Review: Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS USM S by DXOMark

[Canon Rumors]

DXOMark has completed their review of the Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS USM S supertelephoto lens. Like most of the new Sigma lenses over the last three years, this one performs quite well when compared to the Canon version.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Head-to-head against the Canon EF 500 f/4L IS II USM, the Sigma 500mm f/4’s image quality compares very favorably. The Canon lens is fractionally sharper on the 5DS R, but the Sigma offers a modest improvement in resolution on the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV. To be fair, there’s very little to separate them in real-world terms on any of these DSLRs, however, making the Sigma 500mm f/4 a great value option. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-500mm-f-4-DG-OS-USM-S-Canon-lens-review-Super-sharp-shooter">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>We’re not sure how many of these Sigma is going to sell, as it will be quite difficult to sell a $6000 lens for a Canon system that isn’t a Canon product. If you own one, sound off in the forums about it’s real world performance.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[unfocused]

We’re not sure how many of these Sigma is going to sell, as it will be quite difficult to sell a $6000 lens for a Canon system that isn’t a Canon product.

Yes, I think that if one is contemplating a lens like this, most buyers will likely pay the extra for a Canon, because there is always some element of risk involved with a third-party lens.

Two things I am curious about:

1) How quick and reliable is the autofocus? It may be optically equal to the Canon, but if it focuses slowly or fails to lock focus, that would negate any cost advantage it might have.

2) Where will the street price settle? At $6,000 it may be too expensive, but would it be more attractive at $5,000? I don't know.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

1) How quick and reliable is the autofocus?

I have high hopes. My 120-300mm f/2.8 is superb, and it's simply not within the realm of possibility - given the target market for 500mm f/4s - that Siggy would get it wrong.

 

[edoorn]

too bad they didn't test it with converters. From digital picture review, the tool used to compare lenses shows the Canon 500 is doing better here than Sigma with their converter.

 

[amorse]

<p>We’re not sure how many of these Sigma is going to sell, as it will be quite difficult to sell a $6000 lens for a Canon system that isn’t a Canon product. If you own one, sound off in the forums about it’s real world performance.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>[/html]

I don't know, as someone who really struggles to consider spending near five figures on a lens, the super telephoto primes are effectively out of reach for me, financially. Placing this at $6,000 would certainly have me reconsidering that position if the image quality and autofocus performance stacks up, although it would still be a big reach for me...

I can't help but wonder how many other enthusiast photographers are out there who would consider spending $6,000, but not $9,000 on reach beyond 400mm with very good image quality.

 

[Ryananthony]

<p>We’re not sure how many of these Sigma is going to sell, as it will be quite difficult to sell a $6000 lens for a Canon system that isn’t a Canon product. If you own one, sound off in the forums about it’s real world performance.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>[/html]

I don't know, as someone who really struggles to consider spending near five figures on a lens, the super telephoto primes are effectively out of reach for me, financially. Placing this at $6,000 would certainly have me reconsidering that position if the image quality and autofocus performance stacks up, although it would still be a big reach for me...

I can't help but wonder how many other enthusiast photographers are out there who would consider spending $6,000, but not $9,000 on reach beyond 400mm with very good image quality.

I'm in Canada and the sigma 500/4 is 7800 before tax. Just yesterday I found someone on the local Craigslist selling a Canon 500/4 ii for 8500 CAD. I would rather spend 8500 on a used copy of canons 500/4 then a sigma new.

 

[Bob Howland]

I own a Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport lens and seriously considered buying the 200-400 Canon L lens. Sigma should have introduced a 200-500 f/4 lens (or f/2.8-4) with a matched 1.4X multiplier instead of the 500 prime lens. They already make a 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6 but never bothered to fill the gap between these with something useful. Their 200-500 f/2.8 is a joke.

