Sigma 500 F4.5 EX HSm

[david_k]

hi I do a fair bit of wildlife photography. At the moment I pretty

much only use a 100-400 IS USM with a 1.4X TC. Has anyone used a

sigma 500mm F4.5 tele lens? what do you make of it? (how fast is the

AF... image quality around the edges... build quality... weight etc)

I don't do enough photography to justify the huge amount for a Canon

500 F4 IS lens.

 

Thanks for tfeedback

 

By the way, I am using 1Vhs and a 1NHS cameras.

[bobatkins]

Get a used Canon 500/4.5L. About 1/2 the price of a new 500/4L IS these days.

[david_k]

All very well and whiel I do prefer to have Canon goods, I am not happy about paying twice the price for such a marginal increment in cost. From all accounts, the sigma is a top notch lens (though I would liek some personal feedback) I would liek to get an idea of what the differences in performance between the Canon and the Sigma are.

 

Yes this is off topic but its worth looking at non Canon lenses. Canons aren't always the best!

[ShunCheung]

What Bob Atkins suggests is that you can own a genuine Canon 500mm lens at a much lower cost, namely a used 500mm/f4.5 AF. Obviously you lose IS and if you add a 1.4x TC, you lose AF on certain bodies, but you can save a lot of money and it is also lighter than the 500mm/f4 IS.

 

The merit of Sigma lenses have been discussed/debated over and over. Some people really like them but some others have been burned by their poor build quality and long-term compatibility in its electronics. (It does not mean that every Sigma lens is poorly built, but some are.) I know that Bob has had some bad experience with Sigma lenses himself. Moreover, Canon EOS lenses hold their value quite well as long as you keep your lens in good shape. Generally speaking, resale value for 3rd-party lenses goes down pretty rapidly, and you may have a hard time unloading your 500mm Sigma lens in a couple of years should you want to upgrade.

 

I happen to not own any 3rd-party lenses myself. But different people have different priorities and preferences. So your mileage may vary.

[bobatkins]

Read my previous reply one more time. The used Canon is CHEAPER than a new Sigma.

 

By all means buy the Sigma if you wish to. Lots of people do. Some of them are happy with their decision.

 

I'm no longer willing to waste my time on 3rd party vs Canon/Nikon debates. Life's too short.

[david_k]

I'm not tryign to start a debate, but merely to find out what users experiences are. I would like genuine feedback.. not bashing Sigma lenses simply because they aren't canon lenses without any real concrete basis.

I hope thats not too forthright :o)

[ShunCheung]

David, what do you consider genuine feedback? Bob Atkins had a Sigma lens that literally broke apart in his hands. Another friend of ours had a Sigma 400mm/f5.6. When he upgraded to a new Canon body, he found out that the Sigma lens was not electronically compatible with his new body and would simply lock it up. He contacted Sigma and they wouldn't do anything about it.

 

There are real reasons that we are reluctant about Sigma lenses or another other 3rd-party lenses, but some other people are happy with them.

 

I think Bob gave you a very good suggestion. He personally uses a 500mm/f4.5 AF; it isn't like we are giving advices out of thin air.

[bobatkins]

My batting average with Sigma lenss is 0 out of 4. I presume I'm just unlucky. It's certainly possible the Sigma 500/4.5L is a good performer. I just see no reason on earth to buy one, given the Canon equivalent is now available at a lower price (used).

 

David - if you buy one, please report back on how you like it. The chance of finding a serious nature photographer still using one is very small, so the chances of getting good feedback are slim. I assume it's at least adequate, and if it breaks in the first 12 months I'm sure Sigma will fix it. If you don't like it you can always try to sell it.

[lawrence_palumbo]

"I'm no longer willing to waste my time on 3rd party vs Canon/Nikon debates. Life's too short." lol @ lifes to short, because i have seen bob's thoughtful feedbacks on many old threads.

 

i can tell you my experience with 2 sigma long lenses (not quite as fast as 4.5) and i like bob was not happy. i was 0 for 2. autofocus slow, image quality poor. keep in mind, i am talking about 400/5.6 and 500/7.2 but i know i would stay clear of sigma in the future.

