News:

[07-11-2024] Various forum updates made.

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: maximum total size 8.00 MB, maximum individual size 2.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

How many engines are on a U-2 Spy Plane?:
How many engines are on a C-17 Globemaster III?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Midnight Mover
 - January 28, 2010, 08:05:10 PM
Quote from: Code20photog on January 27, 2010, 11:07:43 AM
Just remember, you get what you pay for. I thought I'd go the cheaper route and get the Tamron 200-500mm for my Canon, and it went in for service twice the first year I had it due to a manufacturer defect. I actually did not have it in my hands for 4 of the first 12 months I owned it. It's nowhere near as sharp at 400mm as the Canon 100-400 is at 4000mm, let alone all the way out at 500mm, and now I'm likely going to have to pony up the $1,600 for the Canon lens on top of the $1,000 for the Tamron that I very rarely use anymore.

Yep, gotta pay <whip>
Posted by Midnight Mover
 - January 28, 2010, 08:04:23 PM
Quote from: Realbigtaco on January 27, 2010, 11:37:27 AM
Thanks for all the info guys, I think I will have a talk with the misses tonight and see what the boss will allow.

We are crossing our fingers for you ;)
Posted by Realbigtaco
 - January 27, 2010, 08:36:51 PM
Quote from: tstbell on January 27, 2010, 08:07:23 PM
I still have the lens, but I had a some problems with it. It had problems with the lens contacts, that it would loose contact with the contacts on the camera body causing the lens to loose power. Also the lens barrel would slide down when aiming up. I sent the lens in to be repaired and they fixed the lens barrel but said the contacts/lens mount was fine. They thought the problem was with the camera body but I don't have that problem with my other lenses.

The main problem is that the lens has soft focus at 300-400mm and it is slow acquiring focus (at least on the D80, I haven't tried it with the D300s). Plus the Optical Image Stabilization is not as good as Nikon or Canon.

The first 4 images are from El Centro 2009. With the original scaled image and a 100% crop (the first cropped image being the bad shot and the second cropped image being the "good" shot).
The poor quality could have been due to problems with my Nikon D90 in addition to the soft focus of the lens. (I have sold my D90).

The last two images were taken late last year out at LAX after the lens was repaired (taken with a Nikon D80). To show the soft focus at 300mm.

I could have gotten a bad lens.
Thanks a ton for the info, that is the best review i could get. <thumbup>
Posted by tstbell
 - January 27, 2010, 08:07:23 PM
I still have the lens, but I had a some problems with it. It had problems with the lens contacts, that it would loose contact with the contacts on the camera body causing the lens to loose power. Also the lens barrel would slide down when aiming up. I sent the lens in to be repaired and they fixed the lens barrel but said the contacts/lens mount was fine. They thought the problem was with the camera body but I don't have that problem with my other lenses.

The main problem is that the lens has soft focus at 300-400mm and it is slow acquiring focus (at least on the D80, I haven't tried it with the D300s). Plus the Optical Image Stabilization is not as good as Nikon or Canon.

The first 4 images are from El Centro 2009. With the original scaled image and a 100% crop (the first cropped image being the bad shot and the second cropped image being the "good" shot).
The poor quality could have been due to problems with my Nikon D90 in addition to the soft focus of the lens. (I have sold my D90).

The last two images were taken late last year out at LAX after the lens was repaired (taken with a Nikon D80). To show the soft focus at 300mm.

I could have gotten a bad lens.
Posted by kick Z tail out
 - January 27, 2010, 11:52:35 AM
Quote from: Code20photog on January 27, 2010, 11:07:43 AM
It's nowhere near as sharp at 400mm as the Canon 100-400 is at 4000mm
:o





