I was looking at the 120-400mm sigma lens. The only lens I have is a 18-55mm lens because I am in the progress of selling my 70-300mm lens. Overall I am looking for something with longer zoom, but I was looking at the Canon lenses and they are just too expensive for me.
That's a tough range to cover on a budget. From quick research it looks like the 120-400mm offers good (70-300 style, not L) image quality at an attractive price but focus speed, quality control, and reliability are less than optimal. You might want to consider the 150-500mm which offers more range and a little better quality with a slight speed and weight penalty. The latter seems to be better regarded, but neither is considered a top Sigma lens. You could get advice from folks with first hand experience at POTN.
I opted for a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/4L, and 1.4x TC to cover the same range. That costs a little more and you lose zoom convenience, but it offers more versatility (macro, faster glass/focus) and better image quality (420mm less so depending on TC). Canon has decent prices for refurb 100s and 300s if you go that route.
That's a tough range to cover on a budget. From quick research it looks like the 120-400mm offers good (70-300 style, not L) image quality at an attractive price but focus speed, quality control, and reliability are less than optimal. You might want to consider the 150-500mm which offers more range and a little better quality with a slight speed and weight penalty. The latter seems to be better regarded, but neither is considered a top Sigma lens. You could get advice from folks with first hand experience at POTN.
I opted for a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/4L, and 1.4x TC to cover the same range. That costs a little more and you lose zoom convenience, but it offers more versatility (macro, faster glass/focus) and better image quality (420mm less so depending on TC). Canon has decent prices for refurb 100s and 300s if you go that route.
I'm looking around still. But I might go ahead and get Sigma, I'm more worried about money. I don't need the best image quality, it's not like I'm going pro right now. But I'm still not 100% sure. But I do know that money is the main issue here. Thanks for those helpful links too.
__________________
"Never give up on something you love, see it through till the end."
I had a pair of Sigma zoom lenses, a 28-80mm F3.5-5.6,and a 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO, originally bought in 1999 for use with a Canon EOS-300 (film). They were used on subsequent Canon bodies, EOS-300V and EOS-400D, until I replaced them with Canon L-series glass. They were still serviceable lenses, and were decent with digital bodies, even though they were not optimised for digital cameras.
I was very happy with them, but they are markedly inferior to the L-series. Mine were good value and gave good results, but as ever, you get what you play for. With the long lens, AF was slow/patchy on moving targets or in indifferent light. Low contrast is the problem, I think, but bear in mind this was a 1990's design, and the technology has really moved on.
Sigma's customer service (here in the UK) were excellent. Because Canon changed their hardware between the 300 and 300V the lenses had to be modified to work with the new camera, so-called "re-chipping". That was done essentially for the cost of shipping, and was turned around very quickly. I had a few questions about compatibility with subsequent cameras, which were answered quickly.
You might want to think about second hand lenses, including the refurb options Severum mentioned, but the other thing to bear in mind is that you always have the option to upgrade again later. Second-hand prices on the Sigma lenses will give you an indication as to their quality and long-term value.
With a little patience, I got a used L series 100-400 for a very good price on Ebay (same ballpark as a new Sigma 120-400 now, funnily enough). It was usable as received, but needed a factory recalibration to restore peak performance. Even with that factored into the cost it was still a bargain.
See if you can rent the Sigma for a test run. It's cheaper than I expected.
__________________
"People should be encouraged to look to their own self interest, but avoid inflicting themselves on other people - especially don't inflict yourself on a schmuck. The guy has already made his choice. Cut the schmuck some slack." Frank Zappa
Do you guys use a lot of lens filters when shooting? Any recommendation on what brand(s) are the best "bang for your buck"?
What kind of filters are you looking at? I've used B+W 093 infrared pass and circular polarizers in the past, but all I use now are Hoya Super Multi-Coated UVs for protection on some lenses. A B+W 110 ND and MRC CPLs are on my addition list once I relocate to a more suitable locale. I prefer post processing to GNDs when possible.
If you're looking at protective filters, CPLs, or similar filters make sure you buy quality multicoated glass to prevent lens flare and quality loss. Even good brands have tiered offerings ranging from cheap and worthless to expensive and overkill, so check individual filter specs rather than brand alone.
