Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 DG - Bigma [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 10:52

I don't know if this topic is particularly useful, but for some reason it seemed like a good idea at the time I thought of doing it. I'm showing 2 images of pretty much the same scene. Not on a tripod so I may have gotten a little lopsided with one or the other. I did take them consecutively and in the same spot however. One is wide open (f/6.3) @ 500mm (first one), and wide open (f/4) @ 50mm (second one). My in camera contrast is set to 0 on the Rebel XT, as is my sharpness. As a result, both images were resized as shown and 65%, 1, 1 USM was applied & I also used auto-contrast in Photoshop 7.0. It doesn't show raw sharpness of the lens, but it does display what it can do wide open, handheld and *cleaned up*. It also shows the difference between 50mm and 500mm for those wondering what 500mm (actual 465mm I've heard) would get them as far as reach is concerned.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/2006-01-14-013.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/2006-01-14-014.jpg

I hope this thread helps at least someone.

GS Rider

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 10:54

thanks for that - it gives a 'real world' feel for the reach of the lens.

condyk

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 11:12

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 11:38

Nice one ...imagine that vehicle was a bird and we can now appreciate what length contributes. Of course, if it was a bird we'd all **** ourselves and run :lol: :lol:

BTW, not sure about this new rumour about 500mm not being 500mm! I certainly found the extra on the Bigma I had was missed when using the 100-400 IS L in the field. Whatever the case, - or + a few mm's, you do notice when it's not there.

That gave me an idea. I went outside and did a *proper* reshoot...MLU, tripod, remote, etc. Wide open aperture, auto contrast, USM same as above. This is more of a focal length demo than anything...showing 400mm versus 500mm.

50mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/2006-01-14-001.jpg

400mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/2006-01-14-002.jpg

500mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/2006-01-14-003.jpg

tommykjensen

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 11:53

condyk

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 11:53

Good job ... now if you were a wildlife shooter primarily, like me, then this would be significant some of the time. You can manage great with the 400mm and 420mm/Tcon'd combo's most of the time tho'. What's very clear from this contribution too is that the 50mm 1.8 isn't going to be a good wildlife lens much of the time :-)

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 12:04

I haven't really considered the Bigma even though I do want a longer lens than my 300 f/4L IS.

But if I were considering buying this instead of the 400 f/5.6L to get more reach I would not choose the Bigma. I don't think the extra length between 400 and 500 is enough. There is nothing wrong with the quality though.

A prime almost always trumps a zoom, especially with an extra stop of speed...I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I do believe it's an excellent contender with the 100-400L...

I'm not a fan of primes though...but I will make exceptions when I need to. Because of that and the extra 100mm, which I consider significant, I would choose Bigma. If I needed something really long and really fast, I'd shell out the cash for a 500 f/4 or something.

tommykjensen

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 12:10

A prime almost always trumps a zoom, especially with an extra stop of speed...I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I do believe it's an excellent contender with the 100-400L...

I'm not a fan of primes though...but I will make exceptions when I need to.

I used the 400 prime as an example on purpose because if my choice was between the 100-400L and the Bigma I would choose the 100-400L for the IS. But then again I have tried the 100-400L before and do not like the push/pull zoom which is why I prefer the 400 prime.

My point was just that I don't think the extra 100 mm is very apparent and there for that extra length would not have any weight in my decision.

condyk is probably right that once You have had the 500 mm and go down You will notice it more.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 12:14

I used the 400 prime as an example on purpose because if my choice was between the 100-400L and the Bigma I would choose the 100-400L for the IS. But then again I have tried the 100-400L before and do not like the push/pull zoom which is why I prefer the 400 prime.

My point was just that I don't think the extra 100 mm is very apparent and there for that extra length would not have any weight in my decision.

condyk is probably right that once You have had the 500 mm and go down You will notice it more.

Yeah...it's like spot metering. I don't have it and therefore don't miss it. I'm sure if I had had it before, I wouldn't buy a new camera without it. Same with the XT and only one dial....I never owned a SLR (be it digital or film) before, so I don't miss the thumb dial...the shift button is fine for me.

As for the IS, the lens is heavy enough to balance itself out if you use decent technique (assuming you aren't shaky by nature)...in post #1, that 500mm shot was at 1/160th.

Calzinger

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 13:44

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 14:10

I'd hate to bother you, but would it be possible if you could take shots at more focal lengths? ie. 200mm VS 300mm for those in debate over the 70-300mm IS or the 70-200 f/4L, one of which is me.
Thanks!

