Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO?

Dredden85

I am probably beating dead horses here. Obviously I am looking for a lens with some reach without the price of a Nikon lens. Any one on the forum has owned a Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO? What are your experiences and thoughts?

Sean

I know you posted this a while ago, but I thought I'd say I've been using this lens with my Canon 550D & 7D for around 2 years. It's a little soft at 400mm but stopped down to f.8 it's fairly sharp. I've taken some pretty decent images with it.

Its weight is its only major downfall. Apart from that it's worth every penny.

haroldp

I have the older 130-400 APO Sigma and it is not remotely in a league with the new Nikon 80-400 (which I also have).
.... H

PB_PM

Sure, but for those on a budget the Sigma is over $1000 less expensive.

haroldp

This may only be the samples I have, but even at F8, the Nikon 70-300VR cropped to 400mm equivalent, coverage, outperforms my Sigma. The new Sigma may be better, mine is about 12 years old.

At less than full length (up to about 200mm) it is not even close. The Nikon is half the price of the Sigma.

Regards .... H

Rx4Photo

I had this lens for almost a year before I sold it. IMO, it's truly an excellent lens except for its performance close to and at 400mm. I shot some really clean images with it attached to my D7000. There are some on my Flickr account but further back so maybe later I'll look for them and post to this thread. The OS was, in my opinion, a bit better than the VR of the Nikon 70-300mm. It truly held that image totally still in the viewfinder for you.

The reasons I sold it included the "threat" from my wife that she wanted to get the previous Nikon 80-400mm lens for me as a gift (she never knew I had the Sigma). Also I didn't totally settle with turning the zoom ring in the opposite direction vs. the Nikkors - always felt awkward to me.

If I had it to do again, I'd go ahead and spend a little extra for the Sigma 150-500mm OS which would hopefully give you a solid 400-475mm before it got soft.

Rx4Photo

OK, Dredden85, here's a photo I took last year with the lens that you're considering. This first one is at 400mm ; 1/250 ; f/6.3 ; ISO 100


This second one is at 330mm ; f/8 ; 1/250 ; ISO 200 with flash to pop the image a bit.


As you can see, it works pretty darn well. I guess I was in a phase of indecision, buying and selling a bit too much.

Dredden85

@Rx4Photo- Wow those look great!

@Sean- looks great too!

TheGipper

I had this lens for some time before selling it. As others have said it gets pretty sharp around F/7.1-F/11. I was almost always happy with the results, but sold it as it was too heavy and the focal length overlapped other lenses that I had. But for wildlife in good light it's a decent lens.

Dredden85

Looks like this one is another strong contender. I think I can rule out the Sigma 150-500mm. The contrast on this lens looks much better when compared to the 150-500.

Parke1953

I have no long lenses and I am saving for the Nikkor 80-400mm and so far have saved $1800, well today I came across a Sigma 120-400mm at the local camera shop for $500. That is 5+ times cheaper than the Nikkor and half price on this lens. I would have $1300 to spend on other stuff but not sure if I would be happy with this lens. What do you think?

Elvishefer

If you feel you can resell for $500 again (no dropping it ) you should try it out

Parke1953

Elvishefer Thanks. I will look into that.