Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigms OS. How does it rate?

Go to last post
E

Elan Remford

Senior Member
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
1
Location
• Somerset Co, NJ, US
I'm still at a bit of a dilemma at longer focal lengths. Having established that my personal needs place a premium on some sort of stabilization mechanism, and already owning a 75-300 IS USM, first-generation, mid-range zoom at best, I am considering alternatives.

I really don't need the super reach; in fact, 200mm would probably do me just fine, and I know the 70-200L f/2.8 IS is just damn tough to beat as best in class. However, at $1,600 and change, it's a tough pill to swallow as well. I'd be willing to make some compromises between the $400 solution I have now and the $1,600 I'd opt for with an unlimited budget, provided one exists.

As I consider the Sigma (and anyone who knows me would appreciate what a revolutionary that is to attribute to me), I have two fundamental questions. The first questions the overall quality of Sigma's OS against Canon's first and third generation IS to be found in the 75-300 and 70-200L respectively. I do understand that the Sigma's OS works in two dimensions as opposed to Canon's which limits vertical only. (Or am I wrong with the 70-200L?)

The second question pertains to optical quality. While the 75-300 IS USM certainly works, surpassing its quality is not going to be any great feat. How does the Sigma 80-400 compare to it? Also, knowing that matching the 70-200L's inherent image quality is just not likely to happen, how far off is the 80-400 at common focal lengths? Finally, with the 75-300 rated as "1" and the 70-200L as "10", where would the Sigma 80-400 OS place?

Many thanks for all helpful input.

E.
 
Elan Remford said:
As I consider the Sigma (and anyone who knows me would appreciate
what a revolutionary that is to attribute to me), I have two
fundamental questions. The first questions the overall quality of
Sigma's OS against Canon's first and third generation IS to be
found in the 75-300 and 70-200L respectively.
Click to expand...
Reportedly similar to Canon's 1st and 2nd generation and not as good as 3rd.
Elan Remford said:
I do understand that
the Sigma's OS works in two dimensions as opposed to Canon's which
limits vertical only. (Or am I wrong with the 70-200L?)
Click to expand...
Wrong and right. The lens has a switch for this. Normal is for both directions but you can switch it into single-axis for panning shots.
Elan Remford said:
The second question pertains to optical quality. While the 75-300
IS USM certainly works, surpassing its quality is not going to be
any great feat. How does the Sigma 80-400 compare to it?
Click to expand...
No contest. The Sigma is closer to the 100-400L.
Elan Remford said:
Also,
knowing that matching the 70-200L's inherent image quality is just
not likely to happen, how far off is the 80-400 at common focal
lengths? Finally, with the 75-300 rated as "1" and the 70-200L as
"10", where would the Sigma 80-400 OS place?
Click to expand...
Probably 7 or 8. You have to remember than the Sigma is basically an f5.6 lens wide open. The 70-200 is already two stops down by then so it's way sharp. They're probably similar when both are wide open.

The Sigma doesn't have HSM so focusing is going to be slower and noiser than Canon's ring USM or Sigmas HSM.

Lee Jay
 
I have it and it is a good lens. I posted the attached photo many times. I hope the members of this forum will not get bored because of that but you are asking the same question I see very often about the effectiveness and optical quality of this lens. The attached photo was taken after sunset, handheld, see the night lights.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12994835

Regards.
MA
 
I have the 80-400. The OS works well; worth about 2 stops. I can take photos at 1/160 sec at 400mm.

The focus is slow, and may bug you.

Optical quality is good, though not as good as the Canon 70-200's.

I've tried the 100-400L, and I would say the optical quality is similar. AF can be a bit of a problem in lower light. In my opinion, neither the 80-400 or the 100-400L are good low-light lenses. A max aperture of 5.6 is just a bit slow.

Having said all of this, I probably wouldn't buy the 80-400 again. The slow AF bugs me. The weight is a bit much as well.

jgb
Elan Remford said:
I'm still at a bit of a dilemma at longer focal lengths. Having
established that my personal needs place a premium on some sort of
stabilization mechanism, and already owning a 75-300 IS USM,
first-generation, mid-range zoom at best, I am considering
alternatives.

I really don't need the super reach; in fact, 200mm would probably
do me just fine, and I know the 70-200L f/2.8 IS is just damn tough
to beat as best in class. However, at $1,600 and change, it's a
tough pill to swallow as well. I'd be willing to make some
compromises between the $400 solution I have now and the $1,600 I'd
opt for with an unlimited budget, provided one exists.

As I consider the Sigma (and anyone who knows me would appreciate
what a revolutionary that is to attribute to me), I have two
fundamental questions. The first questions the overall quality of
Sigma's OS against Canon's first and third generation IS to be
found in the 75-300 and 70-200L respectively. I do understand that
the Sigma's OS works in two dimensions as opposed to Canon's which
limits vertical only. (Or am I wrong with the 70-200L?)