No problem. Keep in mind this is a different lens altogether, so focal length should be your only consideration. I got as close as I could to the focal lengths (noted accordingly). :p

50mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/bigma/2006-01-14-015.jpg

116mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/bigma/2006-01-14-016.jpg

191mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/bigma/2006-01-14-017.jpg

313mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/bigma/2006-01-14-018.jpg

417mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/bigma/2006-01-14-019.jpg

500mm:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/bigma/2006-01-14-020.jpg

Calzinger

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 14:55

blue_max

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 15:02

Thanks! Greatly appreciated!
But now i'm really wondering if 200mm reach is enough, seems like the 300mm shot is much further out. Then again, I guess it does depend on how far the object your shooting is that affects your perception.
Thanks again! :D

That's exactly right. I used a 70-200 (at 200) and a 135mm prime and at short to medium distance, the difference was barely worth noticing. It was key to my selling my 70-200.

The pictures do seem very impressive though.

Graham

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 15:19

That's exactly right. I used a 70-200 (at 200) and a 135mm prime and at short to medium distance, the difference was barely worth noticing. It was key to my selling my 70-200.

The pictures do seem very impressive though.

Graham

I actually bought my 70-200 f/2.8L AFTER Bigma...a long while after actually. I agree that it is ridiculously short, but I needed something with versatility and speed. It's an awesome lens for situations Bigma can't touch. I won't be selling either lens anytime soon. I will add longer stuff if I feel the need though....500 f/4 for example...but I don't foresee it anytime soon. I'm covered very nicely from 24mm-500mm, and hopefully before summer I'll add the Tokina 12-24 to go wide better than the kit lens does.

GyRob

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 16:33

Looking at those shots you have a lot of scratches on your censor ;)
looks to me like you have a great lens there those shots are very sharp and a good job of showing lenths.
Rob.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 16:36

Looking at those shots you have a lot of scratches on your censor ;)

lol yeah. Dang snow. And to think we were doing good there for awhile with 60-65°F weather!

looks to me like you have a great lens there those shots are very sharp and a good job of showing lenths.
Rob.

Those aren't 100% crops but yeah I like it. Not quite an L but awesome 10x zoom.

rklepper

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 16:40

Excellent thanks. I have really been looking seriously at either this lens or the 100-400 ISL. I really do not like the white (or off white). Decisions, decisions.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 16:45

Excellent thanks. I have really been looking seriously at either this lens or the 100-400 ISL. I really do not like the white (or off white). Decisions, decisions.

Honestly I never even looked at the Canon. I posted a message on dpreview "what lens should I buy next?" and lots of people said Bigma...so I bought it. lol. Kind of a whim really. I don't regret it though and like I said before...it's heavy enough that you can't really get camera shake from it...if anything you just wobble back and forth slowly...but you can just hold your breath, fire, and get a sharp shot. I rarely even follow the 1/focal length. It's not difficult to go to 1/half focal length and still be sharp.

I should probably also note that I am an abnormally small guy...I'm 5'1 and only about 125lbs. Anyone with average strength could easily handhold this thing.

cfcRebel

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 20:05

When i bought a Sigma 1.4TC and stacked it on, the AF still worked to my surprise but a lot of light/contrast was needed of course. If you have a 1.4TC, do some test. There is something i still can't convince myself, i.e. at certain aperture, some shots with the TC came out "better" than w/o TC.http://www.initial-d.com/forums/images/smilies/wt.gif I swear i didn't drink that day.....

KaplanMultimedia

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 20:23

I'm so glad you started this post. I have been seriously looking at this lens and the 100-400 ISL for wildlife photography, but I've been leaning more toward the Bigma lately.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 20:43

NP Joel. Wonder if Sigma would give me a percentage....:-P

picard

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 21:19

That gave me an idea. I went outside and did a *proper* reshoot...MLU, tripod, remote, etc. Wide open aperture, auto contrast, USM same as above. This is more of a focal length demo than anything...showing 400mm versus 500mm.

hey Cdi, What kind of bigma lens did you use for these photos? Does this lens require a tripod?

Ronald S. Jr.

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 21:21

I don't think I'd use it much without a tripod. It doesn't have IS/OS, and it's 500mm. I can't really see handholding that, unless it's broad daylight, and you can get a really fast shutter speed.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 21:24

hey Cdi, What kind of bigma lens did you use for these photos? Does this lens require a tripod?

Bigma refers to the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM. There is also an older non-DG version of the same lens. It doesn't require a tripod as it's really only about the size of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 when closed, and not quite 2x that length when fully extended. It weighs about a pound more than that same lens.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 21:26

I don't think I'd use it much without a tripod. It doesn't have IS, and it's 500mm. I can't really see handholding that, unless it's broad daylight, and you can get a really fast shutter speed.

