Posted by Susan Morris on September 25, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Hey everyone! I haven't been around in a while, perhaps one or two of you will remember me. Anyway, I was about to purchase the Sigma 50-500mm lens and I'm having pre-buyers remorse. I want a great telephoto lens, and I had heard that this lens was exceptional but I thought I'd ask those I admire most. Would you recommend this lens, or should I go for a shorter range with IS?
I have upgraded from my Canon Digital Rebel to the Canon 30D.
I also just got back from a week-long Monte Zucker workshop in North Carolina. Only 6 students in the class! We got some great one-on-one with Monte. I figure since portraiture will be paying the bills, I might as well be good at it. *chuckles*
I've missed you guys, and have had a great time looking at all your new work!
Susan
Posted by Erik Lundh on September 25, 2006 at 6:13 PM
Susan,
I was also considering this lens. I decided not to buy it because of the smaller max aperature. At 500 mm it only stops down to F6.3. I do know someone who has this lens and he really likes it. Copy and past this link onto your browser. It's a link to the reviews for this lens at the Fred Miranda site. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=1
Posted by Rick Lamb on September 25, 2006 at 7:00 PM
Hi Susan,
Well I haven't actually used one of these but at face value the reason I wouldn't want one is oh wow is this beast BIG and HEAVY!! I'm 6'2" and 200lbs (maybe a bit more but I've cut back on the ice cream & rib eyes...dangit) and this heavy iron would wear me out. I schlepp a nice balance of lenses:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 USM L Lens
Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8 USM L Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS L Lens
Canon EF 2X II Extender - sometimes....
For a bigger lens beyond 200mm I'm considering the Sigma 300-800mm. For the money and reach it's a great combination of features without too deep a sacrifice in f-stops @ 300-800mm f5.6.
Sure it too is a beast but at least I'm not depending on it for such a huge breadth of reach as in the 50-500mm.
Here is a good review of the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6:
Posted by Ned Fenimore on September 25, 2006 at 11:18 PM
If only Canon would do up a 200-500 f4 or 5.6.... I'd buy one even if it was priced around the long primes..
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on September 26, 2006 at 1:37 AM
Mahesh Thapa that visits here from time to time has and loves this lens on his full frame 1Ds mark II. I have thought about adding this lens one day to my collection, but due to weight of lens, it would stay in the car alot more than I would want so I'll stick to UWA lenses for now
If you really really need 500mm for birds and nature, then this would be the lens to consider... especially for the money.
Posted by Rick Lundh on September 26, 2006 at 8:22 AM
Susan,
I don't have this lens, but Mahesh swears by it. I plan to purchase it in the next year or so, just to try it out myself. I/you can usually send it back if you dont like it. I dont know where you are located, but I would purchase this locally from The Shutterbug. There's one in Tigard in the Washington Square Mall. They sell this lens, and they will match suprisingly low internet prices. That's where I got my D2x...
Posted by Ned Fenimore on September 26, 2006 at 1:09 PM
I tried it and was given a photo made with it, and both were a bit soft for my tastes.. the one thing that turned me off about it.
Posted by Pradeep on September 26, 2006 at 4:16 PM
Susan, Depends on what you want to shoot with this lens. It's very heavy and the view from the viewfinder in dim light will be totally dark. So if you are planning to shoot only mainly during midday and bright sunlight then this might be a good lens. Its not fast either. So if your primary subjects are wildlife/birds then a used Canon 500 mm f/4.5 could be a good choice. It's hard to find one and if you find one it'll cost you around 3000$, its worth every penny.
Posted by Jeremy Cram on September 26, 2006 at 5:05 PM
I owned the 50-500mm for about a week...horribly soft and slow for bird photography imo. I sent it back paid the restock fee and got the 400 5.6L prime, awesomly fast and sharp, and I always I wanted to at the end of whatever tele I used and found this to be perfect.
Posted by Susan Morris on September 27, 2006 at 2:40 AM
Thanks guys! I really appreciate the time you all took to respond.
Hm.. soft, slow and heavy. Maybe I'm not as attracted as I first thought. *laughs* I'll be checking out the other suggestions.
