|
| sent on 05 Agosto 2015
Pros: Compact size, Light weight, (Removable) Tripod collar for tripod use; Sharpness up to 300mm, cost, general build, Apochromatic
Cons: (Almost) unusable handheld, position of manual focus ring, Image quality at 400mm f5.6; no stabilisation (but that's also a weight/size advantage);
Opinion: A budget Sigma long zoom that is actually quite useful, if you know its limitations and how to overcome them. At the same weight as my 70-200mm f2.8, this makes the lens very portable, meaning it will get taken out on walks a lot more than my mega heavy and huge Sigma 150-500mm, which tops 2kg. I used to own a Nikkor D (Mk1) 80-400mm and I really liked the extra 100mm, for long distance landscapes. Now with DX D7000, my excellent Tamron SP 70-300mm VC superbly handles long distance landscape work now. But that does not have a tripod collar and whilst its VC is superb, I struggle to get good night shots even with a heavy duty tripod. The 150-500mm is far better for birds and wildlife, where it is the only lens and for carrying short distances only. I took the 135-400mm on a walk for 12 hours, attached to my good Manfrotto monopod. It balanced perfectly holding just the rubber grip juts the below the head of the 'pod. That made it all seem light and portable. The 150-500mm is far too top heavy for that and the uncomfortable handle that is part of its tripod collar cuts into your hand. Handholding the 135-400mm at the long end and its lightness makes for difficult framing of the subject, let alone keeping it still for slow shutter speed shots. Even with the monopod, I still tried to keep shutter speed up to at least 1/250, due to side to side movement. AF is a bit noisy and can hunt on low contrast subjects, but that would expected. Manual focus is next to impossible when handholding, the ring is next to the tripod collar and you can't hold the lens properly at the same time. On a monopod, it is very easily done, a smooth light action. with the left thumb. Image quality: MTF figures I've seen show this lens to be similar in performance to Sigma's current offering - the 120-400mm OS (which costs a lot more and is a very weighty 1600g), except at 400mm. At this extremity, you need f8 to get good sharpness; wide open it is rather soft in both sharpness and contrast. F6.3 and f7.1 don't really magically improve on this either. But, for my intended tripod use, this stopping down is not so much of a problem, of course. However, long distances in England always have some haze, even on the brightest days and so will always appear soft. In fact, at closer distances, the lens is actually quite good even at f5.6 and 400mm. It is also worth saying that the lens is very nicely put together, it feels MUCH more robust than my 150-500mm. The large hood is a bit plasticky but effective and adds considerably to the lens' overall length. In conclusion: these 135-400mm's can be found on Ebay for 150-200 pounds sterling; I paid for 190 for an almost unused example. At this price, there must surely be no other lenses that reach 400mm, let alone one that is usable to a quality standard, as long, as I said, it is used within the confines of the lens' characteristics. It also came with a very decent Sigma case, too. Rating: Handling and everyday usability, well, not great, so just 6; image quality 8, if used sensibly; so overall 7, which might seem quite low but the modern competition has moved on considerably but I'm sure I will find it useful for what I intended and for the price paid too. |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