Do you guys use a lot of lens filters when shooting? Any recommendation on what brand(s) are the best "bang for your buck"?
I've gone away from filters purely for protection. I just try to be careful and keep the lens hood turned out. I don't see the point in putting a $70-100 (not nearly the high end, but what I can afford for accessories) piece of glass in front of a much more expensive lens.
I tend to concentrate on nature photography and as such use circular polarizers and neutral density filters the most.
Anyone own a Sigma brand lens or ever used one. If so, was it any good in terms of clarity, sharpness, and overall performance?
My two macro lens are Sigmas - 150mm f/2.8 and 70mm f/2.8. I use them on a Nikon D200 and have had what I consider good results. Of course, it's always difficult and humbling to discuss "good results" in macro photography when posting in the same thread as Severum, but I like what what I get from them.
I also had the 12-24mm for a while and that was a good lens. It's an FX lens, so on my DX sensor I was staying in the lens sweet spot. If you're shooting full frame, I can't speak up on how that would perform.
Macro and ultra-wide crop zooms are two areas where third parties compete well against Canon and Nikon.
I agree that protective filters aren't a must have accessory. Modern lenses can take a lot of abuse and anything below a high end multicoated filter is too detrimental to image quality. I like having them for dirty, wet, or otherwise hazardous shooting conditions so I can keep the amount of front element cleaning to a minimum.
I don't use protective unless the conditions warrant their use, sand & water would apply there. I do however use a B+W 77mm F-Pro Kaeseman Circular Polarizer when outdoors on sunlit days. Helps reduce glare in foliage, water and really makes the partly cloudy blue skies standout.
I also have a Cokin wide angle adapter to use with a set of Hitech Neutral Density filters for that smooth effect in those water shots.
Polarizer used in this photo:
Used a Hitech 3 stop Neutral Density Filter to help achieve a longer exposure to smooth out the water with the wind blowing across the lake in this photo.
Do you use any of the Cokin split density filters, or do you post process for the pictures with large differences in exposure?
A friend of mine invested in one of the adjustable neutral density circular polarizers. Very slick and convenient as compared to stacking.
Thanks ... all I have is the single P size filter holder that holds one square Hitech filter. I can stack it in front of a polarizer for a total of 5 stops of exposure difference. I do have the Split Grad ND filters but never have quite liked their results. Most times I'll take multiple exposures for combining and processing later. The 2nd photo above was three photos combined.
I've gone away from filters purely for protection. I just try to be careful and keep the lens hood turned out. I don't see the point in putting a $70-100 (not nearly the high end, but what I can afford for accessories) piece of glass in front of a much more expensive lens.
I tend to concentrate on nature photography and as such use circular polarizers and neutral density filters the most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Severum
Macro and ultra-wide crop zooms are two areas where third parties compete well against Canon and Nikon.
I agree that protective filters aren't a must have accessory. Modern lenses can take a lot of abuse and anything below a high end multicoated filter is too detrimental to image quality. I like having them for dirty, wet, or otherwise hazardous shooting conditions so I can keep the amount of front element cleaning to a minimum.
What they said. I've also seen a few reports that with some lenses, the L-series 100-400 being one, filters can affect the AF performance. When I was trying to work out why mine wasn't quite as sharp as expected, one of the things I tried was removing the permanently installed UV filter. It didn't make any difference, but I never put it back. I'm looking at a circular polarizer, but I've been overspending on toys recently, and it's going to have to wait a while.
The lens hood is permanently fixed for protection whenever the lens cap is off.
Like Severum, the guy at the-digital-picture.com recommends B+W filters (especially the circular polarizer):
Side note on lens purchasing: if you do use filters, it's nice when several of your lenses have a common filter size.
__________________
"People should be encouraged to look to their own self interest, but avoid inflicting themselves on other people - especially don't inflict yourself on a schmuck. The guy has already made his choice. Cut the schmuck some slack." Frank Zappa
Side note on lens purchasing: if you do use filters, it's nice when several of your lenses have a common filter size.
I've got an adapter that allows me to use my 77mm filters on my smaller diameter lenses. That has saved me a bundle in not having to duplicate filters.
Linear Mode
