Generally, the longest focal length lenses available are 800mm f/5.6 options, aside from rare or discontinued examples. And even as a prime, such a lens is massive. So, you can imagine just how big things get if you want to make a zoom that can reach 800mm with an f/5.6 aperture, but that is just what this lens known as the "Sigmonster" can do.
Coming to you from Christopher Frost, this fun video review takes a look at the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO HSM lens. Affectionately known as the "Sigmonster," this lens certainly earned its nickname, stretching over 21 inches (54 cm) in length and weighing a ludicrous 12.94 lbs (5.87 kg). Of course, all that bulk made it a pain to lug around, meaning it was the sort of lens best used in a spot where you would be camped out for at least a few hours, but if you were willing to put up with that heft, you were rewarded with a uniquely capable lens that offered some impressive versatility. Its image quality might not stand up to modern sensor's demands, but it is still quite the neat lens. Check out the video above to see it in action.
Hey - that's my everyday lens!
You are right about the weight; at 13 pounds it is not comfortable to carry around. But even though it's not comfortable, I do carry it around quite a bit on long woodland hikes, in the marshes, and out on the prairies and tundra.
I actually fit mine into the overhead compartment as a carry-on a few years ago, when I flew Alaska Airlines. With the hood off, of course.
The image quality is actually quite good, and I have had many shots that I took with it used as magazine covers, on advertising banners and posters, etc.
There is currently no other zoom lens that is truly long ... at least not in a common still camera mount. The closest thing to it is Canon's 50-1,000mm f5.6 cinema lens, which is freaking awesome! But that doesn't come in an EF or RF mount, so it isn't really comparable.
I notice that in your brief writeup, you used the past tense a lot ...
"MADE it a pain ..."
"WAS the sort of lens ..."
"WERE willing to ..."
There are still a fair number of wildlife photographers who use this as their main lens. So if you wanted to, you can change "made" to "makes", "was" to "is", and "were" to "are" ... and it would be just as correct. I mean, it's not like this is some old lens that people don't use anymore.
Panasonic's Micro Four Thirds (MFT) 100-400 has a similar effective focal length and is MUCH smaller. It gathers roughly 2 stops less total light, but on a Panasonic body it has effective Dual IS image stabilization, so less need for a tripod with still subjects.
When I first bought an MFT kit 9 years ago, I was amazed that I could carry a 90-400mm EFL zoom the size of a soda can in a coat pocket. I'd never had a lens that long, and though it was a cheap "consumer" zoom, I got some really nice shots that simply wouldn't have been possible with my DSLR kit. One of them is among my favorite images of the past 10 years, and, with careful processing, it can make a sharp, detailed 30" print.
That would be awesome to have something that small and light, capable of such a narrow angle of view.
But I suspect that our end uses are different. I shoot primarily with very large prints in mind ... think 48" by 32", 60" by 40", etc.
I have had several MFT users tell me, over the past couple of years, that while they love their MFT gear, that it doesn't give the best results when printed really huge, especially if high ISOs had to be used and there is a lot of very fine detail that must be resolved and look great at giant print sizes. I'll take their word for it.
But yeah, if you're just posting pics to the internet or making prints 30" wide and smaller, then I think the MFT stuff that you recommend would be great!
My comments above are more relevant for those thinking of putting this lens on a 24MP body. In that case, the output comparison is pretty much apples-to-apples. I assume that you're shooting with a higher-rez body, in which case, as Emily Litella would say, "Never mind."
I use my Sigma 300-800 with my 30 megapixel Canon 5D4 most of the time, but also use it with my Canon 1D4, which has 16 megapixels.
The 100-400 is a 200-800mm f/8-12.6 35mm equivalent lens regarding FoV, DoF and light gathering capability, of course it is so much smaller. IBIS/IS is only effective when you can use slow shutter speeds, but can you always do that in nature photography?
Of course. It. Is. So. Much. Smaller.
"Only"? At 800mm EFL, 1/500s is a slow shutter speed.
The Sigmonster will still zoom in twice as much as the 100-400mm when mounted on , so there's still no comparison.
The Canon 50-1000mm does indeed come in EF mount, but only covers Super 35mm, and not full frame.
Thank you for that correction - I appreciate it. So, would the 50-1,000mm then be the ultimate supertelephoto zoom for APS-C crop sensor Canon cameras?
If you are curious about the optics you can see this in the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench.
Here's a direct link
https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/Optic...