The new Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS HSM
Sony Alpha
Sony Alpha
Sony Alpha
Sony Alpha
Sony Alpha
Sony Alpha
cameras do come with in-body stabilization so I am not sure if it makes sense to use the new lens if the image quality remains the same (that has to been seen).
13 Responses
The lens-based stabilization is far more efficient than in-body stabilization, especially at long focal lengths. Most people are well aware of this fact, kudos to Sigma for taking advantage of that.
My experience is that the sigma os works better than sony steady-shot. Especially in low light conditions. In combination with hsm it gives ultra fast AF times. Sony shout better concentrate on improving the sensors. Noise , High ISO and true DR improvement (so no software tricks)
O and by the way we need replacements for our A-700 camera’s 3 years old now. so step on it, or do we have to change to canon 7D ?
Is this lens compatible with the new Nex3 and Nex5? 100% compatible without adapter? Thanks!
In case anyone’s interested… a Korean website posted some sample pictures, also with fisheye adapter images.
http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=slr_review&no=166
I don’t think the IQ is equal to the Sony 70-400 – but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Of course, the Sony is almost twice as expensive, but that’s just life in the bloodstream.
“not sure if it makes sense to use the new lens if the image quality remains the same”
But this lens would be perfect for someone who has both a Sony DSLR and a NEX.
The new Sigma lenses are fine. Maybe a real pixel peeper can see a dramatic difference, but I doubt it. The thing that definitely puts this lens ahead of the Sony is the in-body IS (or OS, as SIgma names it).
Does it have SSM? I have the Sigma 100-300 F4, and sure notice the difference in focusing speed compared to my Sony 70-200 2.8? Both have better glass that this new offering – as does the Sony 70-400. Better I.Q., determined from testing, and better focussing of the Sony (plus the fact that I use a monopod) means a better lens in my book. Also, if you want the best IQ from a Sigma telezoom – try the 100-300 F4. Sorry, I won’t be buying the new offering.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1223/cat/83 – IQ 8.67
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/985/cat/83 – IQ 8.75
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/336/cat/31 – IQ 9.83
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1184/cat/31 IQ 7.5
AFAIK, Sigma takes out the in-lens stabilisation technology for the Alpha mount lenses due to issues using both anti-shake features on Sony’s DSLRs.
Rob- for fast focusing, I concede, the Sony lens will be better. And yes, the SIgma 100-300 is probably a better lens, especially using super-high standards of testing and a microscope, but for the other 95% of us users out there, lens based stabilization will make the 120-400 a much more beneficial lens, than an equal focal length non-OS lens.
icie- Sigma does not “take out” their OS feature specifically for Sony (or Pentax for that matter). They make several lenses without the OS feature, but many lenses with the feature as well in the Sony mount.
Paul, an incremental difference of OS between a lens and body based system won’t offer a greater difference between better glass and superior autofocus. Good technique would easily overcome the OS difference – and then you’re left with the simple difference of the glass. Those are not microscopic differences in the testing results. For all my colleagues out there – go for the best, and learn how to use it properly.
Rob, for me, the difference in lens-based stabilization at 200-400mm is more “incremental” than you’d think. Trust me, I know that the 100-300 is, at least optically, one of the best Sigma lenses available; I’ve owned it in two different mounts. Maybe at a photo shoot, snapping shots of the kids at the playground, capturing images of flowers, or shooting wildlife out the back of a Range Rover the 100-300 would be superior. But for the type of work that I’ve been doing for the last few months, shooting street protests in Thailand’s capital city, I’d pick OS any day. No tripods, no flash, no posing, just hot, tiring, heart-pounding action. Tough to use “good technique” when bullets are flying over your head, like in the last 72 hours. Although I applaud the last three systems that I’ve used Minolta/Sony, Olympus, and now Pentax for incorporating in-body stabilization, in-lens stabilization is far, far superior to in-body stabilization. I don’t care what the magazine’s scientific tests tell you about stop number advantages, I know that I personally get more salable shots with lens-based stabilization. So for all of Rob’s “colleagues” out there, use the lens that fits your work, never mind the minute differences from a pixel-peeper web test. If you shoot under little stress at short focal distances, or on a tripod, you don’t even need in-body stabilization. If you are on the go or shooting difficult handheld shots get the best advantage that you can, lens-based stabilization. Coffee break over, back to the grind.
Paul,
I don’t trust people on the basis of them asking me to trust them. I am a working scientist, and your word does not hold sway nearly as much as controlled tests. In my mind, there’s no way that the vibration difference between an in-body antivibration device and an on-lens system. If there is a difference, and everything I’ve read suggests it might be slight, then that difference will not supercede the difference in optics, and the difference of using a faster lens (and therefore the user would be able to use faster shutter speeds). Your assertions just don’t wash – and also we should note that your shooting scenario is really very unlikely for the vast, vast majority of shooters. So, for all the folks out there who aren’t shooting in a war zone and are interested in science not assertion, then I leave it to you.
Coffee break over here too – time to evaluate the reality of our continuum using science, not assertion and blather.