[rene_de_heer3]

Have a look at my website www.naturepics.co.uk and look at the images Hans Schouten takes with his EOS1V and 4.5/500 EX HSM Sigma lens. Also go to the NPN site and find in the Avian section images taken by Chris Wilson. He uses a 4.5/500 EX HSM with his D30. You will see that the optical quality is very good.

 

Sigma lenses have come a long way and yes a long time ago their construction and quality was a bit of a hit and miss but the current EX line of lenses is very good and the 4.5/500 HSM is a piece of fine kit. Above all: its very compact, fits in a Nature trekker so no worries about transporting this lens in a plane!!

 

Rene de Heer

[bobatkins]

(1) You can tell squat (<em>for non-native english speakers that means "absolutely nothing"!</em>) about optical performance from web images.

<p>

(2) Any $3000 lens is going to give acceptable perfomance.

<p>

(3)The day that I hear a well known (or at least well respected!) nature photographer has sold his Canon EF500/4.5L in order to buy a Sigma 500/4.5 EX HSM, I'll totally reconsider my position.

<p>

Note I'm not saying the Sigma 500/4.5 isn't a decent lens. I'm just saying I see

absolutely no reason for a Canon EOS user to buy one if you can get a Canon 500/4.5L for around the

same price (or cheaper!), even if the Canon is used.

<p>

I have no axe to grind here. I'd be more than happy if everyone who thought

the Sigma was better value went out and bought one tomorrow and found

out for themselves whether or not they were right.

[paul_dibiase3]

I've got the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Macro lens for the Nikon mount. It is one of the best lenses I own. Extremely sharp and focuses down to about 4 feet. It makes a great macro lens when you have to shoot from 4-6 feet away, which is not uncommon in my experience. It also seems to be built very well. I have used in on N90s, N80, F100 and F5 bodies and it works fine with all of them. My only complaint is that Sigma does not make this lens with the HSM motor.

 

Would I do it all over again. If money were not object, I would buy the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S lens and the 1.4TC to get me out to 400mm. (This is my way of saying that I would buy the used Canon lens over the New Sigma for about the same money.) However, when I bought my Sigma this Nikkor lens did not exist and Nikon had no AF 400mm f/4 or f/5.6 lens in its lineup. If cost is an object, then this lens wins hands down as it is less than 1/3 the price of the Nikkor + TC combo.

[ShunCheung]

Paul, how much was your Sigma 400mm/f5.6 and did you buy it new?

 

The current Sigma 400mm/f5.6 HSM is $719 at B&H while the Nikkor 300mm/f4 AF-S is around $900 grey. The difference in price is not that big. The Sigma 300mm/f4 AF is $689, vertually the same as their 400mm/f5.6.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Sigma 500 4.5 new approximately $3200. Sigma 500 4.5 30 days old approximatly $1500. Canon 500 4.5 purchased used approximately $2500. Canon 500 4.5, 30 days older approximately $2500. To me its an easy choice.

Best lens I ever bought was a non IS 600 f/4 for $3750. Been using it for a year and a half, and I'm sure I can still sell it for what I paid for it.

I've owned two Sigma lens, one of which broke pretty quickly. To me when you start talking real money for a super telephoto lens, you have too much invested to trust it to Sigma.

[david_stoepfel]

I'm fairly certain there is review of this lens on naturephotographers.net, also check out the general discussion forum, because if memory serves me, this lens has come up there before.

 

Good luck

 

Dave

[matthew_whitley]

I recently obtained this lens used (and it was MUCH cheaper than a used Canon 500 F4.5... which I had been looking for) and have been happy. I have posted some images with this lens over at NPN and would be happy to send you some images if you email me at mkwhitley@yahoo.com.

 

Bob,

I find your attitude to be elist and rude. Your initial suggestion was appropriate, but your latter responses are just plain childish, especially from a moderator. This isn't the first thread where you've shown such an attititude and frankly I think it keeps people away from this forum.<div></div>

[matthew_whitley]

Here is one more, the one I meant to post...<div></div>

[bobatkins]

If you don't like my attitude you can always find another forum. There's too much soft peddling on the web. Too many flakey opinions, too much bad advice given by people who shouldn't be giving it in the first place. Not saying any of that applies here of course.

