Sigma 120-400 OS is the Canon 100-400 killer??

[arthurking83]

Damn! I missed this thread(due to the massive influx of posts and limited time to read them all)

You know, sometimes I get really tired of the way Nikon users constantly slag off all the other brands. ....

So I may be in the minority slagging off on Nikon all the time.

Over priced and ... well... over priced!
Great quality stuff when they get it right, and so far they seem to have got it right with the majority of their consumer line up.. but on the whole their pro gear is over inflated.

Now that's the serious side of my personality, but when the tongue goes back firmly in cheek ... it's open slather on all non N* brands <- see tongue is so firmly in cheek it's actually sticking out

I'm curious Paul.
If you had the chance to do it again, would you? Now that you're with Pentax, and Pentax have a very large blank spot in their lens line up(from my limited knowledge of it), would you consider this lens again?... or something else.. like say a Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 or something like that?

[pgbphotographytas]

I'm curious Paul.
If you had the chance to do it again, would you? Now that you're with Pentax, and Pentax have a very large blank spot in their lens line up(from my limited knowledge of it), would you consider this lens again?... or something else.. like say a Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 or something like that?

Well I am actually looking at this very question at the moment (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=36640)

Yes Pentax do have a "black hole" unless you count the Pentax 200mm DA* f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM Lens or Pentax 300mm DA* f/4 ED (IF) SDM Lens which are both around $2500 each

When I had the Sigma 120-400mm most of my use was between 120 and 200mm, I did do some work at the longer lengths but I found myself mainly at the shorter lengths, in hindsight I should have got a 70-200mm F2.8 lens which is what my plan is now, the extra length is nice but I feel have a F2.8 lens will be better for what I want to do.

Paul

[myeewyee]

FWIW I owned the 120-400mm for a short while .. I found it to be very soft at 400mm, which was what I wanted it for. Probably to be expected though, and I haven't used anything equivalent such as the Canon 100-400mm so can't really compare. I've heard that the Bigma (50-500mm) has much greater optical quality, but it comes at the price of having no stabilization built into it.

[pgbphotographytas]

FWIW I owned the 120-400mm for a short while .. I found it to be very soft at 400mm, which was what I wanted it for. Probably to be expected though, and I haven't used anything equivalent such as the Canon 100-400mm so can't really compare. I've heard that the Bigma (50-500mm) has much greater optical quality, but it comes at the price of having no stabilization built into it.

I never really used mine at 400mm but all the photos I took at the shorter lengths were good and not at all soft.

Paul

[jev]

Canon's 100-400 is not top notch to today's standards. The thing now is more than 10 years on the market... if Sigma could not design something that's at least comparable by now they would be doing something very, very wrong.

But... IQ & speed are not the only reasons to choose one lens over another. The obvious factors are focusing speed, build quality, coloring and so on. I can't read a single word of Japanese so I can't check the website Rick is referring to, but Sigma does not have a very good name when it comes to reliability in combination with Canon. We most probably all are familiar with the "rechipping" problems they had, but personally I wouldn't touch Sigma lenses with a ten-foot pole anymore. Lots of problems with power consumption (D30 + Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX was a particularly bad combination in that respect!), temperature and general wear and tear. LensRentals.com's statistics for example show a number of Sigma lenses have a very bad reputation - with their statement "The Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 are no longer on the list because we no longer carry them. Both had failure rates of about 45% while we had them." they sure make a not to be misunderstood statement on quality.

[JM Tran]

I have to argue differently jev,


the rechipping is not the problem of Sigma's, but of the OEM manufacturers like canon and nikon and so on, every time a new body and technology comes out - Sigma has to reverse engineer the technology and update their flashes and lenses to be on the same compatibility - this has already been discussed many times on the net.

Sigma being the biggest lens manufacturer in the world - means there will be a greater probability of lenses and parts rendered defect, due to a much much larger output than that of Canon etc. By no means is 1 in 2 Sigma lenses are defectable, far from it - you just hear about it more often because of a greater quantity floating around than Canon.

you dont think Canon has its own problems too? The debacle and embarrassment of the 1DMKIII when it was first released was still a bitter pill for many pros and amateurs alike, as Canon denied the faults until there was overwhelming evidence on the net.

[jev]

the rechipping is not the problem of Sigma's, but of the OEM manufacturers like canon and nikon and so on, every time a new body and technology comes out - Sigma has to reverse engineer the technology and update their flashes and lenses to be on the same compatibility - this has already been discussed many times on the net.

Tomatoes potatoes as far as I'm concerned. Sigma has to reverse engineer because they don't get access to the original specifications. And they don't do that good enough to be 100% compatible. That's Sigma's problem, not the customer's.

However, the main problem with Sigma in the whole rechipping debacle is that not all Sigma lenses could be rechipped to work correctly. That points to a Sigma engineering problem.

