How about SIGMA 150-500/5-6.3 DG OS HSM as a second lens apart from 600mm

[nirvan_a]

<p>Please let me know whether using Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM (Canon) on my second body Canon 30D apart from 5DMKIII with 600 mm will be good idea.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It wouldn't be a <em>bad</em> idea. Really depends on what you expect from it.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I have the lens (Pentax mount). It isn't all that bad, but it is no match in sharpness to my manual 600mm f5.6 lens. Posted below is an image I have with the lens, one of my better ones with the lens.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13043978-lg.jpg" alt="" width="627" height="488" /><br>

This image is only cropped, no sharpening or even contrast adjustment. Hope this helps.</p>

 

[moesphotohobby]

This is a very general question, and so I'll respond based on my personal needs in such a situation.

 

You're asking if it would be a good idea to have a fixed prime lens on one camera body (FF), and a secondary camera

(crop) with a variable zoom lens as maybe a backup. Why not. You have a 600mm range backed with an equivalent

(apparent) zoom range of 240mm-800mm on a crop body. With my type of wildlife photography I find that sometimes the

subject is just too close and so my sigma 150-500 is a great lens to grab to give me the advantage of zooming out to

capture the subject. Anything on the far end of the zoom range I would recommend sticking to your 600mm. Again, this is

such a general question and photography is so personal, with variations in your style and gear (not to mention subject

matter).

 

If you're asking specifically about the sigma lens, I can say it's a great lens if used within its limitations. I could go on but

I'm sure you can google the reviews.

[dcstep]

<p>Do you own an EF 600mm f/4L IS II? If so, you'll never use the Sigma. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm are great lenses for someone looking to get into bird and wildlife photography, but as a second-lens, second body, they're too big and bulky. Also, the IQ will not match the Canon 600mm.</p>

<p>For the second body, I'd suggest something like a 70-200mm or a 70-300mm. Put the 600mm on your 5D3 and a light, shorter lens on the other body and you'll be ready for mammals, some landscapes or other things that present themselves while you're lugging the big gun around.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I'm inclined to agree with David. I have a manual focus Pentax 600mm f5.6 and the Sigma lens. I got the Sigma lens first but have been blown away by the quality of the Pentax lens. For me the only reason to hang on to the Sigma lens is for flying birds, which the lens only does a so-so job anyway. On those rare times I have brought two lenses I have never resorted back to the Sigma.</p>

[norman_peters]

<p>Hi all. A late post. I have a good copy of the Siggy 150-500mm. I have decided that sharpness is all about technique when using this lens. It needs a rock solid support (think a heavy tripod and good ball head), as there is significant vibration nearly always present when you press the button that inevitably affects sharpness.<br>

The best way to use it is either with a remote trigger, or using the self timer - this ensures that there is no IQ-killing vibration present (if it is on a solid mount, of course).<br>

Remember to turn off the shake reduction when it is on a tripod. I also use it on a crop body (Canon 700D) to maximise the apparent focal length, and I always use the camera's magnified LiveView facility to focus - it is too hard just via the finder to get perfect focus. I don't use a UV filter (but sometimes a polariser) and I always use the hood as flare also kills apparent sharpness.<br>

Use it racked just a bit back from 500mm to get better sharpness, and stop it down a tad - f8 seems good, but some also swear by f7.1.<br>

This all suggests to me that it is just a lens that needs deliberate use of technique to get a sharp image - I wonder if all of the complaints around the web stem from user failings in this regard, and blaming the lens....<br>

BTW mine is a very recent copy, so they may have picked up on quality control too. I hated Sigma a while ago because of old lens compatibility issues with Canon, but I have an 8-16mm Sigma hyper-wide lens and it is also a beauty, so I feel that they may be trying hard these days.</p>

<p> </p>