Posted by Andy Astbury on December 14, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Graham & Paul - I'd think long and hard before spending your money on this lens - yes, it performs like a dream, and on Nikon it's a 1200mm image you are getting at its top end.
But it's also the cruelest and most unhelpful and unforgiving piece of glass you could ever have the opportunity to own.
If you buy one you'll suffer from tremendous disappointment when you start using it.
All I can say is only relevant to a Nikon D2Xs - how it fares on Canon bodies might be different, but I'd expect not by too much.
AF in anything but sunglasses and factor 20 conditions is a bit of a hit-'n-miss affair, and AF tracking is, to be honest, not a viable proposition under any circumstances that I've come across as the focus motors are 'fast' but not that fast!
The lack of a focus limiter will see the lens loose a nearly in focus subject while it decides to hunt from one end of its range to the other - very frustrating
The supplied lens hood is way too short - purchase of the 800mm prime hood from Sigma will help, but the lens still could do with being flagged even with this longer hood - I actually got some black sugar paper and extended the hood to 15 inches from the front element before I saw any visible signs of vignetting at 300mm!
You'd think starting at 300mm, locating your subject and then zooming in for comp would be the way to work wouldn't you - WRONG!!!
The focus point at 300mm and 800mm bear no resemblance to each other at all - in video terms, the backfocus is shot to blazes; but again, it's something you learn to live with!
The worst thing about it though is the f5.6 performance - not good at all, f7 is pretty damn good and by f8/f9 you can be delivering some tack sharp images to the sensor - what the camera does with those images is another story
All in all, it's like having a stroppy wife - always expect it to give you grief, and sometimes you'll be pleasantly surprised
Yes, the lens is a pig to use, a pig to carry, has it's little foibles and limitations, and could be designed a lot better.
But you get what you pay for in this life, if you want ease of use and wide open sharpness coupled with IS and more AF options go Canon or Nikon.
But once those Canon or Nikon lenses are working stopped down to f8/f9 then - IS/VR aside - they won't deliver any sharper a result.
But you've got to support the lens as well - I use a Gitzo 1548, anything less is a waste of time as it just won't be rigid enough.
A leveling base is a real good idea too.
Head-wise you've really only got one option - WimberleyII - a Sidekick is just asking for trouble of the most major kind.
And anyone, including that lunatic from Luminous Landscape, who says you can use this lens on a 393 gimbal is not being, shall we say, 100% honest - a 393 would be completly overloaded and lead to even more potential for tears at bedtime than a Sidekick.
So guys - you asked, and I've said - it's up to you; it's all down to the depths of your pockets, the quality of your long-lens technique and your regard for your own personal mental well-being
If money was no object (leave it Tim if you are reading )then I would be switching to Canon and a 600mm f.4 today - but it is, and I'm not - so given the circumstances I'll stick with the Sig - afterall, it has it's moments
PS to mods - hope this is okay to post here
Posted by Pete Etheridge on December 14, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the info - an 'in the field' review of this kind is worth it's weight in gold imho!
Posted by Paul Hillion on December 14, 2007 at 10:17 AM
And on the negitive side?
Thanks for taking the time to do that Andy, very much appreciated
I was actually looking at its price on the B&H website last night and doing a bit of math in my head, what to sell etc (a kidney was mentioned)...and the upshot is that there's no way I can even come close to being able to afford this lens at the mo, for some reason I thought it was nearer $5k than $7k. What first got me interested in this lens was seeing the results Romy Ocon (liquidstone on pbase) was getting with his and it looked a great lens to compliment Canon's 500f4. as Romy has. Where I live on Guernsey most of our birdlife is on the small side so I think the sigmonster would suit my needs perfectly. Like I say maybe one day
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Paul - you really do need to either get some glasses or at least look in the right place for prices mate
and to be honest you should be able to pick a brand spanker up for £4100-£4200 from say Bob Rigby - but you might have to wait a few weeks for delivery.
