Sigma Reviews

I shot the illustrations for an antique price guide with this lens and got compliments on the slides from the publisher, so it definitely gives proffesional quality results. These days I prefer working with a longer macro lens, so you can get a little more working distance between you and the subject, but that is a matter of taste, and the longer lenses cost more.

This is my current favorite lens and the one that resides most often upon my camera. It certainly is the sharpest lens that I own. I use it for ordinary photography as well as for macro photography. As I shoot plant life with the macro capability, I don't mind the short working distance (distance from front element of the lens to subject, about 2 inches), as the plants don't run away when you close in on them. If you want to shoot bugs, etc, you probably want a longer focal length macro (longer focal length=larger working distance). The lens is capable of life-size reproductions without accessories, a definite plus over the Canon made 50mm macro lens.
This lens makes a great general purpose normal lens, as the very high optical quality for the macro uses leads to excellent sharpness and freedom from abberations at distance. The only drawback to the lens is its rather slow (for a 50mm prime lens) maximum aperature of F/2.8. As I usually shoot in sunlight or with high-speed films (or both!), this has never been a problem for me, but others may prefer a faster maximum aperature.
I've shot with this lens with all its aperatures from wide open to F/45 and found, in my subjective eyeball test (I look at prints and slides), that the optical performance varries very little over the aperature range, being uniformly excellent.
Overall, a fine lens for an even finer price.

I shot the illustrations for an antique price guide with this lens and got compliments on the slides from the publisher, so it definitely gives proffesional quality results. These days I prefer working with a longer macro lens, so you can get a little more working distance between you and the subject, but that is a matter of taste, and the longer lenses cost more.

This is my current favorite lens and the one that resides most often upon my camera. It certainly is the sharpest lens that I own. I use it for ordinary photography as well as for macro photography. As I shoot plant life with the macro capability, I don't mind the short working distance (distance from front element of the lens to subject, about 2 inches), as the plants don't run away when you close in on them. If you want to shoot bugs, etc, you probably want a longer focal length macro (longer focal length=larger working distance). The lens is capable of life-size reproductions without accessories, a definite plus over the Canon made 50mm macro lens.
This lens makes a great general purpose normal lens, as the very high optical quality for the macro uses leads to excellent sharpness and freedom from abberations at distance. The only drawback to the lens is its rather slow (for a 50mm prime lens) maximum aperature of F/2.8. As I usually shoot in sunlight or with high-speed films (or both!), this has never been a problem for me, but others may prefer a faster maximum aperature.
I've shot with this lens with all its aperatures from wide open to F/45 and found, in my subjective eyeball test (I look at prints and slides), that the optical performance varries very little over the aperature range, being uniformly excellent.
Overall, a fine lens for an even finer price.

I shot the illustrations for an antique price guide with this lens and got compliments on the slides from the publisher, so it definitely gives proffesional quality results. These days I prefer working with a longer macro lens, so you can get a little more working distance between you and the subject, but that is a matter of taste, and the longer lenses cost more.

This is my current favorite lens and the one that resides most often upon my camera. It certainly is the sharpest lens that I own. I use it for ordinary photography as well as for macro photography. As I shoot plant life with the macro capability, I don't mind the short working distance (distance from front element of the lens to subject, about 2 inches), as the plants don't run away when you close in on them. If you want to shoot bugs, etc, you probably want a longer focal length macro (longer focal length=larger working distance). The lens is capable of life-size reproductions without accessories, a definite plus over the Canon made 50mm macro lens.
This lens makes a great general purpose normal lens, as the very high optical quality for the macro uses leads to excellent sharpness and freedom from abberations at distance. The only drawback to the lens is its rather slow (for a 50mm prime lens) maximum aperature of F/2.8. As I usually shoot in sunlight or with high-speed films (or both!), this has never been a problem for me, but others may prefer a faster maximum aperature.
I've shot with this lens with all its aperatures from wide open to F/45 and found, in my subjective eyeball test (I look at prints and slides), that the optical performance varries very little over the aperature range, being uniformly excellent.
Overall, a fine lens for an even finer price.

Similar considerations apply to Canon, so here is what I said about the 500mm f4.5 Sigma vs similar glass from Nikon:

The Sigma gets decent reviews, but for the same price you can get a brand-new 400mm f3.5 Nikkor (or a used 500mm f4P Nikkor). THese are sharper, faster, and (IMPORTANT!) better-built. Add a TC-14b teleconverter for about 10% more and you also have a 560mm f5 (or 700mm f5.6) that is sharper than the Sigma. A used 400mm f3.5 Nikkor is maybe $1500 to $2000 (this is the choice most people should make, but be sure you can return it if it's a clinker).

