sigma 80-400 vs 50-500 vs others? (1 Viewer)

[RonHW]

Hi all,

Just bought a 400D body and am now trying to selelct a lens.

Looking for the longest lens that I may be able to hand hold.

Sigma 50-500 is appealing but the 80-400 has image stabilization. They are the same price. Then there is the Tamaron 28-300 - very different lens.

Thoughts? Other suggestions?

Thnks,
rw

 

[rezMole]

Then there is the Tamaron 28-300 - very different lens.

rw

Then there is the Tamron 200-500. Which many people find quite easy to use hand held, and is a cracking lens for the price.

 

[David Smith]

Just had an email from someone who had the Sigma 50-500 and after a short time swapped it for the Canon 500 as the Sigma was too heavy. He now thinks he maybe should have gone for the 100-400 because of the IS-personally I think the IS is invaluable.

 

[paul goode]

Hi all,

Just bought a 400D body and am now trying to selelct a lens.

Looking for the longest lens that I may be able to hand hold.

Sigma 50-500 is appealing but the 80-400 has image stabilization. They are the same price. Then there is the Tamaron 28-300 - very different lens.

Thoughts? Other suggestions?

Thnks,
rw

Hi Ron,

I agree with what others are saying, the 50-500 isn't the best lens for handholding. Its great used on a tripod but I certainly didn't get on with it handheld.

The sigma 80-400 should be fine as is the canon 100-400is although its a bit more money.

Other lenses to consider are the Tamron 200-500, slower af but much lighter than the 50-500 and the Canon 400mm f5.6, lacking the flexibility of the zoom but quick af and light.

All of these lenses will take great images so its just a case of choosing what suits your needs!

Paul

 

[gordon g]

Hi Ron,

I agree with what others are saying, the 50-500 isn't the best lens for handholding. Its great used on a tripod but I certainly didn't get on with it handheld.

The sigma 80-400 should be fine as is the canon 100-400is although its a bit more money.

Other lenses to consider are the Tamron 200-500, slower af but much lighter than the 50-500 and the Canon 400mm f5.6, lacking the flexibility of the zoom but quick af and light.

All of these lenses will take great images so its just a case of choosing what suits your needs!

Paul

Personally I found the 50-500 quite easy to handhold, but felt it did need to be stopped down a bit (f8 seemed to be best) to get the best sharpness from it. If you can, I would get your hands on the various lenses so you can find whuch suits your technique/physique best.
I havent used the tamron 200-500, but it gets very good reviews - Nigel Blake commented on here about a side-by-side comparison with the 50-500 that he'd done, and felt it was the superior lens.

 

[paul goode]

Personally I found the 50-500 quite easy to handhold, but felt it did need to be stopped down a bit (f8 seemed to be best) to get the best sharpness from it. If you can, I would get your hands on the various lenses so you can find whuch suits your technique/physique best.

I had no problems for panning flight shots but for small stationery passerines I was never happy. An IS or lighter lens will be much easier for those sort of shots handheld. Mind you I never seemed to get enough light to move the lens from wide open but was always more than happy with the sharpness at f6.3 when the lens was supported

 

[RonHW]

That's trade off isn't it. 100mm vs IS. Quite a bit of discussion in the forums on the value / need of IS. Spoke with one gentleman who got rid of IS to save on weight and thought he got better IQ without.

Heading back to the store this afternoon - if it stops raining - to compare the lenses outside.

rw

 

[RonHW]

It would be nice if I could test drive and compare the lenses in real conditions. That's what I did when selecting a scope a few year back.

Had six scopes that I was able to compare in the field.

rw

 

[postcardcv]

That's trade off isn't it. 100mm vs IS. Quite a bit of discussion in the forums on the value / need of IS.

for me reach is all important so I'd go for a 500mm (either the 50-500 or the 200-500), IS (or OS in this case) is handy but I find more reach much more important. That said I do use a 100-400 IS as a walkabout lens and think it really is very good.

 

[tjsimonsen]

All of these lenses will take great images so its just a case of choosing what suits your needs!
Paul

Paul I like the way you slip a "just" into that sentenceB

Thomas

 

[RonHW]

Thanks everyone for pitching in. It's looking like the Tamron 200-500.

Wife nixed the Sigma 50-500 - too heavy.

I liked the feel of the 80-400 but did not see much difference in the pictures at full extension. For the cost and weight difference, the Tamron looks pretty good.

Will go to the store again tomorrow for one more round of comparisons including the sigma 170-500. Am driving myself a little crazy.

Best to all.
Ron