<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review of Sigma 150-500mm OS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.naturepixels.org/blog/2009/03/24/review-of-sigma-150-500mm-os/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.naturepixels.org/blog/2009/03/24/review-of-sigma-150-500mm-os/</link>
	<description>NaturePixels.org Singapore Nature Photography Forum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:06:21 +0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mojofuse</title>
		<link>http://www.naturepixels.org/blog/2009/03/24/review-of-sigma-150-500mm-os/comment-page-1/#comment-414</link>
		<dc:creator>mojofuse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://naturepixels.org/blog/?p=534#comment-414</guid>
		<description>Is the IQ better than the 120-400mm? thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the IQ better than the 120-400mm? thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ForestWander Nature Photography</title>
		<link>http://www.naturepixels.org/blog/2009/03/24/review-of-sigma-150-500mm-os/comment-page-1/#comment-177</link>
		<dc:creator>ForestWander Nature Photography</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://naturepixels.org/blog/?p=534#comment-177</guid>
		<description>I am thinking of trying this one out.

Hope it works well on my new 5d Mark II</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am thinking of trying this one out.</p>
<p>Hope it works well on my new 5d Mark II</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kennie</title>
		<link>http://www.naturepixels.org/blog/2009/03/24/review-of-sigma-150-500mm-os/comment-page-1/#comment-155</link>
		<dc:creator>kennie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://naturepixels.org/blog/?p=534#comment-155</guid>
		<description>i have to agree this lens is way sharp even wide open, provided u do with long lens technique. I used this lens for about 6months and it gave me really really sharp results. I under estimated this lens and when i first started using this lens for the first 2 weeks, all shots were blur, OOF, etc. Have to master long lens technique in oder to maximise this lens. This is value for money , for the 500mm reach, it is a kill. U will have to pay $7000 for the nikon equivalent.

Only cons, Widest at f6.3 at 500mm and no limit switch. WIll have prefered the lens to be more solid when it totally extends out on 500mm.

kennie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have to agree this lens is way sharp even wide open, provided u do with long lens technique. I used this lens for about 6months and it gave me really really sharp results. I under estimated this lens and when i first started using this lens for the first 2 weeks, all shots were blur, OOF, etc. Have to master long lens technique in oder to maximise this lens. This is value for money , for the 500mm reach, it is a kill. U will have to pay $7000 for the nikon equivalent.</p>
<p>Only cons, Widest at f6.3 at 500mm and no limit switch. WIll have prefered the lens to be more solid when it totally extends out on 500mm.</p>
<p>kennie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