Handholding it is easier than you'd think. Its weight helps minimize movement. 1/focal length is plenty of speed for crisp handheld shots, unless you suffer from paranoia schizophrenia and can't stop jumping around. You might wanna get a tripod and remote if that applies to you. ;-)

Tsmith

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 22:50

Nice test cdi _ I remember when you first got this lens.

cdifoto

14th of January 2006 (Sat), 22:54

Nice test cdi _ I remember when you first got this lens.

Thanks Blue. Still lovin' it...it sits in my bag next to the L's and holds its own. If only it was a constant f/4....I'd be in heaven - albeit tired as hell at the end of the day!

adebass

15th of January 2006 (Sun), 10:41

I was having a hard enough time waiting for mine to be delivered and now this!! I think you could sense my anticipation and just had to start teasing?

Tuesday cannot come quickly enough!!

Steve Parr

15th of January 2006 (Sun), 11:43

Yeah, this is great; thanks.

Like I need this kind of temptation...

Steve

cdifoto

15th of January 2006 (Sun), 11:48

Oh come on...it's just pics of some ol' pickup trucks...no birdies here! :lol: :p

roanjohn

25th of January 2006 (Wed), 11:09

WOW!!! 500.........thats some reach!!!!

Ro1

cdifoto

25th of January 2006 (Wed), 11:11

WOW!!! 500.........thats some reach!!!!

Ro1

Yeah I like it. It's not fast but it works for me. It even works in moderately lit stadiums:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/bigma/20050922-012.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/bigma/20050922-036.jpg

Georgey

22nd of January 2007 (Mon), 17:46

Here's two I took last week on a damp grey day in Dublin, 500mm wide open using a 1DmkII

Tee Why

22nd of January 2007 (Mon), 18:04

Animals
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/123302523-L.jpg

Airplanes
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/40470961-L.jpg

People
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/photos/111544055-L.jpg

Probably the most versatile lens I have.
See more examples here.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/575260/1/105032163#105032163
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/889890/1/40325110#40325110
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2150527/1/111513146#111513146

cdifoto

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 06:26

Thought I'd go through some of my old stuff and add to this archive. Keep in mind this is before I had a clue what I was doing. :)

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/bigmasamp/20051019-187.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/bigmasamp/20051019-143.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/bigmasamp/2005-09-14_034.jpg

devil350

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 06:44

farrukh

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 06:52

I'm sure there will be Bigma stock shortage very soon.

cdifoto

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 07:01

Hello Cdi,
I have a question for you, did you try the bigma with a TC 1.4x or 2x ?
If yes what do you think of the IQ? Do you have pics examples ?
Or somebody else, if you have pics with TC I'm very interested.

Regards,
Laurent.

I didn't have a TC when I owned the lens so I couldn't try it. Autfocus is lost anyway with the Tcons that report, and it would be pretty difficult on those that don't report anyway. I hate trying to MF on the current bodies. :)

CyberDyneSystems

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 07:28

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yfdh4c&outx=600&noresize=1

devil350

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 07:28

Thanks cdi.
I also hate MF... :)

If someone have picture of the bigma with TC I'm interested to know your feedback about it, and pics with and without if you have.

Regards,
Laurent.

CyberDyneSystems

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 07:43

I don't have any pics with a TC online as the results were all pants.. never got a keeper that way. I was using the Sigma 1.4x and 2x at the time I had the lens.

devil350

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 08:03

I don't have any pics with a TC online as the results were all pants.. never got a keeper that way

You mean bad results? (sorry for my english)

I see in your gear list that you have the 100-400L.
Do you prefere the 100-400 or the 50-500 ?
I plan to buy a bigma for birding pics mainly, so your advices are welcom. :D

Regards,
Laurent.

CyberDyneSystems

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 10:59

Yes, poor image quality and very difficult to use with any T-C (aperture was too small, and needed to be stopped down even more good images, shooting birds at f/11- f/16 is not very easy!)

I do prefer the 100-400mm, this is why I have that lens still, and always will, and sold the 50-500mm. I have many many images of birds I have taken with the 100-400mm that I think compare well against those I get with a $5,000.00 prime.
I only have maybe a small handful of images from the 50-500mm in that league.
It's not just about optics, but overall useablility. I can't blame all of it on the lens, as my own skill and technique improved as well, but part of the advantage of the 100-400mm is it's total ease of use.
IS I can't say enough for when shooting hand held, and shooting hand held helps so much to get the timing for the best shots.

Also AF speed and zooming speed n the 100-400mm are better.

It just adds up to a much more "action oriented" lens. Consider the 100-400mm a good shoulder rifle, and the 50-500mm more like a piece of field artillery in use. One may have more power, the other is much quicker and more precise.

