Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6

[tspore]

13 Elements in 11 Groups
Angle of View 18.2 - 6.2 degrees
Number of Diaphragm Blades 9 Blades
Minimum Aperture F32
Minimum Focusing Distance 200- 220cm
(78.7 in.-86.6 in.)
Maximum Magnification 1:5.3
Filter Size 77mm
Dimensions: 7.4 x 3.3 x 3.3
Weight 2.8 LBS
Date Available 10-4-06
Price ~$810
Sigma Website


Attachment 4190

[Blu-by-u]

After hearing then reading and after much contemplating I got this lens.

Some test shots were posted on the 135-400 vs bigma thread.

Pros: Lighter than the Sigma 50-500, longer reach then the ZD 50-200 and cheaper than both.

Cons: Noisy AF, focus ring moves even in AF and no macro.

price paid: Malaysian Ringgit 2395.00 (about US$675)

Other info: Sharp, well balanced with the E-500. not quite usable in low light condition with the EC14.

[mfratt]

Cons: Noisy AF, focus ring moves even in AF and no macro.

Aren't they fixing the new ones with HSM? I was planning on picking one up once theyre up on B&H.

[Blu-by-u]

Noisy to me. maybe I am spoil by the 14-54's and the 11-22.

[rkallen]

No it is a noisy lens,
I had this lens and I love the sharpness.

Pros:
Sigma is known for being soft at the long end, but this lens went the total opposite way. Build quality is equal to the 150mm f2.8, a well made lens.

Sharp Sharp Lens

Cons:
It is a heafty lens (lighter than my 90-250) but heavier than my Sigma 150mm EX Macro, but equal in length

Noisy lens, focusing ring is annoying. When holding the lens I would have problems with it rotating against my hand

[ghenton]

Does this site have a click through with anyone besides Amazon. I have to decided to buy a Sigma 135-400 , ( I have given up waiting to find a 50-500) Amazon will not ship Photo and electonics to canada???
These guy do have one. http://www.adorama.com/SG135400DOM.html



GerryH

[tspore]

No sorry. finding global advertisers is very hard. Some day maybe.

[ghenton]

@#$%^$%& missed that one to

GerryH

[ghenton]

OK I found another one, no one buy this until I do!!

GerryH

[digiphan]

Do you know when they will be available with HSM? The lens has been on backorder for some time at several stores that I check.

Thanks

Aren't they fixing the new ones with HSM? I was planning on picking one up once theyre up on B&H.

[Moxie Wolf]

Looks like I'll be waiting to pick one of these up used, two months backorder since I've been looking and local camera shops saying they wouldn't carry it cause 4/3 isn't popular enough. and online is ether out or overpriced. and with HSM updates I'm sure it will mean Higher Price. But maybe current holders will upgrade and part with the non HSM ones =)

[Marc2B]

I've got this lens and it's OK, not the fastest lens I own, but it works for what I use it for. I've found it's not the sharpest wide open, you need to stop down a couple of stops, and this thing really accentuates any camera shake, so you've got to crank up your SS. That being said, this isn't the lens to use in low light situations. A monopod is a must with this beast and forget trying to shoot Friday night football games with it. I found it at B&H, and I checked their web site daily until they came in, and ordered right away. They're tough to find in stock anywhere.

Mark

[Steve Adams]

Mark if you ever goto sell, please please pm me....thanks.

[wsearfoss]

OK I was convinced I was going to buy this lens, how ever, I would like to ask everyone, would they settle on this or buy the Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm that is about to be released?

[Marc2B]

OK I was convinced I was going to buy this lens, how ever, I would like to ask everyone, would they settle on this or buy the Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm that is about to be released?

That's a tough call, from what I've read, the new Oly lens is made by Sigma, and from my experiance, Sigma makes excellent lenses. Allow me to backtrack for a minute please. There is no "settling" when it comes to this lens. It's a great lens when it's used for what it's designed for. As I pointed out in my review, it isn't particularly fast, so it doesn't work for a lens shooting HS sports for the local newspapers. I have used this lens on a number of occasions on assignments though and it's worked like a champ. You've just got to be aware of its' limitations. Am I going to take this one out in a duck blind to get early morning shots of mallards or pintails? No. Isn't fast enough. Have I used this lens to shoot Swimming instructors working with their students at the local pool and lake in the afternoon? Yes, and it worked great. Gotta remember, you have a variety of lenses to match the right tool for each job. There is no one perfect lens, if you believe that, you're in the wrong business.

Mark

[wsearfoss]

In compairing the two lenses, they are about the same speed. So to compair the Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm to the Sigma 135-400mm on just speed wouldn't be fair.

I just am not sure which one would be better

I have the Evolt E-500 2 lens kit

Ok here is a legitimate question for other 4:3 users. Would you buy the Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm or the Sigma 135-400mm

Since I already have the 40-150mm kit lens and wonder if the zuiko is wasting money on zoom range (40-70) that is available in the lens I already have.

I like the zoom range of the sigma but because of the weight of the lens I wonder if it would be used less often because of needing to use a tripod or having to becareful and make sure I'm not hanging the lens off the camera but the camera off the lens.

Are there other considerations I should look at besides the zoom range? OR are there other recomendation is this price range instead of either of these?

Which lens you buy if you owned my equipment and why would you buy it?

[rally]

I dont own this lens but I do have the Sigma 50-500 and a ZD50-200mm

Without trying to state the obvious - one real difference between the 135-400 and the 70-300 is the focal length - one has an effective long focal length (on 35mm) of 600mm - the other is 800mm - thats 200mm extra in 35mm terms - which is a lot.

