extra $300 to invest elsewhere.

 

Ultimately, one nagging question remains. Even assuming the DG treatment provides some sort of tangible "WOW!" benefit, is it still bound to be the better overall choice? I only ask because no matter how good third-party lenses may be, the question is ALWAYS, "How does it compare to the Canon L?" No one EVER seems to ask, "How does the Canon L compare to the Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina?" And it seems that there always needs to be a compelling argument or special purpose to choose the Sigma (or anyone) over the Canon, meaning that not just the Canon company but EACH of its high-end lenses individually remains the king of the hill and inherently the best "all else being equal" choice for best performance.

 

Am I alone in my thinking and observations?

<I> since the DG treatment means new flare and aberrtion-reductive coatings, how much

is this likely to improve the 80-400? True, it shares the rest of Sigma's warmer cast, but

why hasn't Canon jumped into the fray, "digitizing" their legacy lenses to compete?

</i><P>

 

Disclaimer: I currently use two Sigma lenses very happily (28-70/2.8 and 12-24). As to

your question above: To be honest, I doubt that there will be any major difference, if it's

just a coating change. I would not jump on the 'digitized lenses' bandwagon until there is

some empirical evidence that it makes a big difference. Frankly, it sounds more like

marketing hype than major optical revolution, especially for telephoto lenses (the issues

with wideangles on full-frame DSLRs are another matter). As to why Canon doesn't do

'digitized' lenses: maybe they're planning to, or (in my guess more likely) maybe they

don't think it's important or necessary. <P>

 

And there's a lot more to the choice of lens brands than optical quality. I know from

personal (unintentional) experience that the 100-400 L is extremely rugged -- having

dropped mine from shoulder to the ground with enough force to crack the lenshood and

gouge a big ding into the tripod mount, WITHOUT any effect on mechanical function or

image quality. Finally, legacy Canon lenses work reliably with all Canon cameras. Sigma

may be doing better than it has in the past, but their history of upward compatability is

not reassuring (ask anyone who attempted to use an old Sigma lens with current Canon

DSLRs).

Thoughts. I am awaiting the arrival of the new DG version for my D70. At ?880 (from warehouse express) i could not bring myself to purchase it at this price, fairly pricey, it is over ?100 more than the standard OS lens, which i think is pretty rough, seeing as it seems to only have a new lens coating, and if i am right in assuming, it has not been officially released yet, i am curious though, can anyone confirm that Digital Warehouse has them in stock? I was however very fortunate in spotting an OS forsale, brand new, on the net for ?575 (with shipping incl.) from Hong Kong.... a bargain i thought, until i realised that the stock had run out and that the replacement supply of the new DG version was yet to be released... i am still waiting for it after two months... ahhh the grey market. So many photo ops missed..... However, considering it will be over ?200 less than the standard OS and over ?300 less than the OS DG, its worth the wait.

After countless hours reviewing this lens online. I have come to the conclusion that it will be the best candidate for my needs. Since I am only a beginner/intermediate photographer and i love getting out and about and up close to nature without lugging heafty expensive gear around, the OS seemed very attractive. It has got great reach especially on a digital body and although it has its limitations (as they all do if you are particulary picky), slow autofocus (especially in low light), noisy, soft? (some opinions noted it at 400mm) i think i can work around these to get what i need from it. My three key points are reach, sharpness and portabiltiy which i think this lens covers at a somewhat resonable price. I do think that it would be great too with HSM. I was juggling between the bigma and the OS but portability prevailed. If the OS had HSM it would make (in my opinion) the Bigma obsolete and vice versa. Any thoughts on whether i am making the right assumptions or decisions would be greatly welcomed.

I know that this lens is a fairly recent addition to Sigma's lineup, but does anyone have any views as to the reliabilty of the OS? i.e. would it last as long as the AF motor. If the OS dies in say 5-10 years would it affect the optics at all?

Mark, where in Hong Kong did you find this, please?

Hi there, I found the lens on ebay uk. Through a store under the name of URGALAXY. I know that the Sigma OS lens has been taken off this site as it is unavailable at present. But i do know that the Nikkor 80-400 VR is there for around 750 pounds at present. Check it out....

Well, it's definitely coming.

 

http://www.pma-show.com/sigma/003_dg_ex_tele_lens.html

 

Not HSM (boo), but DG (hooray!). Tricky now - bigma/80-400 OS. Weight wise they're almost the same, so more reach or OS? Hmmmm...