A BIGGIE: The resale value of the Nikkor is much better. I could (but never will) sell my Nikkors (bought used) for more than I paid after using them for years.

The only "advantage" of the Sigma is Autofocus, which may not work all that well if other reviewers' comments or my experience with a Sigma 400mm f5.6 are any indication. However, if you are a high-end sports freak or flying bird weenie, you already own high-end AF gear, or will be frustrated until you do. Most other subjects don't need AF. Indeed, in a recent butterfly hunt in a wildflower plot, I got consistently better slides in manual mode than an experienced friend with new Nikon AF gear. It's pretty tricky to get the AF to focus on the butterfly's head instead of its back wing or the flower petals.

Also, the 500mm Sigma weighs almost 7 lb, more than the far more versatile Nikkor + TC-14b combination. (A 400mm f2.8 AF Nikkor weighs 14 lb! What price AF?)

Bottom line: Buy the good stuff -- you get better performance and save money (because of resale value).

I am a wildlife photographer in South Africa and I briefly owned both the Nikon and Canon versions of this lens. I used the lens on a Nikon F100 body and found that it did not autofocus properly, due to presumably software conflict between the lens and the body. I swopped it for the Canon version, but it had the same problem when used with the EOS 3. The Nikon version did not autofocus with the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 APO extenders. The Canon version did focus with the Sigma 1.4 extender, but not with the 2.0. THe lens has exceptionally good optics, and resolution, contrast and colour saturation is excellent. The build-quality is not bad, but not up to the same standard as the equivalent Canon lens. The large tripod mount is very handy, and the lens is very well balanced when used on a tripod. THe lens is very well priced, but unless Sigma ensures that it functions perfectly with the latest top end Canon and Nikon SLR's, it will not be an option for pro's or serious amateurs.

Similar considerations apply to Canon, so here is what I said about the 500mm f4.5 Sigma vs similar glass from Nikon:

The Sigma gets decent reviews, but for the same price you can get a brand-new 400mm f3.5 Nikkor (or a used 500mm f4P Nikkor). THese are sharper, faster, and (IMPORTANT!) better-built. Add a TC-14b teleconverter for about 10% more and you also have a 560mm f5 (or 700mm f5.6) that is sharper than the Sigma. A used 400mm f3.5 Nikkor is maybe $1500 to $2000 (this is the choice most people should make, but be sure you can return it if it's a clinker).

A BIGGIE: The resale value of the Nikkor is much better. I could (but never will) sell my Nikkors (bought used) for more than I paid after using them for years.

The only "advantage" of the Sigma is Autofocus, which may not work all that well if other reviewers' comments or my experience with a Sigma 400mm f5.6 are any indication. However, if you are a high-end sports freak or flying bird weenie, you already own high-end AF gear, or will be frustrated until you do. Most other subjects don't need AF. Indeed, in a recent butterfly hunt in a wildflower plot, I got consistently better slides in manual mode than an experienced friend with new Nikon AF gear. It's pretty tricky to get the AF to focus on the butterfly's head instead of its back wing or the flower petals.

Also, the 500mm Sigma weighs almost 7 lb, more than the far more versatile Nikkor + TC-14b combination. (A 400mm f2.8 AF Nikkor weighs 14 lb! What price AF?)

Bottom line: Buy the good stuff -- you get better performance and save money (because of resale value).

I am a wildlife photographer in South Africa and I briefly owned both the Nikon and Canon versions of this lens. I used the lens on a Nikon F100 body and found that it did not autofocus properly, due to presumably software conflict between the lens and the body. I swopped it for the Canon version, but it had the same problem when used with the EOS 3. The Nikon version did not autofocus with the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 APO extenders. The Canon version did focus with the Sigma 1.4 extender, but not with the 2.0. THe lens has exceptionally good optics, and resolution, contrast and colour saturation is excellent. The build-quality is not bad, but not up to the same standard as the equivalent Canon lens. The large tripod mount is very handy, and the lens is very well balanced when used on a tripod. THe lens is very well priced, but unless Sigma ensures that it functions perfectly with the latest top end Canon and Nikon SLR's, it will not be an option for pro's or serious amateurs.