I take it thats a bad thing?  ;D
Posted by Realbigtaco
 - January 27, 2010, 11:37:27 AM
Thanks for all the info guys, I think I will have a talk with the misses tonight and see what the boss will allow.
Posted by Code20photog
 - January 27, 2010, 11:07:43 AM
Just remember, you get what you pay for. I thought I'd go the cheaper route and get the Tamron 200-500mm for my Canon, and it went in for service twice the first year I had it due to a manufacturer defect. I actually did not have it in my hands for 4 of the first 12 months I owned it. It's nowhere near as sharp at 400mm as the Canon 100-400 is at 4000mm, let alone all the way out at 500mm, and now I'm likely going to have to pony up the $1,600 for the Canon lens on top of the $1,000 for the Tamron that I very rarely use anymore.
Posted by Realbigtaco
 - January 27, 2010, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: tstbell on January 26, 2010, 11:11:55 PM
I have the Sigma 120-400mm and I've been disappointed with the lens. It has soft focus and needs lots of light. I used it at the 2009 El Centro Airshow and I had few keepers from the show. So now I have been using my Nikon 70-300mm lens for aircraft.
Hmmm, that is disappointing to hear, but thanks a lot for the information.  That is what I love about this site, I can get info like this.  I can't always trust Amazon reviews, like all the great reviews for the 50-500mm Sigma lens, which i thought it was terrible at 400-500 range (which for airshows is what i want). So let me ask you what did you end up doing with the lens?  Did you sell it?  Looking online it seems that that is one of the positives about buying one of these lenses, is that you can get most of your money back online if you decide to sell it.  Any chance you can share some of the "Bad" and "good" shots you got with that lens tstbell?
Quote from: Fernando Sedeno on January 26, 2010, 11:35:45 PM
Seems to me that Tokina is WAY better than Sigma?
Good to know...
Tokina is not an option for me since they don't make a lens that will mount to a Sony camera.  Maybe it sounds like I should just cough up the extra dough and get the Sony 70-400 lens.
Posted by NikonGuy
 - January 26, 2010, 11:35:45 PM
Seems to me that Tokina is WAY better than Sigma?
Good to know...
Posted by tstbell
 - January 26, 2010, 11:11:55 PM
I have the Sigma 120-400mm and I've been disappointed with the lens. It has soft focus and needs lots of light. I used it at the 2009 El Centro Airshow and I had few keepers from the show. So now I have been using my Nikon 70-300mm lens for aircraft.
Posted by Midnight Mover
 - January 25, 2010, 06:40:48 PM
Quote from: Realbigtaco on January 25, 2010, 10:21:49 AM
I was originally looking at Sony's 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM Lens, but the $1,500 price tag is shying me away.

I would rent one of these and see if you like it. For  $1,500 it sounds good and it is a very nice range. I would love it if Canon made there 100-400 in that range. 70 would be a great starting point. BTW the 100-400 IS 4.5-5.6 is $1,610 at B&H. Also PMA is coming up, Sony had a great display last year and you can try stuff out ;D

PMA Link: http://www.apsocal.com/index.php/topic,1620.0.html
Posted by f4_phantom_fan
 - January 25, 2010, 03:27:21 PM
I have the Sigma 175-500, and it is fuzzy and inconsistent at the 500mm end. I plan to stick with my Canon 75-300, get the 100-400 when I can, and also go back to Tokina. I had their 80-400 for awhile, and it was always one of the consistently sharpest non Canon lenses I've ever had.
Posted by kick Z tail out
 - January 25, 2010, 02:15:33 PM
I looked into the Sigma 150-500 OS last year, and the results people were getting with it were disappointing. It was really soft at the long end and terrible in anything but broad daylight. However, there is a guy in the ASB gear forum that has one and has some decent pictures with his. I don't know how much one could expect results like that however. I don't think I'm willing to take the risk, even though 500mm is extremely tempting.

Is that Sony lens fast? The price isn't too bad for that lens, as long as it's fast... From what most say, the Nikon 80-400 is slow autofocusing, yet the 200-400 is fast. They're also several thousand dollars apart from each other.  :-[
Posted by Realbigtaco
 - January 25, 2010, 10:21:49 AM
So I'm looking into getting a new telephoto lens and I wanted to see if anyone had any experience or recommendations.  I was originally looking at Sony's (Yes I think I am the only Sony man here) Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM Lens, but the $1500 price tag is shying me away.  So I am thinking of compromising and picking up a Sigma lens instead.  I have rented the "Bigma" 50-500mm, and I really wasn't all that impressed, the quality at the 500mm range was really poor.  So that leaves me with two options the Sigma 150-500mm or the 120-400mm.  I think I am leaning more towards the 120-400 just because it looks to me like the more larger the range the more poorer quality the extreme focal lengths are (maybe this is a false presumption). The only reason I was debating the 150-500, is the fact that it has more reach which I like (I was also thinking about just getting a 1.4 teleconverter for the 400mm to cover it.  Anyways just wanted to know if anyone had experiences with these lenses.