Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO
The Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO is my first rather expensive lens (about $300 from Ebay). I had originally been looking at and bidding on a black Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lens that had the auction taken down about a day before the ending. I was a little broken up about it and then I saw the auction for this puppy the same day. I had originally been wishing I could have gotten the one in black and I think black is a lot more low key, but in some ways the white kind of grows on you. I guess it is to much exposure to sports and wildlife photogs with their white bazookas that did it for me. Telephotos just seem to look better in white. Of course who cares what it looks like if it can’t deliver the goods.
The lens is quite compact with a telephoto ratio of .72. It is an internal focusing design with a 9 bladed aperature and an aperature range from f/5.6 down to f/22 in half stop increments. The lens has one or more low dispersion glass elements to reduce chromatic abberations (APO) and is arranged in 11 elements in 8 groups. It has a minimum focusing distance of 4m (13.3ft) with a magnification of 9.5:1. (field of view 6 degrees). The lens takes a 72mm filter, has a large built-in extendable lens hood and tripod collar. The overall dimensions of the lens is 85mm in diameter maximum and 212.5mm long (3.3″x8.4″) and weighs 960 grams (2lbs 2oz).
From what I have been told the APO version of the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 and the ATX version of the Tokina 400mm f/5.6 are significantly better then the regular Sigma 400mm f/5.6 and the base Tokina 400mm f/5.6 SL. Some tests awhile back showed the Sigma APO to edge out the Tokina ATX wide open and the Tokina edged out the Sigma when stopped down a couple of stops (and with an f/5.6 telephoto lens you are probably going to use it wide open or nearly so most of the time).
The lens appears to be pretty sharp wide open and stopped down just a bit. View the below sample imaged (prints scanned on an Epson flatbed at 350dpi).
For the fun of it I decided to compare this lens against my smallest lens (Zuiko 50mm f/1.8). I think the Sigma 400/5.6 edges out the 50/1.8 a bit.
Size comparison
Another view of the Sigma attached to the camera with hood extended (its big, not 400/2.8 or 600/4 big, but still big).
The can images were shot at 1/500s and f/6.3 and the dragonfly at 1/1000s and f/11 all handheld (I am getting better at that). On the negative of the one can (vertically oriented photo) you can read the barcode number on the beer can on the upper left magnifying the negative. You can’t read it on the scanned image of the print (the 4×6 print just doesn’t have enough detail).
A comparison of the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO at f/5.6 and at f/11, the test was done with the lens and camera placed solidly on a flat surface with mirror lockup (no remote shutter release however). The scan is from an Epson flat bed of the print at 350dpi and the comparison is 100% crop of the resulting image (not quite as good or high quality as scanning the negative, but until I own a good negative scanner this is all I can manage). As you can see the lens at f/11 is very, very slightly sharper, but it is a small difference.
March 26, 2009 at 12:34 am |
You’ve got some excellent third party glass for your OM system… I’m envious. The Sigma 70-210 is probably the best of its class, probably superior to the Tamron 80-200 which I own. That is a very sharp lens, and very heavy, too. I prefer the two-touch design of the Sigma, though, to the one-touch Tamron. It is quick and convenient, but the zoom will creep if you point the lens up or down. Also, the tripod mount is not as sturdy or as well-integrated as the Sigma. I’m sure it will break with heavy or careless use.
If you ever want to sell that Sigma, look me up…
.
That 400 sigma you have is very nice too. Likely the best long telephoto option out there for OMs. I have the 300 4.5 Zuiko, and it is a good lens, but of course to get to 400 you need the TC, which is both expensive and degrades image quality somewhat. The TC works better on my Tamron 300 2.8, which is a superior lens to start with, and doesn’t lose much with the excellent Zuiko 1.4 TC. Very heavy to lug around, though.
Do think about some of the Zuiko wide angles, like the 24, 28, or 35 2.8. Good lenses, and inexpensive.
If you get into more macro, I once in a while see a Sigma 180 5.6 macro on ebay or at KEH. Never used one, but it looks interesting. Probably easier to manage than the Zuiko 135 macro and telescopic auto tube. Certainly cheaper than the 90mm zuiko macro.
March 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
Thanks for the suggestions. I have a Zuiko 85/2 on the way now (should be here tomorrow). After that what I am really looking in to is the Sigma 28-70/2.8. Then its on to possibly getting a Tokina/Tamron 17mm f/3.5 and a Zuiko 24mm f/2. I’d also be really interested in the Zuiko 35/2.8 shift lens…but its a bit beyond my price range for awhile (as is the 50/1.2). I missed out on getting a Sigma 14mm f/3.5 a few weeks ago and I am still bummed about it. That is deffinitely on my list of “If it ever becomes available I would jump on it no matter what”. Everything else is common enough that I feel like I can wait until I have the spare spending money to buy it.
That Tamron 300/2.8 or a Sigma 300/2.8 APO are both lenses I’d love to get some day. Some day…