​

 

[Ozarker]

If I were in the market for a super telephoto lens I would have to go the Canon route. It is a lot more money, but just the assurance of outstanding quality, service / repair and future compatibility with the camera bodies would be a big reason for me. It would be a once in a lifetime purchase for me. I'd want no regrets 10 years down the road.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

6k is still more than I can cough up for a lens. Quick tally says I have 16k ish into bodies and lenses perhaps a tich more and it spans 16 to 600 mm. I wish I had the Sigma 150-600 as it a bit sharper on the long end than the tammy - 6k for just 500 would be basically 40% of my total investment for 1 focal length.

I am pretty enthusiastic photo dude - not nearly that enthusiastic

 

[aceflibble]

Y'all are forgetting that the Canon isn't the only competition and isn't the only mount this lens is made with.

The Sony α9 basically guarantees this is going to be a huge success. Being mirrorless, all concerns about AF accuracy—which has been the one moderate fault of Sigma to date—are gone. At that point, this is the Canon 500mm but cheaper and not garish-white. Sony themselves produce no similar lens, which right now is basically the only fault of the α9. That body and this lens together give you something which equals-or-beats a 1D X mkII or D5 + first party 500m prime at a lower price. The only drawback right now is that this lens isn't currently in stock anywhere with the Sony E-mount, but if someone doesn't want to wait for that to happen, they can buy the Canon or Nikon version and immediately send it to Sigma to have the mount swapped. (Yes, swapping the mount is actually currently faster than waiting for the Sony mount to be shipped. No, I don't understand why, either.)

Then there's Nikon. Nikon's 500mm prime is basically the same as the mkI of the Canon 500mm. It's fine, but it's not up to par with the Canon mkII nor this Sigma. So, Sigma are giving Nikon users a noticeable upgrade, with more effective IS, sharper optics, less flare, and lighter weight, and again, at a lower price.

As someone who currently still uses Canon for wildlife (mostly as hobby but occasionally professionally), no, I won't be ditching the Canon lens and picking this up any time soon. However, if Canon don't hurry up with the next 7D revision (and make it a good one with no AA filter), that Sony α9 sure is going to become more and more tempting, and if I do pick that up I'll be getting the Sigma 500mm for it, for sure; I can sell the Canon 500mm for more than the Sigma will cost to buy new and pocket the difference without losing any performance. That's a no-brainer.

 

[Ryananthony]

Y'all are forgetting that the Canon isn't the only competition and isn't the only mount this lens is made with.

The Sony α9 basically guarantees this is going to be a huge success. Being mirrorless, all concerns about AF accuracy—which has been the one moderate fault of Sigma to date—are gone. At that point, this is the Canon 500mm but cheaper and not garish-white. Sony themselves produce no similar lens, which right now is basically the only fault of the α9. That body and this lens together give you something which equals-or-beats a 1D X mkII or D5 + first party 500m prime at a lower price. The only drawback right now is that this lens isn't currently in stock anywhere with the Sony E-mount, but if someone doesn't want to wait for that to happen, they can buy the Canon or Nikon version and immediately send it to Sigma to have the mount swapped. (Yes, swapping the mount is actually currently faster than waiting for the Sony mount to be shipped. No, I don't understand why, either.)

Then there's Nikon. Nikon's 500mm prime is basically the same as the mkI of the Canon 500mm. It's fine, but it's not up to par with the Canon mkII nor this Sigma. So, Sigma are giving Nikon users a noticeable upgrade, with more effective IS, sharper optics, less flare, and lighter weight, and again, at a lower price.

As someone who currently still uses Canon for wildlife (mostly as hobby but occasionally professionally), no, I won't be ditching the Canon lens and picking this up any time soon. However, if Canon don't hurry up with the next 7D revision (and make it a good one with no AA filter), that Sony α9 sure is going to become more and more tempting, and if I do pick that up I'll be getting the Sigma 500mm for it, for sure; I can sell the Canon 500mm for more than the Sigma will cost to buy new and pocket the difference without losing any performance. That's a no-brainer.

According to Sigma they only make the 500/4 in Canon, Sigma and Nikon mounts. I don't think there are any full frame Art, Contemporary or Sports lenses made for E-mount.

 

[aceflibble]

According to Sigma they only make the 500/4 in Canon, Sigma and Nikon mounts. I don't think there are any full frame Art, Contemporary or Sports lenses made for E-mount.

