Sigma 300-800mm

[Sue Tranter]

Hi All,

Just a quick review on the Sigma 300-800mm.

I currently own this as well as a Canon 500mm f4 IS lens and if I had to choose the Sigma would win. Here are the reasons.

The Zoom on the Sigma is the greatest ever thing you could wish for on such a long lens and gives you chance to frame/compose all kinds of shots. IMO the lens is as equally as sharp as the Canon wide open all through the zoom which is some acheivment. I believe the Canon is slightly faster to focus and the IS is good to have but the Zooooooooom is what wins it for me and don't forget the extra focal lenght. I've recommended this to quite a few people who have gone on to buy it and everyone has been over the moon with it. I must have made Sigma at least £100,000 in sales on my recommendations and yet they won't even provide me with a free filter!!! :notworthy: Are you listening Sigma? :daydreaming:

I've never heard of anyone getting a dud as well, unlike the 1D MKIII, ;)

Best wishes
Sue @ www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk (http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk)

[Bobby]

Mao will be most interested in this thread Sue. He recently let his 500 4 go and is now looking at the Sig 300-800 or the prime 800. great to hear this lens is really good.

[Rudi]

I had a chance to use the Sigmonster quite extensively a few years back, and liked it quite a lot. The things that I did not like about it are all the things that make the Canon superteles what they are, IMO - no IS, and the thing is HEAVY and awkward to use, IMO, even more than Canon's big gun (600mm f/4. L IS). Plus, to be perfectly honest, I am a little nervous spending that kind of money on a third-party lens, with dubious (or at least uncertain) after-sales service (at least in this country).

[Keith]

look out Mao :brows:

Sue how does it compare to the 800mm sigmonster prime?

[Mao]

Stop bashing the MKIII, lol. It's a great camera.

And don't hold your breath for Sigma to send you a filter.

All kidding aside, yeah, I've been tossing and turning whether to go back to a 500 mm.

I've seen great images with the 300-800 and will most likely go the prime way.

And hire a caddy.

[Kevin]

This is one of those focal lengths that I think would be absolutely perfect for me. Often the arguments with the primes are you can add a tc. But that's not always practical out in the field. And having the benefit of turning the dial to get closer/farther certainly is an advantage. For many of the places I shoot, it is an absolutely perfect range.

Keith, Phillip has the 800 prime. I'm not sure if he's ever used the zoom though.

[David Cramer]

According to Phillip, the 300-800 is about equal to the prime in IQ. I had the 300-800 and can testify it is excellent glass. A bit slow for me, and a heavy clunker. I sold it to finance a 400 2.8, which works wonders with a 2x. I do miss the zoom, though.

[Rudi]

Stop bashing the MKIII, lol. It's a great camera.

And don't hold your breath for Sigma to send you a filter.

All kidding aside, yeah, I've been tossing and turning whether to go back to a 500 mm.

I've seen great images with the 300-800 and will most likely go the prime way.

And hire a caddy.

Well Mao, since you tended to handhold the 500 prime a lot of the time, the Sigma is no good to you - you just cannot handhold that mongrel, especially with no IS!

[Mao]

It will no doubt be strapped to the tripod. Like my friend said "You'll get a lot of shots with this and you'll miss a lot" But it's a superb lens.

If, and if I get the Sigmonster, it will most likely be carried with the case, tripod strapped to the case. The 400 mm. F5.6 on the 2nd. body, ready to go at any given time. I've found, around here, that there's ample time to mount the other camera on the tripod cuz we're waiting 70% of the time for something anyway.

Now, if Sue would come along, I'd just make her carry the lens and I get to shoot first. No? I tried.:biggrin:

[Sue Tranter]

[Now, if Sue would come along, I'd just make her carry the lens and I get to shoot first. No? I tried.:biggrin:[/quote]

I'm not being a caddy for two of these things. :) One is more than enough thank you.

I know the Phillip you are on about and I know he will beg to differ but I owned the 800mm he has. :argue2: My 300-800 is sharper than the prime without a doubt. It's sharp right through the zoom wide open. cool;

Ask him what he does if he's too close to the subject? ;) He'll have to take several steps back and if the birds are for example swans then he'll have to get in his car to move far enough away to get them fully in the frame! :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Anyone consider a wildlife photography lens should really give this lens at the very least a testing before making their minds up. They will be more than pleased with it. GUARENTEED!!!!

