# Does anyone here have a sigmonster?



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2012)

I've been thinking about getting this lens for the next time i go to africa for a safari (probably not for a while maybe next year so perhaps the mythical 200-400f4 will be out by then)
this review looks good
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sigma-300-800.shtml

So does anyone here have or use one? I know they are beasts (you dont get the nickname sigmonster for nothing) what do you think of them?

after using the sigma 85mm f1.4 I give sigma a good look now.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 9, 2012)

I must admit that I have never used this lens, but I have looked into it. Personally I would prefer any of the Canon supertelephotos over this lens for the following reasons.
[list type=decimal]
[*]The image comparisons I have seen showed that this lens is very soft compared to the Canon 500 or 600.
[*]At 800mm, image stabilization really helps and this lens doesn't have it
[*]Sigma is not known for quality telephotos. They have had serious problems with quality in recent years
[*]It is a stop slower than the 500 or 600. If you're going on safari, the best time to see the animals is often when the light isn't so great
[*]The Sigma lacks the focus limiter and preset functionality that all of the Canon supertelephotos have
[/list]


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 9, 2012)

I looked at this lens before I purchased my current telephoto rig: a 400 2.8 IS I, and the 1.4X and 2.0X vIII teleconverters. Which i bought all used and for a little less than $5300 (the lens 3 years ago) I have always had a soft spot for sigma, as most of my first lenses were sigma back in the days when that was what I could afford.

But the choice I made was based on the fact that IS is important, and f2.8 and f4 kick f5.6 in the tush. My rig is f5.6 at 800, but the sigma is 5.6 at 300 and 400. 

Zooming would be really helpful with a moving bird, or aircraft, acquire at 300, zoom to frame, but IQ is king. Also, i shoot sports and the sigma is just not up to that.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 9, 2012)

After getting the Sigma 85mm a couple of weeks ago I have also developed a bit of a Sigma soft spot.

I'd never seen the Sigmonster before...it truly is a monster. The photos in the review looked pretty good, seems like it would be a real beast to carry around, it would be a good work out carrying it about


----------



## pwp (Jan 9, 2012)

What a monster! It's almost 6Kg! http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/300-800mm-f56-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma Love the Sigmonster tag.

If your safari isn't until next year then definately sit tight and see if anything interesting/relevant ships this year. The 100-400 f/4 may actually materialize (just like all those other "any time now" Canon lenses we're all sweating on...)

It does look like a intiguing bit of kit. But the lack of IS is the big negative. Sigma have been upgrading a number of their long lenses, notably the favorably recieved update to the 120-300 f/2.8 which has gained OS (that's IS) and improved optics and faster AF. This is a lens I may well pick up this year once a few proper reviews get published. Sigmonster may get the upgrade treatment before your safari.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm-sigma1

Then of course there's the legendary Bigma http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-500mm-f45-63-apo-dg-os-hsm-sigma which sounds like a dog to me but is valued by plenty of shooters for its unrivalled range.

Got $30k to drop on a fast f/2.8 superzoom? http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma has got the be the Attila the Hun of all lenses on the planet.

Paul Wright


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2012)

wow that 200-500 looks insane!

is IS that important on a lens of this size? i mean its not like you are going to be shooting it handheld so its always going to be on a tripod etc so you would turn IS off anyway.


----------



## pwp (Jan 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> is IS that important on a lens of this size? I mean its not like you are going to be shooting it handheld so its always going to be on a tripod etc so you would turn IS off anyway.



Over 90% of my long lens work is done on a monopod and I definitely see tangible value with IS. 

Paul Wright


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2012)

ROFL at the amazon review and the replys


----------



## Old Shooter (Jan 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> ROFL at the amazon review and the replys



OMG those are funny!


----------



## Flake (Jan 9, 2012)

Reading your initial post, it's unclear what you are hoping to photograph, birds perhaps? I think you need to check out the focal length you really need, because many animals are used to humans and allow vehicles reasonably close. Then there's the size of them giraffs elephants, hippos & rhinos are pretty big, even 300m may be too long especially if there's a herd of them. Light levels in Africa are pretty good during the day so f/5.6 isn't going to be an issue, and the size & focal length of this lens mean you'll have to use it on a tripod anyways, make sure you can use one in a tour vehicle.

.You may well find that this lens is simply too long, and the 120 - 300mm f/2.8 with TC is a better choice, in fact the 28 - 300mm IS L might be worthwhile on a second body.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2012)

I've been on half a dozen safaris in africa and It really depends which type you take if you are restricted to being in a vehicle 300mm is way too short, i've never taken a big lens out before so 300mm has been the longest i''ve had and it is definately not enough for the cats if they are not really close by, elephant etc you can get with shorter ranges 70-200 or 300. 

There are the walking type where you are escorted by armed guards I have never done one they are insanely expensive but it might be worth it. it also depends which game park you go to as to how accessible the animals are. this type shorter focal lengths might work but getting close enough to use a 300mm lens on a wild lion without the protection of a vehicle is a little dicey.


----------



## gabriele (Jan 9, 2012)

My suggestion would be to get a very sharp and bright lens, not extremely heavy like a Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS II USM and then when needed using a 1.4 or 2x TC.
You'll get quite nice quality and portability at the same time.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 9, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> Sigma is not known for quality telephotos. They have had serious problems with quality in recent years



exactly... and no IS.... forget it.

another point.. you really want to carry that big thing around all day on a safari?
well you had to pay me for doing it.. that is for sure.
it´s not only the weight, it´s the size.
you better be the only one in the jeep beside the driver.


----------