As I said, it's not set to be produced and stocked yet. But the mount conversion is being offered to Sigma-sponsored pros, and any standard mount adapter will also work. (Sigma make their own, though I can't say whether it works any better or worse than other Canon/Nikon-to-E-mount adapters.)

I personally know a lot of people at Sigma. Given they've yet to misinform me about any of their products to date, including well before public announcement, I've no reason to believe they would misinform me now when they tell me an E-mount version is in the works and the mount conversion service is offered to those in the know. (And, again, regular mount adapters also work, of course.)

 

[gruhl28]

Can someone explain to me how the Canon can be sharper on the 5DS R, but the Sigma is sharper on the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV? Is that really possible? Or does it just suggest that DXOMark isn't getting consistent results in their testing?

 

[deorum]

Can someone explain to me how the Canon can be sharper on the 5DS R, but the Sigma is sharper on the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV? Is that really possible? Or does it just suggest that DXOMark isn't getting consistent results in their testing?

id favor the second answer = no consistency between tests.
It has been done in the past, it wont be the first time.
sure there can be a super-fancy scientifical explanation, but for me it will sound more like an excuse.

Im open to listen to of course, and then judge.

 

[AlanF]

Can someone explain to me how the Canon can be sharper on the 5DS R, but the Sigma is sharper on the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV? Is that really possible? Or does it just suggest that DXOMark isn't getting consistent results in their testing?

id favor the second answer = no consistency between tests.
It has been done in the past, it wont be the first time.
sure there can be a super-fancy scientifical explanation, but for me it will sound more like an excuse.

Im open to listen to of course, and then judge.

There are serious inconsistencies in their tests.

On the 5DIV they have the Canon with far fewer perceptive megapixels (whatever they are) than the Sigma. But, if you go to measurements-sharpness-profiles, you find that the Canon has higher acutance in the centre and comparable elsewhere.

On the 5DSR, the Canon is slightly sharper by both criteria. Frankly, it's bonkers.

I no longer take DxOmark seriously, but I like and use DxO Optics Pro for its superb noise reduction.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Y'all are forgetting that the Canon isn't the only competition and isn't the only mount this lens is made with.

We're not forgetting anything.

We are however, remembering that it's a Canon forum.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

which right now is basically the only fault of the α9.

Only fault?

:

 

[Hector1970]

Does no one own it here. I know some one who has one but isn't a great photographer. He likes it but has little to compare it too. He's happy with the focus accuracy but do any do BIF.

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

If I were in the market for a super telephoto lens I would have to go the Canon route. It is a lot more money, but just the assurance of outstanding quality, service / repair and future compatibility with the camera bodies would be a big reason for me. It would be a once in a lifetime purchase for me. I'd want no regrets 10 years down the road.

One thing to remember about these big beautiful and expensive lenses. You take a risk buying one and expecting it to last forever, there are people who have version 1 of the 600mm f4 and those lenses can no longer be repaired. If it breaks you're stuck with a pretty expensive paper weight.

 

[danski0224]

One thing to remember about these big beautiful and expensive lenses. You take a risk buying one and expecting it to last forever, there are people who have version 1 of the 600mm f4 and those lenses can no longer be repaired. If it breaks you're stuck with a pretty expensive paper weight.

Yeah, that sucks.

Canon stopped servicing the USM (no IS) Big Whites long ago, and for all intensive purposes, no spare parts exist... short of cannibalizing another lens that has something else that is broken.

With the exception of the 200 f/2 and the 800 f/5.6 IS lenses, the IS VI Big Whites are on a short list to be declared obsolete at some point in the not too distant future. The 200 and 800 haven't been updated yet.

Buying new ones every 10 years or so to remain "current" isn't an option for me. If/when what I have breaks, and is no longer repairable, I doubt I'll buy another one. At least the VI IS lenses will focus without power, but I don't know what happens when an IS module craps out. Obviously the IS won't work, but does it fail in a neutral position?

And I don't see third party manufacturers like Sigma or Tamron being any different.