RikWriter

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 12:14

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/46889063.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/46639872.jpg

angryhampster

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 13:08

Rik, what was your shutter speed on the eagle? Was it handheld?

RikWriter

31st of January 2007 (Wed), 14:26

Rik, what was your shutter speed on the eagle? Was it handheld?

It was handheld, don't remember what the shutter speed was and didn't save the RAW...it was taken a couple years ago.

john.hem

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 10:59

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Rally2.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/ConnieLush7.jpg

John

john.hem

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 11:03

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/LittleEgret03.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Eurasianwigeon.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Vulture.jpg
John

angryhampster

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 11:10

John every one of those is gorgeous. What body were you using? Awesome contrast and saturation in all of them.

john.hem

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 11:39

John every one of those is gorgeous. What body were you using? Awesome contrast and saturation in all of them.

Canon 20D.

John

devil350

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 11:53

Thanks for the pictures John they are really beautiful.
Have you ever used a TC 1.4 or 2X with this lens?

Laurent

john.hem

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 12:01

Thanks for the pictures John they are really beautiful.
Have you ever used a TC 1.4 or 2X with this lens?

Laurent

No I haven’t, I believe you loose auto focus when using the converters and you have to use manual focus.

John

Dorman

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 12:53

man I want a Bigma.

BrewsterPilot

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 13:32

man I want a Bigma.

Me too.

Sven W

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 13:34

I have had my Bigma for about a week now, but haven't been able to use it much yet. Here at 60 North, the light conditions are very difficult this time of the year.

I have attached a couple of test pictures from my first tests. They are far from perfect and it should be possible to do a lot better. Anyhow, they give an indication of he possibilities.

All are taken handheld. Not croped, only adjusted for levels

144531

ISO 1600
144532

RikWriter

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 13:34

I wish the Bigma didn't have the light fall off issue with the 5D. I might have picked one up again otherwise.

Ferco

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 14:43

Here's a few shots of mine- I use my Bigma mainly for birding too...
http://www.photosnappy.co.uk/photos/125720597-L.jpg

http://www.photosnappy.co.uk/photos/126015679-L.jpg

http://www.photosnappy.co.uk/photos/126015754-L.jpg

http://www.photosnappy.co.uk/photos/126015897-L.jpg

Ves

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 15:36

I have a question: Can you still AF at 500mm with this lens? It's largest aperture at that length is f/6.3, yet I thought you had to have at least f/5.6 for AF on non-1-series cameras..

TeamSpeed

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 15:44

Yes, on my XT and 30D, AF works fine.

BrewsterPilot

4th of February 2007 (Sun), 22:37

It will trick the camera to believe it is f/5.6.

Uhland

11th of March 2007 (Sun), 10:08

JaGWiRE

11th of March 2007 (Sun), 19:11

I have used this lens for 2 solid days now.

The good.
The AF on this lens works great with my XTi
It can find a distant bird flying @ 500mm.
Its also pretty fast.

The bad.
About 400 shots. They are all soft. Too blurred for my liking.
The look great sharpened at 50% size. Look like crapola at 100%
I will be sending this lens back.

The build doesnt feel so great in general.
Zoom ring was EXTREMLY tight also.
Took me 3 days of working it in and out before I was even able to twist it with one hand.

The Bigma let me down. Wasted my time and shipping costs.
I will either drop more cash and get the 100-400 or the 200-500.

I will post some 100% crops in this thread later.

To me, it sounds like it could be user faulty, not to acuse you of anything in particular though.
Blurry sounds like image shake (at 500mm, without is, you should be shooting atleast, and I mean probably minimum 1/500 sec, if not a lot quicker), and considering your shooting birds, which may be moving, over 1/1000 sec is probably ideal. Soft could also be a result from image shack. The photos being out of focus also could explain some of this. From what I've read, the Bigma is used by many bird photographers, and can be used to produce some very great results, but birding is not an easy thing to photograph, and the bigma apparently needs a pretty skilled bird photographer to get some mad in flight shots or whatever.
I will tell you though, I do not own this lens. The last part I was told by other photorgaphers on this bird, and the blurry and image shake part is just common rule of photography. It is very possible though you already know this, and it's not user error, in which case you could have a soft copy.

