Anyone have a Sigma 120-400mm OS?

Balloonatic

Need a little advice, I have a D80 and shoot aviation and aerial pics. I have the Nikon 18-200 VR and love it but it's not long enough. The Sigma 120-400mm OS looks to be a good fit for the money but I'm hesitant to stray from Nikon. Anyone here have first hand knowledge of this lens or the 150-500mm for that matter? Thanks!

ziggy53

Balloonatic wrote:

Need a little advice, I have a D80 and shoot aviation and aerial pics. I have the Nikon 18-200 VR and love it but it's not long enough. The Sigma 120-400mm OS looks to be a good fit for the money but I'm hesitant to stray from Nikon. Anyone here have first hand knowledge of this lens or the 150-500mm for that matter? Thanks!

Balloonatic, welcome to the Digital Grin.

I have the Sigma "Bigma", 50-500mm, f4-f6.3 HSM in case you want to know about it.

JPerkins

I just got finished ordering a 150-500 hsm os from ebay for 849 shipped. I had done a lot of research and basically you get the nikon snobs who think a lens in this range should cost 4k plus and the people who actually have the lens who say it is great.

Since I'm not a pro and I will be shooting mostly in daytime conditions, based on my research, this lens is perfect for what I want it for. At almost 8 times cheaper than a comparable nikon I am thinking it will be worth it.

By the way, I used my paypal coupon for 10% off so the final bill after $13 insurance was $777.

I will try to update this thread later when I get it in.

Richard

JPerkins wrote:

I had done a lot of research and basically you get the nikon snobs who think a lens in this range should cost 4k plus and the people who actually have the lens who say it is great.

It's not snobbery to insist on the highest possible image quality, but it is expensive. That said, any lens that meets your needs and stays within your budget is fine for you.

JPerkins

Richard wrote:

It's not snobbery to insist on the highest possible image quality, but it is expensive. That said, any lens that meets your needs and stays within your budget is fine for you.

I think it is snobbery when they have quite openly admitted to not having the lens and not researching it but basically saying that if its cheap it can't be good.

Scott_Quier

JPerkins wrote:

I think it is snobbery when they have quite openly admitted to not having the lens and not researching it but basically saying that if its cheap it can't be good.

I know just how you feel - been there, done that! But, to be fair, there is a lot of truth in the statement, "You get what you pay for."

I believe it to be true - "if it's cheap it can't be good." In this useage, "good" is a reference to an absolute - making the statement true.

I also think it's true that "if it's cheap, it can still be good enough." Here, we are talking about relative terms - "good enough" mean it fits one's needs and meets expectations.

Different people have different needs and expectations and many posters (and readers) of opinions fail to acknowledge this fact. And, it is for this reason, that one must be very careful when reading on-line posts - you have to try to figure out the assumptions being made by the poster.

JPerkins

I just got the Sigma 150-500 HSM OS lens in and all I can is wow. Its very sharp and the OS works great.

This shot of my plum tree in blossom was taken at 230mm, handheld without OS.


This shot of my trusty tiller was taken at 500mm, handheld *without* Optical stab.


This shot of my trusty tiller was taken at 500mm, handheld with Optical stab.



These are both with a 86mm Hoya UV filter on. Of course these are full day bright sunlight and static objects but that's what I need it for. As an amateur for $800 I'm very impressed and happy with this lens.

DsrtVW

I started out with a Sigma 170-500mm which is basically been redesigned to the 150-500mm OS at least it looks the same dimensionally. It was a great lens. But I have since moved up to faster lenses due to the type of shooting (nature) I do. If you have good light they will perform fine but if you need to work in low light faster lenses in the f4 to f2.8 will give you more successful captures whether it be Sigma or Nikon. OS or VR will also help. You do get what you pay for, and faster glass cost more.

BeachBill

I recently got the Canon version of the Sigma 120-400mm OS lens as an anniversary gift from my employer (I got to choose the gift).

I've posted some bald eagle photos taken with this lens attached to a Canon 30D (1.6 crop factor) in the following gallery
http://gallery.primarycolors.com/gallery/7516901_aYCSn

Before you look at them, let me say I am not a wildlife photographer and I have a LOT to learn. These were the first shots I had ever taken with this lens. In the next few months I plan on using it to shoot some minor league baseball so I will see how it performs there.

P.S. This lens is pretty big and bulky. Just tonight I ordered a LowePro Lens Case 5S to attach to the outside of my camera backpack to carry the lens in. The lens does come with a Sigma case, but I want to be able to securely attach it to my bag so I'm getting a similar sized sliplock case. I tried putting the lens inside the backpack (a LowePro Flipside 400AW), but it takes up too much room.