 

 

I'm simply giving my opinion. If you can find a really cheap used Sigma 500/4.5, I'd say buy it. I'd say anyone buying a new one is probably wasting their money.

 

Nice picture, but like I said, you can tell nothing at all about lens quality from web images. Any lens, from a $100 Cambridge Camera Special, to a spotting scope with a digital camera duct taped to it, to a $10,000 premium APO lens will give you an image that looks great on a web page

[gregdowning]

Bob, you are so rude. This is why I don't spend much time over at this site. Have you ever heard of treating people with a litle common decency and respect? For other's reading come on over to NPN where people aren't RUDE. Have a nice day.

 

Greg Downing-NPN

[paul_dibiase3]

Shun,

 

I paid about $560 for my Sigma several years ago and it is definetly one of the 'best buys' and one of the best lenses I own. My point is that Sigma makes some very good lenses. However, today's situation is different with the new Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S lens, so, given the necessary cash, I would go that route. On the other hand I have not rushed out to sell my Sigma and buy the Nikkor. That says something.

In any event this is really about a Canon lens, so I probably should leave the discussion to those who own that equipment.

[e.j.]

Bob, while you have the right to express your opinion, having not used the particular lens that the individual asked about (and he specifically asked for comments from people that have the particular lens), your answer is unprofessional and uneccesary. Then you go on to insult those that do and other people that posted in this thread. Yes its your site but with that kind of attitude, especially since there are many excellent alternatives, you may one day be the only user of your site. I find your responses throughout this thread and others, distasteful, disrespectful, unprofessional and incredibly elitist. I have enjoyed many of the subjects and discussions on Photo.net but I will not be returning to a site where its proprieter has such a condascending attitude just as I would not return to a store that gave me your attitude.

[gregdowning]

Bob, I must apologize as my post was a knee-jerk reaction. BUT No, I am not taking my comments back, I just think that EJ did a much better job of crafting the words and I echo what he said to the letter :) People come here for advice, not for insults.

[george_rhodes]

Boyd Norton used to shoot with Leicas SLRs and lenses, except that he also loved his 500mm f4.5 Sigma. In his book, The Art of Outdoor Photography, he raved about that lens and said that he preferred it over the Nikon equivalent, because it was extremely sharp, but smaller than the Nikkor and therefore easier to carry. He used the manual version, as are all of his Leica lenses, of course. I doubt that he still uses the Sigma. I understand that he has dropped his older and slower Leica telephoto lenses for the new modular Leica system with faster lenses, thus probably eliminating the need for the relatively fast f4.5 Sigma telephoto.

[jemini_joseph]

Wow, this is interesting discussion. I'm not here to fight.

I'm one of those guys who's nervous about optical performance.

I have a Nikkor MF AIS 600/5.6 ED lens. I'm sure the new Nikkor AF-S

lenses and Canon lenses are much better than this 10 year old glass.

But I got a chance to play with above sigma lens from a guy I know.

 

I wanted to tell you that the first impression was a 'Wow!!'

 

 

I took few comparison shots with these two lenses. These are the

things I've tried to test

 

1) Color

Nikon was warmer or Sigma was cooler (I think neutral).

 

2) Sharpness

I couldn't find any difference. But I didn't try much too because

the shutter speed was not enough to decide on sharpness. I've used Velvia.

For sharpness I would trust other people's opinion.

 

3) Contrast

Here sigma was NOT upto Nikon. So-called 3D effect was slightly better

with Nikon.

 

4) Autofocus

It's autofocus was as fast and as quiet as nikon AF-S. I didn't test

it with any equipment or scientific method. I was more than happy.

 

5) Build quality

is excellent, but not like Nikon or Canon. Well the weight is allmost

half!! This is around 6 lb's while Nikon is around 10 I guess.

 

 

Here's my deciding factors.

I cannot afford more than 2000 dollars. So no way I can get a Nikon

autofocus (silent wave) for that price (friends, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Sigma used I have seen for 1800 in eBay (Yeah the price drops a lot)

 

I cannot carry 10 lb lens or protect it if it falls from my tripod.

I'm an average size man.

 

So sigma is my best choice. I won't buy a new sigma because then I'll be pretty

much locked with this lens. If you have enough money and justification Canon (or

Nikon) will be better. Otherwise sigma is a greate choice.