Uhland

12th of March 2007 (Mon), 09:00

To me, it sounds like it could be user faulty, not to acuse you of anything in particular though.
Blurry sounds like image shake (at 500mm, without is, you should be shooting atleast, and I mean probably minimum 1/500 sec, if not a lot quicker), and considering your shooting birds, which may be moving, over 1/1000 sec is probably ideal. Soft could also be a result from image shack. The photos being out of focus also could explain some of this. From what I've read, the Bigma is used by many bird photographers, and can be used to produce some very great results, but birding is not an easy thing to photograph, and the bigma apparently needs a pretty skilled bird photographer to get some mad in flight shots or whatever.
I will tell you though, I do not own this lens. The last part I was told by other photorgaphers on this bird, and the blurry and image shake part is just common rule of photography. It is very possible though you already know this, and it's not user error, in which case you could have a soft copy.

Not from shake.
Hand held it should be good at 1/800 @ 500mm.
I have taken shots above 1/1500 resting the lens on solid structures.
I havnt check for back/front focus issues but I used both auto and manual focus.
Used it wide open and stopped down.
The photos look great re sized to 60% with some USM. Its just a soft lens.

Only thing that could be user faulty is high expectations.
Perhaps this lens just doesn't perform as I had hoped.
Perhaps I got a bad copy.
Dunno, I am sad about it because I love the range,the AF, the price.
I just cant live with the clarity of the images.
I honestly think I could produce the same quality images from a $300 telephoto.

I honestly think i may have a bad copy.
I look at shots I have taken and 100% crops of similar shots others have taken with the same lens.
A very noticeable difference. Im in delima as to get a refund and try another lens or exchange for a different lens.

Uhland

12th of March 2007 (Mon), 09:11

100% crop 1/1600 f7.1 iso400 500mm hand held with a steady hand.
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3070/temp100croptj9.jpg

This is my sharpest image yet with this lens.
I have more I still need to sort through and will post them later when I have time.

Uhland

12th of March 2007 (Mon), 09:47

I went through and picked out some the sharpest images I took yesterday.
This is the very best I could get. 3 of these were handheld with support.
Meaning I rested the lenses tripod kick on a solid object and took the shot.
These are all 100% crops with no adjustments imported via lightroom 1.0
Not sure but I think lightroom may be putting a bit of sharpening on them automatically
If so its negligible amount. Im still learning it.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3876/bigmaexample1gf8.jpg

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1734/bigmaexample2cr0.jpg

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6388/bigmaexample3xc1.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1990/bigmaexample4zs1.jpg

Sorry for using photobucket (aka golden frog god of 404 not found)
Didnt want to put them in my picasa web.

Now these images arnt bad.
If they were the average and not the cream of the crop I could love this lens.
However these are the Best of the best as far as sharpness goes.

tommykjensen

12th of March 2007 (Mon), 10:23

Please resize the photos to max 800 pixels or link the images instead.

rakesh

12th of March 2007 (Mon), 10:32

Here are some shots, I've recently taken with my Sigma 50-500.

http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=10802
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=10723
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=10597
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=10526
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=10439

Regards

Rakesh

KatmanDu

12th of March 2007 (Mon), 18:18

I think the Bigma has learning curve to it... I'm certainly slowly getting used to it's foibles; it seems to buck the 1/focal length hand-holding rule because of it's weight. I did much better with it with the alpaca pics I recently posted, as I used a fencepost for support; but didn't have AI-Servo on and the focus changed quickly as they walked to me, so they weren't as sharp as I would have liked. But I'm pretty sure most of my softness issues with it are me and not the lens.

Flame

14th of March 2007 (Wed), 08:16

I bought this lens recently and so far I have found that I can get a sharper picture with a setting of f8 for the 500mm; it's definitely soft at f6.3 at that length. I've got some keepers hand held using that aperture, moreso than wide open.

Here's an example I took recently.

1. 500mm @ f8 - AV mode - straight conversion from raw file using DPP with in-camera settings at auto WB; sharpening 3; contrast +1; saturation +1; color tone 0 - late afternoon

http://photographicpassion.net/web_posting/Bigma.JPG

2. This is a full size crop of the original image @ 100%

http://photographicpassion.net/web_posting/Bigma_100.jpg

(exif data should be attached to both images *crosses fingers* )

I think with more time I can improve my keeper rate for this lens thus allowing me the time to save up for the "top-of-the-range" gear :D

MT Stringer

14th of March 2007 (Wed), 12:41

Here's a shot from this past weekend. Canon Rebel XT, Bigma w/Sigma 2x TC, manual focus. I cropped just a little bit for composition.
1000mm @f/11. A tripod was used.
Mike

BigAl-SA

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 05:42

The Bigma is my favourite lens.

