Sigma 120-400 lens

[Pipeman]

I am seriously considering buying this, to use for bird photography and cricket.

The reviews that I have read suggest it's OK. It's heavy though at 1750 grammes and expensive by my budget at around £700.

Any thoughts welcome please.

[UKNN]

If my budget ran to the money I'd not think twice. Would love the reach of 400mm, and I love the quality of my Sigma 10-20, based on that I'd certainly go for another Sigma lens.

Assuming you want Canon fit, these people seem cheaper than even Warehouse Express:
http://www.onestop-digital.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=33658

Though I hasten to add that I've not dealt with them, just noticed their price when I googled "Sigma 120-400"

I notice the Pentax fit is 'back order'. Not that I could afford it anyway.... :-/

Ian.

[Pipeman]

Thanks Ian.

I have the 10-20 and that's superb.

[scoundrel1728]

Barring one recent bad review, one-stop's earlier reviews seem to be pretty favorable on resellerratings.com.  However, because this bad review is the only one in the last six months, the overall rating looks pretty grim.  In view of the older favorable reviews, I suspect that this is an isolated disgruntled customer rather than a sudden drop in the quality of service.

[RockArea]

I have this lens, Ron and I can confirm that the build quality seems excellent. It is a heavy lens and of course at 4.5 -5.6 it's a little on the slow side. I've had mixed success with it but I think that's mainly due to my lack of skill as a wildlife tog. With the ISO wound up it performs well.

Because of the weight it's best on a tripod but of course the image stabilisation is turned off then. If I thought I would use it on a tripod all the time I might prefer the 50-500 without IS which I think works out about the same price.

David

[Pipeman]

Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

[Chocky]

I have a Sigma dg APO macro . absolutley super 70-300 mm

[scoundrel1728]

I am seriously considering buying this, to use for bird photography and cricket.

The reviews that I have read suggest it's OK. It's heavy though at 1750 grammes and expensive by my budget at around £700.

Any thoughts welcome please.

I have no experience with this particular lens.  Sounds like it might work well enough with the birding if the focus is fast enough, but I doubt that it would be much good as a cricket bat.

[Pipeman]

I have no experience with this particular lens.  Sounds like it might work well enough with the birding if the focus is fast enough, but I doubt that it would be much good as a cricket bat.

You haven't seen me bat, Scoundrel!!

[Pipeman]

The lens arrived and I have taken some testers  - three are in the gallery.

As with any lens that comes with more letters after it's name than the Borough Engineer, one would expect it to be competent, and it is. But it is heavy - very heavy at four pounds, and handholding is a bit of a trial and I can see me using a tripod, and I don't like tripods!

I am satisfied so far and hope to take some shots at a cricket match tomorrow, weather permitting but of course I will use a tripod for cricket, I always do.

[RockArea]

I bought a monopod recently and it seems to be a useful 'in-between' resource. I've got no idea if the image stabilisation on the lens should be set to On or Off though. So far I've only used it with a non IS lens.

David