Neither lens at the long end can really be satisfactorily handheld.
At an EFL of 800mm you will always need a tripod if you want reliable sharp photographs.
Are you prepared to pay the extra $500-$1000plus for the sort of decent tripod and mount required (preferably Gimbal) ? - if not, then buy the 70-300 because you might be able to manage it handheld and get some shots.
Do not anticipate that you can use a lightweight tripod at 400mm (EFL800mm) and get good results.

It would be my bet that the IQ of the ZD70-300 will be ahead of the Sigma 135-400.

The statement that both lenses are equally slow - whilst true is not the end of the story - it is very likely that the 70-300 will be very good wide open and exceptional closed down 1 stop - from what I recall the 135-400 really needs to be stopped down 2 or more f stops to get good IQ.
So when you need the light it isn't there and the E500 is not very good even at ISO400 in dark conditions.
I wouldnt use it at more than 200.
Another consideration is that AF at f8 can be difficult especially at dusk or dawn or on subjects hiding in the shadows.

And so this is a serious limitation of the 135-400 in the comparison.

You could always add the 1.4x adapter to the ZD and I would expect based on the 50-200 and all the other Oly mid to top end lenses to perform without any visible loss in IQ and it would still be effectively a stop faster than the 135-400.

So I think the question you have to ask is -What focal length do you need ? - if you are into birds and small wildlife then you will soon find out after a while even the 70-300 at EFL600 is good but you will want more !
But when you get the 400 its still not enough !

The 135-400 is a lens that can give oustanding results but there is a learning curve at long focal lengths and there are lots of techniques that are needed to get good results - not to mention the extra gear.

Not complete - but hope that helps a bit

Rally

PS as far as wasted zoom range - it just doesnt matter - you can't get another lens which doesnt 'waste' it !
Unless you buy the ZD300f2.8 at 10 times the price.

[wsearfoss]

Now that is the kind of information I am looking for! fficeffice" />>>
>>
I did see the 1.4x adapter but also read about the loss of 1 f-stop but wasn’t aware that I needed to stop down the sigma. The 1.4x would give me the same FL as the sigma but would only be needed when I want a FL beyond 300mm.>>
> >
The Zuiko lens is lighter to carry and mount on the tripod. >>
> >
Thanks for the information >>
> >
Will>>

[Blu-by-u]

Already own the 135-400 but I would still get the 70-300 for the size and weight. The 135-400 is not an everyday use lens. I notice it tends to hunt even in broad daylight.

[srf4real]

I am so looking forward to the release of the Oly 70-300mm. This choice has been on my mind often lately, and as the Sigma 135-400mm new is not currently available, Oly would be smart to let this one out to market quickly!

[Steve Adams]

BLu, you interested in selling?

[Blu-by-u]

BLu, you interested in selling?

Sorry steve, no. I got this lens online from http://www.shashinki.com/. The owner of the online store is also the owner of the Photo website..www.photomalaysia.com. Just drop him a mail. He may be able to source it directly from Japan for you as he did for me.

[pwog]

Am I going to take this one out in a duck blind to get early morning shots of mallards or pintails? No. Isn't fast enough.

Mark

I'm a newbie, so forgive my ignorance, but I want to be able to take pictures of ducks, birds, etc. I am interested in this lens and I know it is f4.5-5.6. Can you elaborate a bit more about lens speed to be able to take wildlife shots? Would this lens be totally useless for this?

I just bought an E-510.

Thanks - P

[cifcap]

PWOG,

A lens' ability to gather light is often referred to as speed. This is determined by the size of the aperture. A lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 is faster than an f/4.0. In other words the smaller the f number the more "speed" it has. This lens would be fine for daylight shooting, but you'll need higher ISO numbers to use it when it gets dark. I hope this helps.

JW

[Michael Meissner]

PWOG,

A lens' ability to gather light is often referred to as speed. This is determined by the size of the aperture. A lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 is faster than an f/4.0. In other words the smaller the f number the more "speed" it has. This lens would be fine for daylight shooting, but you'll need higher ISO numbers to use it when it gets dark. I hope this helps.

JW

Also note, the kit lenses are f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6, so if you have enough light to take pictures of stuff with the 40-150mm, the 135-400mm should be to take pictures in roughly the same light, except at really slow shutter speeds, where the IS needs a bit more shutter speed to cope with the longer lens.

In terms of apertures, it helps to commit the following to memory:
f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16

These are the whole number f/stops. Each faster f/stop (smaller number) lets in double the light thatn the next slowest f/stop does, which would allow you to halve the shutter speed or ISO to get an equivalent picture (other than depth of field). Each faster f/stop has a much narrower depth of field than the slower f/stop. For example, the following combinations would give the same exposure, but they will give different pictures, due to the changes in shutter speed (i.e. what motion is stopped), ISO (noise in the image), or aperture (i.e. depth of field and lens sharpness):

• ISO 100, f/4, 1/125
• ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/60
• ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/125
• ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/250
• ISO 200, f/4, 1/250
• ISO 400, f/4, 1/500
• ISO 800, f/4, 1/1000
• ISO 1600, f/4, 1/2000
• ISO 1600, f/2, 1/500

Now, without IS, the rule of thumb for handheld shots is the shutter speed should be 1 over the 35mm equivalent field of view, or 1/800 for the 135-400mm at full telephoto. Image stabalization is claimed to give you 2-4 f/stops. Assuming the conservative number of 2 f/stops, this would mean to shoot handheld, you would need at least 1/200. If it is 3 f/stops, that would mean you would need at least 1/100. Now for wildlife, you typically want a faster shutter speed anyway. If you can't get a shutter speed of 1/200, you could raise the ISO, or stabalize the camera with a tripod/monopod to get the shot.