Similar considerations apply to Canon, so here is what I said about the 500mm f4.5 Sigma vs similar glass from Nikon:

The Sigma gets decent reviews, but for the same price you can get a brand-new 400mm f3.5 Nikkor (or a used 500mm f4P Nikkor). THese are sharper, faster, and (IMPORTANT!) better-built. Add a TC-14b teleconverter for about 10% more and you also have a 560mm f5 (or 700mm f5.6) that is sharper than the Sigma. A used 400mm f3.5 Nikkor is maybe $1500 to $2000 (this is the choice most people should make, but be sure you can return it if it's a clinker).

A BIGGIE: The resale value of the Nikkor is much better. I could (but never will) sell my Nikkors (bought used) for more than I paid after using them for years.

The only "advantage" of the Sigma is Autofocus, which may not work all that well if other reviewers' comments or my experience with a Sigma 400mm f5.6 are any indication. However, if you are a high-end sports freak or flying bird weenie, you already own high-end AF gear, or will be frustrated until you do. Most other subjects don't need AF. Indeed, in a recent butterfly hunt in a wildflower plot, I got consistently better slides in manual mode than an experienced friend with new Nikon AF gear. It's pretty tricky to get the AF to focus on the butterfly's head instead of its back wing or the flower petals.

Also, the 500mm Sigma weighs almost 7 lb, more than the far more versatile Nikkor + TC-14b combination. (A 400mm f2.8 AF Nikkor weighs 14 lb! What price AF?)

Bottom line: Buy the good stuff -- you get better performance and save money (because of resale value).

I am a wildlife photographer in South Africa and I briefly owned both the Nikon and Canon versions of this lens. I used the lens on a Nikon F100 body and found that it did not autofocus properly, due to presumably software conflict between the lens and the body. I swopped it for the Canon version, but it had the same problem when used with the EOS 3. The Nikon version did not autofocus with the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 APO extenders. The Canon version did focus with the Sigma 1.4 extender, but not with the 2.0. THe lens has exceptionally good optics, and resolution, contrast and colour saturation is excellent. The build-quality is not bad, but not up to the same standard as the equivalent Canon lens. The large tripod mount is very handy, and the lens is very well balanced when used on a tripod. THe lens is very well priced, but unless Sigma ensures that it functions perfectly with the latest top end Canon and Nikon SLR's, it will not be an option for pro's or serious amateurs.

Similar considerations apply to Canon, so here is what I said about the 500mm f4.5 Sigma vs similar glass from Nikon:

The Sigma gets decent reviews, but for the same price you can get a brand-new 400mm f3.5 Nikkor (or a used 500mm f4P Nikkor). THese are sharper, faster, and (IMPORTANT!) better-built. Add a TC-14b teleconverter for about 10% more and you also have a 560mm f5 (or 700mm f5.6) that is sharper than the Sigma. A used 400mm f3.5 Nikkor is maybe $1500 to $2000 (this is the choice most people should make, but be sure you can return it if it's a clinker).

A BIGGIE: The resale value of the Nikkor is much better. I could (but never will) sell my Nikkors (bought used) for more than I paid after using them for years.

The only "advantage" of the Sigma is Autofocus, which may not work all that well if other reviewers' comments or my experience with a Sigma 400mm f5.6 are any indication. However, if you are a high-end sports freak or flying bird weenie, you already own high-end AF gear, or will be frustrated until you do. Most other subjects don't need AF. Indeed, in a recent butterfly hunt in a wildflower plot, I got consistently better slides in manual mode than an experienced friend with new Nikon AF gear. It's pretty tricky to get the AF to focus on the butterfly's head instead of its back wing or the flower petals.

Also, the 500mm Sigma weighs almost 7 lb, more than the far more versatile Nikkor + TC-14b combination. (A 400mm f2.8 AF Nikkor weighs 14 lb! What price AF?)

Bottom line: Buy the good stuff -- you get better performance and save money (because of resale value).

I am a wildlife photographer in South Africa and I briefly owned both the Nikon and Canon versions of this lens. I used the lens on a Nikon F100 body and found that it did not autofocus properly, due to presumably software conflict between the lens and the body. I swopped it for the Canon version, but it had the same problem when used with the EOS 3. The Nikon version did not autofocus with the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 APO extenders. The Canon version did focus with the Sigma 1.4 extender, but not with the 2.0. THe lens has exceptionally good optics, and resolution, contrast and colour saturation is excellent. The build-quality is not bad, but not up to the same standard as the equivalent Canon lens. The large tripod mount is very handy, and the lens is very well balanced when used on a tripod. THe lens is very well priced, but unless Sigma ensures that it functions perfectly with the latest top end Canon and Nikon SLR's, it will not be an option for pro's or serious amateurs.