Sigma being the biggest lens manufacturer in the world - means there will be a greater probability of lenses and parts rendered defect, due to a much much larger output than that of Canon etc. By no means is 1 in 2 Sigma lenses are defectable, far from it - you just hear about it more often because of a greater quantity floating around than Canon.

You didn't check that website I pointed to I guess? That's a rental company that simply keeps their own statistics. They did not rent more lenses from Sigma than from Canon, but got a much higher failure rate. 45% taken out of rentals because of failures is simply unacceptable on all accounts.

you dont think Canon has its own problems too?

Ow yes, they do, no doubt about it. But they are future-proof when it comes to their own development. A 420EX still works on a 50D or a 5DII, whereas a Sigma EF-500 super can not even be made compatible to the 50D. Why is it that Sigma cannot whilst for example Metz can?

I have seen my share of Sigma products, more than I care to remember. They usually are well built, but with they take shortcuts wherever they can. Not so good...

[JM Tran]

You didn't check that website I pointed to I guess? That's a rental company that simply keeps their own statistics. They did not rent more lenses from Sigma than from Canon, but got a much higher failure rate. 45% taken out of rentals because of failures is simply unacceptable on all accounts.

No I did, and its simply numbers to me, from one source. They did state their batches were bought early - obviously a bad batch manufactured - just like when the Pentax DA* 16-50 f2.8 first came out - had a lot of recalls due to production made in a new factory with newly trained staff etc in Vietnam.

why dont u quote the rest of the observations instead of just a selected statement. Not to mention I count 8 Canon lenses on there, many L lenses too, compared to 4 by Sigma. With 2 being consumer lenses under $800 dollars. Compared to 5 L lenses, and 2 ASPC semi-Ls all with 4 figure pricings and a high level consumer prime at $600 dollars.

So ummm, does that mean my beloved L lenses are commonly prone to defects? OMGAT!

Sorry but those statistics dont really lend any creedence as to why 'Sigma IS BAD'.

I have seen my share of Sigma products, more than I care to remember. They usually are well built, but with they take shortcuts wherever they can. Not so good...

but have u seen it from a retail person's perspective? Ive been to trade shows, to CR Kennedy's in Adelaide and head office and warehouse in Melbourne, as well as see the Sigma sales rep every week last yr. And we know some lenses come back every now and then for defects, but WOAH - its quite rare! I didnt realize how inflated some of the negativity about Sigma is until I started talking to other reps from tamron and canon and etc.

It only takes a post by 1 person describing their negativity with something to stoke the fires of gossip and rumours. Yeah im sorry you have had a bad experience with Sigma. But VOILA I have had wonderful experiences with Sigma in the past using it for work in rugged and extreme conditions.

I have seen my share of Sigma products, more than I care to remember. They usually are well built, but with they take shortcuts wherever they can. Not so good...

just as I said earlier, do you have factual proof and evidence apart from heresay and your own experiences which contrasts with mine? Quite misleading and dangerous to other ppl looking to buy into the brand......

oh hey, my 40D's shutter button is very sticky, its a commonly known fault with the camera but do I go around saying I will never ever touch Canon again with a ten foot pole? Not to mention my 5D's mirror fell out at the end of a wedding shoot last yr, another common fault with that camera which had a mass recall for free servicing.

[jev]

just as I said earlier, do you have factual proof and evidence apart from heresay and your own experiences which contrasts with mine?

When I say I've seen my part of the Sigma technology, it's not so much as a consumer but as a technician...

[Steve Axford]

I have no idea about this lens but I do have the Sigma 180mm macro (the older one). It is brilliant! It is a little slow, but that doesn't matter for macro, and I had to get the screws tightened once (free of charge), but I have never had any reason to want to change it. Sigma have a variable reputation, but they can get it right sometimes.
p.s. I do take my macro work very seriously.

[arthurking83]

I do agree with JMT on many points though.

whether it's snobbery or whatever.. doesn't really matter, the point is that there are far more happier customers of third party manufacturer accessories than there are not.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be only about durability either.

I have two too many Nikon AF-S lenses that are significantly slower to focus than the notorious Tamron 70-20/2.8.. but does anyone listen?

Not really! They read BS about of this and that issue, and it becomes a case of Chinese Whispers!

Where "I had an issue with my Sigma..." becomes .... "Sigma are the worst quality manufacturer"

you do seem to hear a lot less about Nikon's and Canon's quality issues than you do about third party manufacturers issues...

The pecking order for slagging off on manufacturers seems to be directly proportional to their popularity too!

[larrywen]

I just bought a second hand Sigma 120-400. I think the IQ is ok. Anyway, if the photo is not sharp enough, it could be caused by my skills rather than the problem of the lens.


Rodney by Simple Monkey, on Flickr