The second question pertains to optical quality. While the 75-300
IS USM certainly works, surpassing its quality is not going to be
any great feat. How does the Sigma 80-400 compare to it? Also,
knowing that matching the 70-200L's inherent image quality is just
not likely to happen, how far off is the 80-400 at common focal
lengths? Finally, with the 75-300 rated as "1" and the 70-200L as
"10", where would the Sigma 80-400 OS place?

Many thanks for all helpful input.

E.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the candid feedback.

Isn't it a terrible shame that there are so few lenses out there, especially by Sigma, it seems, that manage to incorporate the best of the best of its manufacturer's features? I mean, OS is a WONDERFUL aid. At such a price point, why would they NOT include HSM as well? Do they honestly think that someone willing to pay $1,000 for a lens would not be willing to go to $1,050 to have the best of breed in all respects? Unfortunately, because so many people have lenses, each of which may have one or more of the best types of motor, glass, or anti-shake, it always feels to me that any lens that lacks any of these features is a sad and unnecessary compromise. Oh well, enough editorializing for now. :)

The 80-400 would fit very well in my lineup, but the slow focus seems to really be a hinderance both at shorter focal lengths, when it is more convenient, or at longer ones, when it may be outright necessary to capture birds or sports, which is what 400 was really meant to do. There just seems to be too much of a compromise in any given usage scenario to make it the lens of choice over the 70-200 2.8 IS, or even the 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS. Despite maxing out at 200, its extra speed and relatively narrow "x" factor are really leaning me toward the 70-200, with which I think I am likely to be most happy, since its speed makes it compatible with the extenders while maintaining AF. Hell, it could even make a reasonbly decent portrait lens.

Thanks again for your help!
jgb said:
The focus is slow, and may bug you.

Optical quality is good, though not as good as the Canon 70-200's.
I've tried the 100-400L, and I would say the optical quality is
similar. AF can be a bit of a problem in lower light. In my
opinion, neither the 80-400 or the 100-400L are good low-light
lenses. A max aperture of 5.6 is just a bit slow.

Having said all of this, I probably wouldn't buy the 80-400 again.
The slow AF bugs me. The weight is a bit much as well.

jgb
Elan Remford said:
I'm still at a bit of a dilemma at longer focal lengths. Having
established that my personal needs place a premium on some sort of
stabilization mechanism, and already owning a 75-300 IS USM,
first-generation, mid-range zoom at best, I am considering
alternatives.

I really don't need the super reach; in fact, 200mm would probably
do me just fine, and I know the 70-200L f/2.8 IS is just damn tough
to beat as best in class. However, at $1,600 and change, it's a
tough pill to swallow as well. I'd be willing to make some
compromises between the $400 solution I have now and the $1,600 I'd
opt for with an unlimited budget, provided one exists.

As I consider the Sigma (and anyone who knows me would appreciate
what a revolutionary that is to attribute to me), I have two
fundamental questions. The first questions the overall quality of
Sigma's OS against Canon's first and third generation IS to be
found in the 75-300 and 70-200L respectively. I do understand that
the Sigma's OS works in two dimensions as opposed to Canon's which
limits vertical only. (Or am I wrong with the 70-200L?)

The second question pertains to optical quality. While the 75-300
IS USM certainly works, surpassing its quality is not going to be
any great feat. How does the Sigma 80-400 compare to it? Also,
knowing that matching the 70-200L's inherent image quality is just
not likely to happen, how far off is the 80-400 at common focal
lengths? Finally, with the 75-300 rated as "1" and the 70-200L as
"10", where would the Sigma 80-400 OS place?

Many thanks for all helpful input.

E.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A canon 100-400? Price wise it comes somewhere inbetween the 75-300 IS & 70-200 IS but it has the focus speed the sigma is lacking.

Or perhaps you could consider something like the sigma 70-200 2.8 - it's cheaper still, has HSM etc. It's lacking IS but has the focal range you want and has an F-stop advantage over the 80-400 perhaps going a long way to cancelling the IS difference.

Have you tried much in the way of fast glass? Given the choice I would take speed over IS every time. Of course both together is best but my pocket certainly doesn't stretch that far ;)

Good luck!
 
When choosing speed over IS, the question always has to be, "how much?".

IMO, or at least in my use, at 200, IS is virtually essential for any sort of handheld shooting. It's imapct upon the number of quality outcomes makes it the single most important feature criteria.

While the 100-400 does seem to be a good lens, I'd much prefer the 2.8 of the 70-200, and with the teleconverter, can achieve pretty-much on-par capability with the 100-400.