Best wishes
Sue @ www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk (http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk)

[Jonathan]

what is the size comparison to the 500:confused_1: I guess i echo rudi;s thoughts. I also wonder how well it would manage on a safari trip with a land rover or similar..is it just to big to wheel around and put on a beanbag? Guess I think of it as a park and shoot lens without mobility. Then again 300 to 800 mm is hard to beat..especially if its on par IQ wise

[Kevin]

Here you go Jonathan:

B&H prices
Sigma 300-800/f5.6 $6999
Filter Size 46mm (Rear)
f/Stop Range 5.6-32
Minimum Focus Distance 19.6' (6 m)
Magnification 1:6.5
Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch
Angle of View 8.2 to 3.1 Degrees
Groups/Elements 16/18
Tripod Collar Yes (removable)
Length 21.3" (541.5mm)
Maximum Diameter 6.5" (165.5mm)
Weight 12.9 lb (5.870 kg)

Canon 600/f4 $7200USD
Filter Size 52mm (Rear) [52mm drop-in filter holder required]
f/Stop Range 4-32
Minimum Focus Distance 18'
Magnification 1:8.3
Angle of View 4 Degrees
Groups/Elements 13/17
Tripod Collar Yes (fixed)
Length 18"
Maximum Diameter 6.6"
Weight 11.8 lb

Canon 500/f4 $5500USD
Filter Size 52mm (Rear) [52mm Drop-in filter holder required]
f/Stop Range 4-32
Minimum Focus Distance 14.8'
Magnification 1:8.3
Angle of View 5 Degrees
Groups/Elements 13/17
Tripod Collar Yes (Fixed)
Length 15.2"
Maximum Diameter 5.8"
Weight 8.53 lb

Canon 400/f2.8 $6500USD
Filter Size 52mm (Rear) [52mm drop-in filter holder required]
f/Stop Range 2.8-32
Minimum Focus Distance 9.8'
Magnification 1:6.6
Angle of View 6 Degrees
Groups/Elements 13/17
Tripod Collar Yes
Length 13.7"
Maximum Diameter 6.4"
Weight 11.70 lb

[imageswest]

.

[Kevin]

Mao.... here's one for $4500......:brows:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/543044

[Sue Tranter]

That is a pure evil comment. :devil_2: Is it the manual focus why they a recalling them? :biglaugh: or maybe the size of the thing. Perhaps someone as injured themselves lugging it around. :biglaugh:

These are truly worrying times for me. krank; 505;

Best wishes
Sue @ www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk (http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk)

I heard Sigma were recalling this lens... ?





(just kidding, Sue! ;))

[Phillip 200]

[Now, if Sue would come along, I'd just make her carry the lens and I get to shoot first. No? I tried.:biggrin:

I'm not being a caddy for two of these things. :) One is more than enough thank you.

I know the Phillip you are on about and I know he will beg to differ but I owned the 800mm he has. :argue2: My 300-800 is sharper than the prime without a doubt. It's sharp right through the zoom wide open. cool;

Ask him what he does if he's too close to the subject? ;) He'll have to take several steps back and if the birds are for example swans then he'll have to get in his car to move far enough away to get them fully in the frame! :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Anyone consider a wildlife photography lens should really give this lens at the very least a testing before making their minds up. They will be more than pleased with it. GUARENTEED!!!!

Best wishes
Sue @ www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk (http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk)[/QUOTE]

Hi the 800 prime is a much better lens you know it:arghh::chatterbox: now seriously yes I have to agree with you after having useding a few other 300 800's the 300 800's are sharper wide open than the 800 prime (I believe the new version is as sharp as the 300 800 though) I can't see any difference though by f7.1 the biggest disadvantage for 300-800 user is that it doesn't have a focus limiter switch which slows down the autofocus, you can't go wrong buying either of the two big sigmas :cheer:.

Phillip.

:biggrin::):)

[Kevin]

the biggest disadvantage for 300-800 user is that it doesn't have a focus limiter switch which slows down the autofocus, you can't go wrong buying either of the two big sigmas :cheer:.

Phillip.

:biggrin::):)

After having used Mao's 300-800 extensively this past weekend, I'd agree Phillip. There were a few occasions where the focus was racking before hitting. A slight disadvantage vis a vis the Canon super tele primes.

Having never shot anything even remotely close to that huge focal length, it took a bit for me to get it under control. So initially I ended up with some soft/misfocused/blurred shots. But when I was careful (and had gotten used to the monster) I got some really nice, sharp shots.

I still have to say that the focal length is THE biggest draw for me. It's absolutely perfect. In all honesty, I didn't think it was overly huge or unwieldly. I'd definitely get one if money were no object.