And um.. Rick Lamb?? The Sigmonster would certainly impress folks, but could I lift it to the tripod? Hmm..
Rick Lundh, I'm in Boise, Idaho. A bit of a drive but possible. Is that near Seattle?
Two Rick L's on one board. That -has- to spell trouble. *wink*
I've been using the Canon 100-400 IS for little over a month now. I absolutely love it. I find myself using my 10-22 and this 100-400 for the majority of the images I took recently in Newfoundland. I went back and forth about buying this lens because I saw mediocre reviews, but I also saw excellent reviews. I ended getting some feedback from some working pros and from shooters on NPN. The overall consensus is the 100-400 IS is a very good lens. So far, I have to agree. It is fast focusing, has the IS, and I don't have any issues with its sharpness. I use it with the Canon 1.4x extender with good success as well. So, for what its worth, that is my take on it. I have not used the 50-500 but I have read where some people really like it, and it was as the top of my consideration list.
Posted by dan elster on September 28, 2006 at 9:50 PM
I have both the Sigma 50-500 and the Canon 1-400mm IS. While I certainly don't think the Sigma is as bad as a couple of the other posters on this thread do, I haven't taken it out in months. I love the 1-400mm IS.
I had been hankerin for the 50-500 mm, but I've noticed with a super long lens, unless you are going to tripod it all the time, IS is really helpful. And I only really need something from 200 mm out, so I'm now thinking of the 100-400. It's much better for what I'd use it for: kid games and sporty type things. But that's after I get a sports camera (years off).
Discussion
12 repliesI have upgraded from my Canon Digital Rebel to the Canon 30D.
I also just got back from a week-long Monte Zucker workshop in North Carolina. Only 6 students in the class! We got some great one-on-one with Monte. I figure since portraiture will be paying the bills, I might as well be good at it. *chuckles*
I've missed you guys, and have had a great time looking at all your new work!
Susan
I was also considering this lens. I decided not to buy it because of the smaller max aperature. At 500 mm it only stops down to F6.3. I do know someone who has this lens and he really likes it. Copy and past this link onto your browser. It's a link to the reviews for this lens at the Fred Miranda site.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=1
Well I haven't actually used one of these but at face value the reason I wouldn't want one is oh wow is this beast BIG and HEAVY!! I'm 6'2" and 200lbs (maybe a bit more but I've cut back on the ice cream & rib eyes...dangit) and this heavy iron would wear me out. I schlepp a nice balance of lenses:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 USM L Lens
Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8 USM L Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS L Lens
Canon EF 2X II Extender - sometimes....
For a bigger lens beyond 200mm I'm considering the Sigma 300-800mm. For the money and reach it's a great combination of features without too deep a sacrifice in f-stops @ 300-800mm f5.6.
Sure it too is a beast but at least I'm not depending on it for such a huge breadth of reach as in the 50-500mm.
Here is a good review of the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6:
Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6
Let me know if this helps.
If you really really need 500mm for birds and nature, then this would be the lens to consider... especially for the money.
I don't have this lens, but Mahesh swears by it. I plan to purchase it in the next year or so, just to try it out myself. I/you can usually send it back if you dont like it. I dont know where you are located, but I would purchase this locally from The Shutterbug. There's one in Tigard in the Washington Square Mall. They sell this lens, and they will match suprisingly low internet prices. That's where I got my D2x...
Hm.. soft, slow and heavy. Maybe I'm not as attracted as I first thought. *laughs* I'll be checking out the other suggestions.
And um.. Rick Lamb?? The Sigmonster would certainly impress folks, but could I lift it to the tripod? Hmm..
Rick Lundh, I'm in Boise, Idaho. A bit of a drive but possible. Is that near Seattle?
Two Rick L's on one board. That -has- to spell trouble. *wink*
I want *that* lens
I had been hankerin for the 50-500 mm, but I've noticed with a super long lens, unless you are going to tripod it all the time, IS is really helpful. And I only really need something from 200 mm out, so I'm now thinking of the 100-400. It's much better for what I'd use it for: kid games and sporty type things. But that's after I get a sports camera (years off).
Kevin