Looking into the Sigma 135-400/150-500 APO zooms for use in making 8x10 and or 11x14 prints of general wildlife. Has anyone had hands on experience with either of them. I am looking for a good cheap alternative to the Canon 100-400 IS until the price drops on the latter lens. I have read all the opinions but would like to hear feedback from users. Thanks, Jeff

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), February 12, 1999

Answers

They're all soft at the long end. The only way you're ever going to figure out if they are too soft for you is to try them. If sharpness really matters, forget the zoom.

User opinions only matter when YOU are the user!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), February 12, 1999.

Bob, This lens is for my son who is, a little more than a beginner. He wants an inexpensive long zoom and is not trying to be published at this time. My pocketbook calls for something in the price range of this one. I agree that MY user opinion is best. however to find this lens and others of interest to use in my area, is impossible. Therefore net opinions are the best I can hope for now. We do not all have ready access to some of this stuff to try out. Wish we did. Jeff

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), February 13, 1999.

Almost anything will be good enough for 4x6 prints. 11x14 is starting to tax even good 35mm lenses. Nobody but you (or your son) can tell what's acceptable in a print. There are lots of people out there happy with 8x10s from this type of lens. Get the 135-400 from a good store which will take it back if you aren't happy with it.

User opinions are of little value in the long run. I'd probably hate the lens, many less critical users would love it. I didn't think the Tamron 200-400 was very sharp when I tested it, but I've seen comments on the web from people who think it's just great.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), February 13, 1999.

Jeff, another "inexpensive" lens, not mentioned yet, is Tokina's ATX 840. It covers a range from 80 to 400 mm with a minimum f 4.5 aperture up to 300 mm and f 5.6 at 400 mm. Using a proper technique for long lenses should give you satisfying results.

I bought this lens a year ago as a tele travel zoom to give me some reach for wildlife and I am fully satisfied. This lens is also smaller and lighter than the Sigma and the Tamron. It does not have a lenscollar but you can get one (which I strongly recommend) at B&H for $139. By the way, do you REALLY expect the Canon price to drop.....???

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), February 14, 1999.

Marcus, According to one of the head honchos at B&H, the price will drop on the EOS 3 some, and on the 100-400 IS in a few months. New products go through this "have to have, salivation" syndrome and so Canon ships a few out at a time. After this syndrome subsides a bit they run a fairly regular price. Some equipment varies in this, but high end cameras and lenses seem to follow a pattern like this. Stuff that,s been out awhile or equipment being replaced by upgrades will drop somewhat in price too. This is ALL according to B&H but if you follow pricing patterns it's like that on some equipment. Jeff

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), February 15, 1999.

Well the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L was $1,500 when introduced in 1995. It can now be had for about $1,150 with rebates .

Now to your question. Before answering this I looked at the prices for the lenses you are looking at at B+H.

I am getting the feeling that you are only looking at zooms in this range, and specifically these two sigma lenses.

To give you a simple answer I would get the 135-400 . The 150-500 has an f-stop range of f/4.6-6.7 (I believe) which means you will lose auto focus. Besides that I dought very much that the 150-500 has a tripod collar, and would most likely be too un-managable .

Now that I have answered that, I can't help but suggest that you get a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom and teleconverters. It's just a little more than the lenses your looking at, but will likely do a better job and will be more valuable when you get rid of it to get that 100-400 IS lens.

-- Matt Swope (vswope@voyager.net), February 17, 1999.