ISO 400, 1/1250s, f9.0, ISO 400, 417mm. Tripod mount resting on vehicle window for support.
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/photos/100180782-L.jpg

100% crop
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/photos/102622834-L.jpg

All photos in this gallery, including landscapes, were taken with the Bigma:
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/gallery/1545869#74534455

john.hem

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 05:45

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Jaguar.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Baby-Elephant1.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Spoonbill2.jpg

John

dkangel

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 18:24

John.Hem and big-al those are nice.

richard_a

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 19:22

These are with a Bigma and 20D. The close-ups are also using kenko extension tubes.

http://k41.pbase.com/o6/54/37354/1/75950856.kVYHMW4E.IMG_7116.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/o5/54/37354/1/68260062.m8tGSdTm.IMG_9894.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/54/37354/1/66820595.J662AfwJ.IMG_7340copy.jpg

donboyfisher

29th of March 2007 (Thu), 03:55

love the water on the 2nd last duck shot there ^^^

Borderfox

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 13:52

First shots with the Bigma

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_0619.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_0622.jpg

grimreaper

7th of June 2007 (Thu), 14:10

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Jaguar.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Baby-Elephant1.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Spoonbill2.jpg

John

Great shots, yur pics look ubber sharp,

Borderfox

7th of June 2007 (Thu), 14:55

Excellent shots, love the baby elephant

tiktaalik

7th of June 2007 (Thu), 17:16

http://www.pbase.com/image/57475341.jpg

TeamSpeed

7th of June 2007 (Thu), 17:21

Wouldn't be a long lens thread without a moon shot... Plus a lil ol' helpless bunny!

TeamSpeed

17th of June 2007 (Sun), 15:16

Took this with the Bigma today, not the best subject for the Bigma, I must say. 1.4x TC at 500mm with manual focus.

black_z

17th of June 2007 (Sun), 15:23

http://www.pbase.com/image/57475341.jpg

Hey, I was there too! :)

Nice shot!

Borderfox

1st of July 2007 (Sun), 20:38

Both shot at 500mm

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_9354copy.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_9489copy.jpg

bagtagsell

1st of July 2007 (Sun), 22:26

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1370/641624369_8dc485a4a2.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1255/634993673_18d6c44d2a.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1297/635765576_393f808a90.jpg?v=0

Sprout Crumble

1st of July 2007 (Sun), 23:22

A few Bigma shots;

http://sproutey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sm5809.jpg

http://sproutey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sm6279.jpg

http://sproutey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sm6664.jpg

http://sproutey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sm6719.jpg

http://sproutey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sm5252.jpg

wburychka

2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 19:14

We've had a Bigma in the house since Feb 2004. The first one had a bizarre defect that produced strange looking bokeh: highlights had the mirror lens donut look; other OOF background looked like hollow worms. Sent it back and the second one was perfect. Soft at 500 wide open, but by F8 very good. With the standard Tamron 1.4x, AF is retained--given sufficient light. It also works well with extension tubes for dragonflies.

The 1x shutter speed rule (which must be modified for crop factor cameras, since it is the angle of view that matters, not the focal length) says I should be able to hand hold it at 500mm and 1/800th shutter speed. I can...I just can't get a sharp picture handheld that way. Maybe one out of five will be sharp. It's a little better on a beanbag, but just resting the tripod foot on a rail or other object just does not provide steadiness. On a tripod with a Manfrotto gimbal head, it works just fine, or on a video fluid pan and tilt head (too heavy for a ball head), but I've had too many years to accumulate caffeine and gin to hand hold this lens.

If only Sigma could further expand its OS line to include a stabilized Bigma!
Later.
Bill

Borderfox

2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 20:58

I use a monopod all the time as I find that when its new even twisting the barrell can cause shake. Great lens though.

Mindshed

4th of July 2007 (Wed), 03:06

I just bought the 70-200L f/4 with the instant rebate, but after seeing pictures taken by the bigma I have a little buyer's remorse. I bought the 70-200 to shoot sports, and I'm real jealous of the shots I would be able to get at 500mm at a football game. Of course, this lens costs almost twice as much from what I spent, and there looks to be somewhat of a large learning curve, but man... it looks so cool :P Maybe I'll rent it for a game and see how I feel about it.

cdifoto

4th of July 2007 (Wed), 03:14

I hope you have lots of light at those football games. f/6.3 needs a LOT of it.

condyk

4th of July 2007 (Wed), 03:35

Agreed ... a 100-300mm f4 Sigma would be a better buy IMO for that kinda usage.

Mindshed

4th of July 2007 (Wed), 03:45

I hope you have lots of light at those football games. f/6.3 needs a LOT of it.