I hadn't considered the less expensive Sigma as it doesn't have IS.

I do appreciate the input, though. Thanks!

E.
fras said:
A canon 100-400? Price wise it comes somewhere inbetween the 75-300
IS & 70-200 IS but it has the focus speed the sigma is lacking.

Or perhaps you could consider something like the sigma 70-200 2.8 -
it's cheaper still, has HSM etc. It's lacking IS but has the focal
range you want and has an F-stop advantage over the 80-400 perhaps
going a long way to cancelling the IS difference.

Have you tried much in the way of fast glass? Given the choice I
would take speed over IS every time. Of course both together is
best but my pocket certainly doesn't stretch that far ;)

Good luck!
Click to expand...
 
Elan Remford said:
As I consider the Sigma (and anyone who knows me would appreciate
what a revolutionary that is to attribute to me), I have two
fundamental questions. The first questions the overall quality of
Sigma's OS against Canon's first and third generation IS to be
found in the 75-300 and 70-200L respectively. I do understand that
the Sigma's OS works in two dimensions as opposed to Canon's which
limits vertical only. (Or am I wrong with the 70-200L?)
Click to expand...
I have tried the Sigma 80-400 OS, but have not used it enough to give a real good comparison. The first thing that struck me, and stays with me, is that the focus seemed very slow when compared to my Canon 100-400 L IS under the same lighting conditions.

However,you are wrong about the Canon IS doing vertical only. The Canon has Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 stabilizes in both dimensions, Mode 2 stabilizes in one axis only, and it selects the axis based on detecting your panning motion.

T!

--

 
I have both the 70-200 f2.8 L IS and the 100-400 L IS. I have tried the 70-200 with Canon's 2x TC, and I think it comes up short when compared to the 100-400. Now, without the TC, or with the 1.4 TC, the 70-200 beats the 100-400, but not with the 2.0X. At least for my copies.

T!
--

 
Elan Remford said:
When choosing speed over IS, the question always has to be, "how
much?".
Click to expand...
Well, generally I think people agree IS gives a 2 stop advantage, so a constant 2.8 lense should be roughly similar in handhold ability to a 5.6 IS. Except with the 2.8 you get to freeze the action too (important for wildlife and sports), that and DOF control is why I prefer speed over IS.

At 400 IS is way cheaper than speed, but at 200 there seems to be a reasonable choice for reasonable money (like the sigma 70-200 2.8 or canon 200 2.8)

Not that you're wrong of course, just personal preference.
 
It seems that there are few choices in this range when it comes to IS and OS. I would think that this is where Canon should focus it's EF-S efforts as all of the above are also heavy. A long EF-S with IS would be lighter - anything new here would be welcome it seems.
 
Is it to save on power consumption?
Token said:
Elan Remford said:
As I consider the Sigma (and anyone who knows me would appreciate
what a revolutionary that is to attribute to me), I have two
fundamental questions. The first questions the overall quality of
Sigma's OS against Canon's first and third generation IS to be
found in the 75-300 and 70-200L respectively. I do understand that
the Sigma's OS works in two dimensions as opposed to Canon's which
limits vertical only. (Or am I wrong with the 70-200L?)
Click to expand...
I have tried the Sigma 80-400 OS, but have not used it enough to
give a real good comparison. The first thing that struck me, and
stays with me, is that the focus seemed very slow when compared to
my Canon 100-400 L IS under the same lighting conditions.

However,you are wrong about the Canon IS doing vertical only. The
Canon has Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 stabilizes in both dimensions,
Mode 2 stabilizes in one axis only, and it selects the axis based
on detecting your panning motion.

T!

--

Click to expand...
 
Typically for sports, you will need to pan along the horiontal axis to track the action and you obviously don't need IS/OS compensating for that motion so you use the mode that stabilizes vertically only. If you're not panning, then stabilization on each axis makes sense.
 
Bayfront Benny said:
It seems that there are few choices in this range when it comes to
IS and OS. I would think that this is where Canon should focus it's
EF-S efforts as all of the above are also heavy. A long EF-S with
IS would be lighter - anything new here would be welcome it seems.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. At long focal lengths, there's nothing to be saved by going to EF-S, because long lenses already give you a wide image circle and don't require any retrofocus trickery. A 400mm f/4 lens has to have at least a 100mm diameter front element, whether your sensor is 1mm or 100mm wide.
 
OK - but you do agree that the choice of zooms with OS or IS in the range of xx to 400 or 500 is narrow right?
 
I think IS (or OS) if different from speed. We assume the stabilization would componsate for speed or vice versa and that is not very accurate. There are situations that speed is needed and image stabilization would not help, sports and action for example. If you can afford, have both lenses. Otherwise pick the one that fits your basic needs and work around other needs.
Regards.
MA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top