Sigma 80-400, good or no?

[Jeff Wilson]

Does anyone own a Sigma 80-400 4.5-5.6 OS lens? I'm interested in opinions.

[John Thawley]

Jeff: I can't speak to that specific lens, but as a general rule of thumb, the more elements you add to the equation, the softe the image and the slower the response. That's just too wide or range for a zoom. IMO.

I have had experience with the 100-400 L Series Canon 4.5/5.6 and those were exactly the issues I struggled with. I loved having that kind of range... but in the end, the trade offs weren't worth the loss of image quality and performance, Autofocus was brutally slow.. and more often than not, the image was soft. Now... maybe the softness was due to the lag in the autofocus...

Kep in mind, I'm shooting primarily motorsports, so autofocus speed is a primary concern.

I've not been a big fan of Sigma... from experience. I'd love to hear contrary input from other users, but from my experience, I've not been satisifed.

Currently, I accomplish my needs with the Canon f/2.8 70-200 and a Canon 400 f/5.6 prime.

JT

[Jeff Wilson]

Thanks! What have your experiences been with the 400 f/5.6 without IS? I have been thinking about the 400 f/5.6 but I was concerned about no IS. I have the 70-200 (no IS) and find myself wishing I had Mode 2 stabilization. I was concerned that at 400mm it would be worse.

I'd used a 100-400 4.5-5.6 and found the same thing you did. Soft, slow to focus, etc. which made me wonder if the Sigma might be any different.

[Todd Corzett]

I'll echo John on this... it's like a TV/VCR combo. It's OK at what it does, but is never as good as the individual components (the whole is less than the sum of it's parts). There is a versatility standpoint from a single lens with a long range of things (many people swear by the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L or the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 for that reason), but I'd rather have a 24-70 and a 70-200 (with/without a +1.4xTC) on two bodies (or even switching back and forth on one body).

I'll use the Canon lenses as an example (I'd guess the Sigma ones would be similar or worse):

28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 28mm
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_28-300_35LISUmtf1.gif

24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_24-70_28umtf1.gif

28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 300
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_28-300_35LISUmtf2.gif

70-200mm f/2.8 @ 200
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28mtf2.gif



I know this isn't the best comparison due to the price difference and different ranges of focal lengths between lenses, but you get the idea. Not only is the optical quality better, but you get a faster maximum aperture with two lenses rather than a single one.

I also agree with John about Sigma lenses. While some may like them, I always seem to hear the same thing... "I like it, but I'm saving for the Canon/Nikor". Unfortunately, the resale value of off-brand lenses is quite low compared to Canon/Nikor ones. I can sell my three year old 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS for more tomorrow than I paid then. Nearly the same can be said for all my Canon glass, it just holds its value much better than the off brands. IMO, you save-up to buy once... or you'll be burning money to buy/sell stuff to get what you really want anyway.

I have been thinking about the 400 f/5.6 but I was concerned about no IS. I have the 70-200 (no IS) and find myself wishing I had Mode 2 stabilization.

Is there a reason why you want Mode 2 IS? IS has it's place... but I think you want it for panning (hence mode 2), which I'd say IS doesn't help with at all (from my experience). For panning, I always have IS off on my 500. Panning has to do with moving the camera WITH THE SUBECT. A tripod, monopod, IS, etc... doesn't help you move the camera WITH THE SUBJECT. They help removing motion in a given axis... but when panning you actually WANT motion in all axis so that you can track the subject as perfect as possible. The ONLY thing that helps with panning is practice. Now, if you want IS to help with reducing camera shake (what it was designed for) then by all means go for the IS versions (I use the IS on my 500 almost all the time when I'm birding).

-Todd...

[John Thawley]

Thanks! What have your experiences been with the 400 f/5.6 without IS? I have been thinking about the 400 f/5.6 but I was concerned about no IS. I have the 70-200 (no IS) and find myself wishing I had Mode 2 stabilization. I was concerned that at 400mm it would be worse.

I'd used a 100-400 4.5-5.6 and found the same thing you did. Soft, slow to focus, etc. which made me wonder if the Sigma might be any different.

I'm not a fan of IS. I think the whole premise is greatly overstated, underrated and misunderstood.... by all parties involved. :) Basically, IS is a stop. No more, no less. If you're shooting that 70-200 at f/2.8 fully extened and trying to hand hold pointed at a stationary subject and you can't grab a shutter speed less than 1/200 sec., then, yes, the IS will help you. But, basically, that's the window of benefit. It's an extra stop in low light situations.

Now... that said, guys swinging around the 500mm 4.0 can benefit. The sunshade on those things can act like a kite on a windy day and a little shake can magnify itself over a long distance. And, it can be handy if your on a mono-pod and dropping the shutter down below 500 to retain spinning wheels in a head-on shot.

What I like about the 400 f/5.6 is the size. And, shooting 20Ds, the sensor size yields an image not far of the magnification of a 500mm f/4.0. But, you are giving up a stop + on the 400mm. But, it's a great size, good value, and a pretty sharp little lens.

FYI, I shot with my 100-400 with IS off. Again, slows down the auto focus and would tend to send it off "hunting."

JT

[Dennis Murray]

With regard to Sigma lenses in general, there are good ones. I'll count the 70-200/2.8 among them. While it isn't as good as either of the Canon 2.8's, it's is very sharp and the AF fairly quick. If you can find one used as I did, then you can come out much cheaper than the Canon.

I don't have experience with lens you ask about specifically, but I do work with the Canon 100-400L right now. AF speed is OK, sharpness is OK. I'm moving to a prime (the 100-400 is for sale on Fred Miranda) but that's as much for some field sport opportunities where I need a 2.8.

[Todd Corzett]

guys swinging around the 500mm 4.0 can benefit. The sunshade on those things can act like a kite on a windy day and a little shake can magnify itself over a long distance. And, it can be handy if your on a mono-pod and dropping the shutter down below 500 to retain spinning wheels in a head-on shot.

Maybe I've not shot in high enough winds, but even on a monopod I don't turn on IS with the 500. For head-on stuff I'm either using narrow DOF (so shutter speeds more than high enough to compensate for motion) or slower speeds to show motion. For the slower shutter speeds you're still panning with the subject, so IS wants to counter that motion (even in mode 2, as nothing is ever 100% horizontal motion). Shooting a static subject (like you said in your first paragraph), or a subject you don't want to show with motion, is where IS nice. In low light it's really great, but like John said... it's only really worth a stop and doesn't keep the subject from moving and causing motion. Even in the bright sun with shutter speeds over 1/500th it just helps dampen the motion when trying to track a target and shoot it with higher shutter speed to stop the motion (my birding shots mostly).

-Todd...

[Jeff Wilson]

Ok, so to summarize, the consensus seems to be that IS isn't very valuable for motorsports. Correct?

Motorsports is really where I'd use IS anyway because my static shots are all from atop a tripod and I don't worry about slow shutter speeds. For the record, I agree with what you all said about Sigma lenses. I've never really been impressed, but that's not to say that every lens they ever make will be bad, so I thought I'd ask about the 80-400.

Sounds like I should stick to my original plan of getting the 400 f/5.6.