sai Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hi you all! I've read tons of reviews and threads about this lens. The reviews say it is a sharp, fast AF , versatile lens. I mean 50-500mm what else do you want? Now, I'm not a pro. I do care about IQ and sharpness, but I'm not absessive with it. I would love to buy primes and L glass but my budget doesn't allow it. I go frecuently to the Rain forest in Colombia and with my bad Canon 90-300mm I've taken some nice shots. I do need something longer. Primes are nice but I need something versatile. I was thinking about getting the Canon 100-400 L, although I really don't like the pull/push zooming of it. Of course IS is fantastic, and I'm sure IQ too, but now that I've found out about the Bigma 50-500mm I have my doubts. Could someone tell me about his/hers experience with this lens? Is it sharp at the long end? I have the shorter range coverd and I would use it from 100mm on. Am I buying crap glass? What about using it with TCs? IS THIS LENS WORTH IT OR NOT? WHY? I'm really attracted to the 500mm and versatility.... gracias in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sai Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 oh, this pictures http://www.buzzdns.com/lion2.jpg is a 100% crop from a guy on this site http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddbennett Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Simon, Here are two shots I've posted here that are taken with it. http://www.photo.net/photo/6037041 http://www.photo.net/photo/6397457 I am really pleased with the lens. The B17 was taken on a tripod at ISO 400 and the Blue Heron was taken hand held at ISO 400. You will at least need a monopod with this lens. I broke my own rule by not using a monopod with the Blue Heron because I left it at home and really just took a chance. It was taken on a light overcast day. Both were taken at the upper end nearer 500mm; but, I don't remember the exact number. I have found it to be very sharp through the entire zoom range. I think the lens is worth every penny I spent on it and wouldn't be afraid to buy another one. The only problem I've had with it is the creep lock got jammed and had to send that off for repair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmueller Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Have a look at this portfolio: http://www.photo.net/photo/4367239 Most (all?) of the bird pictures have been taken with the 50-500. I am also tossing up between the 100-400L and the 50-500. As much as I like Canon lenses, I am having a hard time justifying the extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmueller Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Oops, link to portfolio is: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=1152356&include=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Add to your considerations the Tamron 200-500. It is lighter than the Bigma and has a possible optical edge too. I could not find one locally to try when I was looking at telephotos but it is a very impressive package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_zellner Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Here is a 100% crop from a 400D and a Bigma, f8 at 1/60 ISO 400. The only manipulation was changing the white balance.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picpocket Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I think the main downside to bigma is its weight. At 1.8kg as compared to 1.3kg for 100-400, its an issue for me (though I have none of the two yet). Also depends on whether IS is useful for you IQ on bigma looks quite good from what I have seen so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I have friends who use this lens. It's fairly good by itself but the addition of a teleconverter is not a good idea. Unsurprisingly, the 50-500's image quality is not in the same league as what I get out of a Canon 500/4 IS, and the latter is also more than twice as fast, focuses considerably quicker, is comfortable with teleconverters, and is stabilized. But of course it costs 5X as much and is even larger and heavier than the 'Bigma'. I think the main problem with the 50-500 is the lack of stabilization, which you can mostly get around by using firm support (tripod, beanbag, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_houtmeyers Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hi I have used both the Canon and the Sigma in the past.Both are about equally sharp....colors are a bit richer on the Canon. The Sigma is not really a 500mm more like 460-470mm lens.Both lenses focus very fast for a long zoom. In lower light conditions the Canon is far better with the IS-system when used handheld. Have you ever tried handhelding a 400-500mm lens without any support or IS. You need a very steady hand or extreme good light conditions to use the Bigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sai Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Ok, so let's say I use a tripod to shoot with it (although some people say thay can handhold it? I'm sure iy's really hard to keep it steady at 300mm!) Is the IQ good or not? Is it sharp? By looking at the example images that people shown me, I'd say it is. Oh my God, why doesn't Sigma have IS... Should I spend the $1000, or save $400 more and get the Canon 100-400 and don't have the extra 100mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_zellner Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I think that if you plan on hand holding the lens most of the time the cost for IS would be worth it. The Bigma is difficult to hand hold at any focal length because of it's size and weight. However, if you will use a tripod or other support, it's definitely worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 You might want to <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=1">read some of these reviews</a> over at Fred Miranda.<P> The most common complaint is that it softens up substantially at the long end - unless you stop it down a couple of stops. At the long end you're already at f 6.3 so you'll probably be stopped down ~ f/11 to get something really sharp. That's pretty slow.<P> An 86mm filter size means buying even a polarizer will not be inexpensive and of course you'd lose 2 more stops of light if you do.<P> Many people sing its praises though, so if you can live with some of the limitations you may like it too. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sai Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 Hey! I was thinking... What about getting a Sigma 80-400mm with IS? Would that be better regarding IQ and sharpness? What about using it with a TC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddbennett Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Simon, You need to spend some time, as Beau said, looking at reviews. DPreview is another good site and Ken Rockwell has a site where he reviews cameras and equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kin_lau Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I've used the 50-500 for about 1 1/2 years, and it's a fine lens. Mine was sharp thru the whole range. Due to the f6.3 aperture at the 500mm end, I almost always shot it wide open. It's definitely heavy, but hand-holding depends more on the photographer. I've used it handheld, and I use the 120-300/2.8 (~1kg heavier) handheld too. The key is to only do it for short periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_passmore Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I considered the Bigma and EF 100-400L for aviation photography and eventually went with the Canon. 1) Weight... other Aviation shooters had said that the Bigma can put a lot of strain on your arm over a day at an airshow. Monopods/tripods are not convenient for this type of shooting. 2) Image Stabilization is ALWAYS useful even if you are lucky enough to have the light for a fast shutter, especially on a long tele like these. 3) Limited to f6.3 @ 500mm with the Bigma. I do tend to stop the 100-400L to f8 if I can for sharpness so that's not CRITICAL for me, but it means you're pretty close to the widest aperture already. 4) Image quality was shown to me in several photos to be slightly less than the Canon 5) When looking at similar subjects, the extra 100mm at the long end didn't seem significant to me to override points 1 through 4 (A bit like 8MP vs. 10MP... it's a difference, but is it a BIG difference?) It all added up that the extra cost of the EF 100-400L over the Bigma could be justified, especially as I intend to have it for many years so the cost is spread out. At least that's what I tell myself ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_erne Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Either get a DSLR with body-antishake and the Bigma or, stick to EOS and save for the 100-400mm IS. The stabilisation is extremly useful! As far as I remember the 80-400mm OS focusses slower and less acurate than the 100-400mm IS and the difference in price wasn't that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now