Sharp optics, slow autofocus, various quality control problems.
Written: Jan 25 '05 (Updated Jan 07 '06)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: $400 cheaper than Canon 100-400 L, yet optically equal or better.
Cons: Slow autofocus, no focus limiter, some quality control problems.
The Bottom Line: Superb optical quality, wonderful 5x zoom range, nice price, handicapped by slow autofocus. My copy had high-pitched scratching noise when zooming.
|
|
|
| tcchou71's Full Review: Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX APO Autofocus Lens for... |
This lens has a lot going for it: image stabilization, impressive 80-400mm zoom range, and $400 cheaper price than its competitor, the Canon 100-400 IS L. This review describes my experiences testing this lens side by side with the Canon 100-400.
In my comparisons, the Sigma's optics were every bit as good, if not better, than the Canon 100-400, and with an extra 20mm at the wide end to boot. After hundreds of shots with both lenses at wide open aperture, both lenses were very good, but the best Sigma photos were often a tiny bit sharper than the best photos from the Canon lens. The differences were very slight, and dwarfed by other variations, such as focus variability from one shot to the next.
The only area where the Canon seemed sharper was at close focusing distances (around 6 ft), where the Canon had better contrast and sharpness. Another slight difference was that images from the Sigma seem a little darker, but the difference was VERY minor - about 5% when checked in Photoshop. One reviewer at photographyreview.com thought the Sigma 80-400 might be a full stop slower than the Canon in light-gathering ability, but I never saw such a major difference in my tests.
The Sigma has 20mm extra at the wide end of its zoom range. While that may not seem like much, I was surprised how often I needed it. It's definitely nice to have the extra range, especially as it doesn't sacrifice any sharpness.
The Sigma's stabilization also seems on par with that of the Canon. After a few days of testing, I felt the Canon to be slightly better, but the differences were too close to call conclusively, and both performed well in this regard.
The Sigma is a conventional twist zoom, while the Canon is a push-pull zoom. A lot of people think the twist zoom is better, but I can't fathom why. The push-pull zoom is much faster, and hence I was pleased to find that the Sigma can operate as an improvised push-pull by grabbing the front end of the lens and pulling it in and out. Obviously, it doesn't pump quite as fast as the Canon, and when the lens is zoomed close to 80mm, the barrel around the front element becomes difficult to grab because it disappears into the rest of the lens. Still, within the 120-400mm range or so, I frequently found myself using the Sigma lens as an improvised push-pull.
Optically, the Sigma is very impressive, all the more so considering that it costs only about 2/3 as much as the Canon ($999 vs $1409 at a major camera dealer). However, there were several heartbreaking disappointments with the Sigma lens, due to focus speed and quality control issues:
1. The Sigma takes an eternal two seconds to move from closest to farthest focusing distance, and twice that for a back-and-forth round trip. Most of the time that's adequate, but for really demanding subjects, like birds flying against open sky, the Sigma's motor isn't fast enough. Birds flying against the sky are impossible, because it is easy to accidentally point at the sky behind the bird, causing the camera to lose focus. The lens will then make a round trip through its entire focus range, and the bird is almost always gone by the time the focus comes back.
The Canon is almost twice as fast moving from closest to farthest focusing distance, and has a focus limiter to cut the focus range in half, further reducing hunting time. The Sigma does not have a focus limiter, which is a shame because it could really have benefited from this simple feature. The Canon's USM motor is also silent, whereas the Sigma's is more audible, though not terrible.
2. My copy of the Sigma lens front-focused in many of my photos, with the sharpest objects being slightly in front of the one I actually focused on. In contrast, the Canon 100-400 was more consistently on target. This points to a general disappointment I have: every Sigma lens I've ever used has some sort of autofocus problem, either front-focus, back-focus, or strange focus hunting even in very good light. Because Canon lenses always work fine on my camera, this implicates some sort of compatibility issue. You should buy this lens from a place that will let you exchange or return it if it doesn't work for you.
3. After a few days with the Sigma, I noticed a very irritating mechanical scraping sound, like fingernails on chalkboard, whenever I rotated the zoom ring. Again, this seems like a quality control issue, and hopefully one that could be solved by exchanging it for another copy (though I didn't try to, because I decided to keep only the Canon 100-400L).
4. The Sigma's OS switch is small, ergonomically speaking. It has three positions (off, mode 1, and mode 2 for horizontal panning) but when switching from "off" to mode 1, it's easy to push slightly too far and get mode 2. By contrast, the Canon's stabilizer on/off switch is larger, and is separate from the switch for panning mode so you can switch one without affecting the other.
In the end, I kept the Canon lens and returned the Sigma. The Canon's higher price was worth the faster focusing and better quality control. However, if you don't shoot wildlife or other fast-moving objects, and are on a budget, the Sigma has tremendously good optics, and is a good bargain if you can afford the time and hassle of testing your lens to make sure everything works right.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
tcchou71
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Elephant Seal
Location: Baltimore, MD
Reviews written: 53
Trusted by: 3 members
About Me:
I'm a behavioral neuroscientist/psychologist. The giant animal in the photo is an elephant seal.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2010 Shopping.com, Inc.