I go to UCLA games which are generally played in the afternoon, and almost always have bright sunny days. So, figured I could get away with the slower lens, and I just graduated so I have a low budget :P I kinda knew going in that the 70-200 would be short, but I have row 1 seats, and with the bright sun I thought that a converter might work. We'll see...the season starts in a couple months :P I also bought the lens because I'd like to shoot some of the smaller sports like baseball where I can get a lot closer. But yea, maybe I'll trade it in for a bigma later, or the 100-400L :P

rakesh

17th of September 2007 (Mon), 11:11

Here are some shots I had recently with my 50-500 (All Handheld):

1. http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/_mg_0694.jpg

2. http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/_mg_0695.jpg

3. http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/_mg_0702.jpg

4. http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/_mg_0703.jpg

5. http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/_mg_0704.jpg

6. http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/_mg_0705.jpg

Regards

Rakesh

david888lee

17th of September 2007 (Mon), 14:46

rakesh, those images look a little over proessed. hdr?

cicopo

18th of September 2007 (Tue), 19:33

Here are some crops from the original set of shots I took to test mine when it arrived. 20D on a tripod, no cable release, as shot except for a small amount of sharpening. The first one is at about 15 feet, and they are cropped to show as 100% (just under the 800 X 800 size requirement).
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a7e0*6v9wTJBh0nRsS1X5kyhzybqPv7k2Ple_l.jpg
the next one is from just over 20 feet, and if you look at the reflection in the eye you can see the hand railing for my deck & the roof of the gazebo where I was set up.
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a7e0*6v9wTJBh0nRsS1X5kyhz-9THZKQE1ip_l.jpg
this one is from almost 60 feet.
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a7e0*6v9wTJBh0nRsS1X5kyhz5F7spuQRFXi_l.jpg

These shots are from some test shots I took this spring, assessing several lenses. The target is about 4/10 of a mile (1/2 Km). NO post processing other than the cropping to 800 X 800 or less. There are 2 crops from each shot. A cable release was used, and the camera & lens were mounted to a Kirk ballhead bolted to a 2 X 4 that was clamped to a car, so there is little likelyhood there was much camera movement.

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/79b0yIq0siG*R4PiBcrUTHcXvRdZT*D4b87y_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/79b0yIq0siG*R4PiBcrUTHcXvVjtYpWd0f*A_l.jpg

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/79b0yIq0siG*R4PiBcrUTHcXvR0aopT7WoLc_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/79b0yIq0siG*R4PiBcrUTHcXvZVQR5kPhbH*_l.jpg

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/79b0yIq0siG*R4PiBcrUTHcXvRBzHf*gPZx8_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/79b0yIq0siG*R4PiBcrUTHcXvd6IcLo9C1DD_l.jpg

S-S

27th of September 2007 (Thu), 03:21

just found this thread
these are with bigma + 2xTC kenko on 350d (apologies if youve already seen it elsewhere)
original shot is about 8x bigger and softer (had to manual focus which was really tough, hard to see when it was sharp)

tag141

27th of September 2007 (Thu), 03:46

bigma on the 10d

http://tph1.orcon.net.nz/kia3.jpg

Doing an Elvis...

http://tph1.orcon.net.nz/kia4.jpg

S-S

27th of September 2007 (Thu), 04:05

2 more - its a great ZOOm lens, with monopod

ANGUS

27th of September 2007 (Thu), 05:02

Does anyone have a shot of this lens on a 400D or 40D?? Both wide at 50mm and at 500mm. Does it AF and is it too heavy to use Hand Held?? Does it AF on a 400D and 40D? Sounds like a great range... Might be my next lens!

Adam PV

27th of September 2007 (Thu), 12:15

My favorite photo taken since I moved from bridge to DSLR was taken with a bigma :)

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/jjfukkard/Knutsford%20Birds%20Sanctuary/Eaglesample.jpg?t=1190913236

Below are other shots I've taken with my bigma that I'm very pleased with:

Lemurs 1 (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/adampv/SouthLakesWildlifePark/photo#5065288128859313538)
Lemurs 2 (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/adampv/SouthLakesWildlifePark/photo#5065288128859313538)
Lioness (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/adampv/SouthLakesWildlifePark/photo#5066643955545380562)

05Xrunner

1st of October 2007 (Mon), 08:20

Some shots from yesterday..All handheld
Click for larger image
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/th_IMG_5968.jpg (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/IMG_5968.jpg)
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/th_IMG_5960.jpg (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/IMG_5960.jpg)
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/th_IMG_5920.jpg (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/IMG_5920.jpg)
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/th_IMG_5918.jpg (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/IMG_5918.jpg)

cmcclarney

10th of October 2007 (Wed), 11:46

Adam PV

10th of October 2007 (Wed), 13:21

Seriously INCREDIBLE! (and that's coming from a guy that doesn't typically find bird shots very interesting) :D

Me either but variety can really turn out some cracking shots.

Cheers!