Sigma UK bring them in in batches for special orders, usually from the Police.
Posted by Ian Andrews on December 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
I've found the most effective way of using a Sigmonster is on a beanbag!
Of the two I have used extensively, one was tack sharp at f/5.6 whereas the other was slightly disapointing in comparison. Perhaps the new lens presets on the latest cameras will be able to adapt lens to body in order to get that sharpness from all top end lenses!
They do need a very solid tripod!
My biggest gripe with them is the closest focus, at 6m it is a bit far away for some of the things I was wanting to shoot with them.
Overall though, they are a good weapon to have in your armoury if long lenses are your forte!
Ian
Posted by Paul Hillion on December 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Andy you might want to borrow my 'glasses' those prices I mentioned in my post above were in $ dollars! At todays exchange rate I could get one delivered from B&H Photo for approx £3,600 GBP as we don't have VAT here in the Channel Isles
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 14, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Ahh okey dokey
I forgot you were in the Channel thingies - have you ever thought of going into the photographic goods import business my son??
Posted by Paul Hillion on December 14, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Sounds like a plan Rodney
Posted by Graham Brown on December 14, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I endorse what Paul has said. Thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. I'm not sure i wanted to hear all of this as the Canon 600mm is out of my price range. You might have saved me £3600 however + new tripod. I've decided to give it a miss for now. I'm saving the pennies now for the Canon. Thanks again Graham
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 15, 2007 at 4:43 AM
It was not my intention to put you off purchasing one - just to make you aware that the lens is not as straight-forward as you might be expecting
When you order a new lens you do so for a reason, you want to be 'in a new place - a place where you can take images like you've never taken before because you've just ordered the tool for the job.
When you take delivery of your new glass you unpack it and stand it on the kitchen table, comfortable in the thought that you have now 'arrived'.
When you take delivery of a Sigmonster - unless you've had prior experience with it - you have definately 'arrived' - just perhaps not at the place you had intended
You are like a british paratrooper at the D-day landings - you are not in the right 'place' - you can get there, but you've a hard slog ahead of you, and you'll have casualties along the way
A few years ago the EX DG HSM Sigmonster would have been up there with the very best of the big glass, but the big two have added fancy technology to their packages which makes them easier to use to a degree.
The Sig is 'old' technology - very suitable for bumbling old farts like me - but remember, there was plenty of astonishing imagery produced before f4 glass and auto focus
Posted by Paul Hillion on December 15, 2007 at 6:15 AM
"You are like a british paratrooper at the D-day landings - you are not in the right 'place' - you can get there, but you've a hard slog ahead of you, and you'll have casualties along the way"
Brilliant!
Did that come to you in a momentary flash of inspiration of did you think of it years a go and have just been waiting for the right time to use it
Discussion
10 repliesBut it's also the cruelest and most unhelpful and unforgiving piece of glass you could ever have the opportunity to own.
If you buy one you'll suffer from tremendous disappointment when you start using it.
All I can say is only relevant to a Nikon D2Xs - how it fares on Canon bodies might be different, but I'd expect not by too much.
AF in anything but sunglasses and factor 20 conditions is a bit of a hit-'n-miss affair, and AF tracking is, to be honest, not a viable proposition under any circumstances that I've come across as the focus motors are 'fast' but not that fast!
The lack of a focus limiter will see the lens loose a nearly in focus subject while it decides to hunt from one end of its range to the other - very frustrating
The supplied lens hood is way too short - purchase of the 800mm prime hood from Sigma will help, but the lens still could do with being flagged even with this longer hood - I actually got some black sugar paper and extended the hood to 15 inches from the front element before I saw any visible signs of vignetting at 300mm!
You'd think starting at 300mm, locating your subject and then zooming in for comp would be the way to work wouldn't you - WRONG!!!
The focus point at 300mm and 800mm bear no resemblance to each other at all - in video terms, the backfocus is shot to blazes; but again, it's something you learn to live with!
The worst thing about it though is the f5.6 performance - not good at all, f7 is pretty damn good and by f8/f9 you can be delivering some tack sharp images to the sensor - what the camera does with those images is another story
All in all, it's like having a stroppy wife - always expect it to give you grief, and sometimes you'll be pleasantly surprised
Yes, the lens is a pig to use, a pig to carry, has it's little foibles and limitations, and could be designed a lot better.
But you get what you pay for in this life, if you want ease of use and wide open sharpness coupled with IS and more AF options go Canon or Nikon.
But once those Canon or Nikon lenses are working stopped down to f8/f9 then - IS/VR aside - they won't deliver any sharper a result.
But you've got to support the lens as well - I use a Gitzo 1548, anything less is a waste of time as it just won't be rigid enough.
A leveling base is a real good idea too.
Head-wise you've really only got one option - WimberleyII - a Sidekick is just asking for trouble of the most major kind.
And anyone, including that lunatic from Luminous Landscape, who says you can use this lens on a 393 gimbal is not being, shall we say, 100% honest - a 393 would be completly overloaded and lead to even more potential for tears at bedtime than a Sidekick.
So guys - you asked, and I've said - it's up to you; it's all down to the depths of your pockets, the quality of your long-lens technique and your regard for your own personal mental well-being
If money was no object (leave it Tim if you are reading
PS to mods - hope this is okay to post here
Thanks for the info - an 'in the field' review of this kind is worth it's weight in gold imho!
Thanks for taking the time to do that Andy, very much appreciated
I was actually looking at its price on the B&H website last night and doing a bit of math in my head, what to sell etc (a kidney was mentioned)...and the upshot is that there's no way I can even come close to being able to afford this lens at the mo, for some reason I thought it was nearer $5k than $7k. What first got me interested in this lens was seeing the results Romy Ocon (liquidstone on pbase) was getting with his and it looked a great lens to compliment Canon's 500f4. as Romy has. Where I live on Guernsey most of our birdlife is on the small side so I think the sigmonster would suit my needs perfectly. Like I say maybe one day
Sigma UK quote the retail at 4999.99 see here http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/300-800mm.htm
and to be honest you should be able to pick a brand spanker up for £4100-£4200 from say Bob Rigby - but you might have to wait a few weeks for delivery.
Sigma UK bring them in in batches for special orders, usually from the Police.
Of the two I have used extensively, one was tack sharp at f/5.6 whereas the other was slightly disapointing in comparison. Perhaps the new lens presets on the latest cameras will be able to adapt lens to body in order to get that sharpness from all top end lenses!
They do need a very solid tripod!
My biggest gripe with them is the closest focus, at 6m it is a bit far away for some of the things I was wanting to shoot with them.
Overall though, they are a good weapon to have in your armoury if long lenses are your forte!
Ian
I forgot you were in the Channel thingies - have you ever thought of going into the photographic goods import business my son??
When you order a new lens you do so for a reason, you want to be 'in a new place - a place where you can take images like you've never taken before because you've just ordered the tool for the job.
When you take delivery of your new glass you unpack it and stand it on the kitchen table, comfortable in the thought that you have now 'arrived'.
When you take delivery of a Sigmonster - unless you've had prior experience with it - you have definately 'arrived' - just perhaps not at the place you had intended
You are like a british paratrooper at the D-day landings - you are not in the right 'place' - you can get there, but you've a hard slog ahead of you, and you'll have casualties along the way
A few years ago the EX DG HSM Sigmonster would have been up there with the very best of the big glass, but the big two have added fancy technology to their packages which makes them easier to use to a degree.
The Sig is 'old' technology - very suitable for bumbling old farts like me - but remember, there was plenty of astonishing imagery produced before f4 glass and auto focus
Brilliant!
Did that come to you in a momentary flash of inspiration of did you think of it years a go and have just been waiting for the right time to use it