S-S

10th of October 2007 (Wed), 14:51

here's one: 350D + bigma + monopod
500mm, f/5.6, iso 1600, 1/60 sec, no flash

Tom_D

27th of October 2007 (Sat), 12:51

Many pictures showing the quality of this lens but the range is what first attracted me.

I am a bit surprised I don't use it more. It is not one of the lenses I carry with me when I grab my camera as it is not in my kit. The 70-200 f2.8 often is.

Here are a couple I took in January 2007 on the California coast near Bodega Bay. They have been resized to fit the limitations of this forum and I added the circle to the 50mm image to help show the location of the 500mm image. The EXIF data should still be with the photos.

arrgeebee

27th of October 2007 (Sat), 13:08

I don't use this lens as much as I should!

http://bobrico.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p910141898-4.jpg

Michael Lidski

27th of October 2007 (Sat), 17:43

http://lordofthelens.smugmug.com/gallery/3036379#165061345

Tom_D

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 18:22

I was asked by NSWESP to post pictures of the Bigma on my 40D. I just got the 40D today so here is the picture:

Tom_D

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 18:26

Here are a couple more of the Bigma on the 40D with a 12 inch ruler. The first is with the lens at 50mm and the second is fully extended at 500mm.

S-S

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 18:27

woops i remember they asked me too but i forgot to do it - sorry!

ANGUS

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 18:37

S-S

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 21:06

Thanks Tom and no worries Somethingsimple, we are all only human and forget things from time to time lol

The lens itself isnt too huge however with the weight and lack of IS i think i might wait a little while.

its not that heavy cos its quite nicely balanced - used on a monopod its perfect and you can get really pin sharp shots - if you're careful

Tom_D

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 22:03

...The lens itself isnt too huge however with the weight and lack of IS i think i might wait a little while.I agree that IS would be nice.

I took the lens out in the yard tried to get a picture of the dog (6 lbs. and very active) and didn't come back with one keeper. Now, I have not used the lens in a while and I think most will admit it takes a bit of practice but IS would have been real handy.

I took the Bigma to Alaska and used it a lot, mostly with a monopod and got great pictures with it. I also used it a lot in Yosemite with good luck.

Practice is a requirement for using this lens and a monopod helps a lot.

S-S

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 22:15

I agree that IS would be nice.

I took the lens out in the yard tried to get a picture of the dog (6 lbs. and very active) and didn't come back with one keeper. Now, I have not used the lens in a while and I think most will admit it takes a bit of practice but IS would have been real handy.

I took the Bigma to Alaska and used it a lot, mostly with a monopod and got great pictures with it. I also used it a lot in Yosemite with good luck.

Practice is a requirement for using this lens and a monopod helps a lot.

i dont think the lens is really suited to anything moving at the wide end of the range - flying birds etc its not bad, and still shots at distance its great
but for 'wide' shots id prefer to use something else

S-S

5th of November 2007 (Mon), 22:17

heres a couple of handheld sunset shots at 500mm

rakesh

7th of January 2008 (Mon), 09:49

Here are some of the contributions from my side.

Taken with 2X TC mounted and all thru Manual Focussing option only and without Tripod.

1. Common Greenshank:
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/images/album/photo/839988276478234871c865.jpg

2. Stilt :
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/images/album/photo/206598427547823430ee722.jpg

3. Red Wattled Lapwing
http://www.indianaturewatch.net/images/album/photo/2139187043478233c874804.jpg

more to follow soon....

Regards

Rakesh

rakesh

8th of January 2008 (Tue), 09:08

Some more with my Bigma 50-500 and 2X TC :

A. Little Stint

http://www.indianaturewatch.net/images/album/photo/2726983147838fe778310.jpg

B. Don't like you

http://www.indianaturewatch.net/images/album/photo/16465864247838f72e12be.jpg

C. Sandpiper with Catch :

http://www.indianaturewatch.net/images/album/photo/188409129147838dc67f848.jpg

More to follow....

iamaelephant

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 04:00

S-S

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 05:21

its not a point n shoot lens - you have to get used to the weight and know what its capable of, since its also not terribly fast

within its limits it can be really really nice, but its not foolproof

MGW172

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 06:52

So what's the deal with this lens? Some of the shots in this thread are really nice, but the majority are, for lack of a better word, complete ****. Is this lens very variable in quality or is it user error? I'd be gutted to take it home and find images looking like 60+% of this thread.

No, it's an excellent lens, but there is a learning curve, particularly if you are handholding it:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/2415179388_729bb6aefe_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2403854023_9b4c9785c5_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2245832732_e02e32c586_b.jpg

05Xrunner

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 10:07

this is a very good lens. Just it takes some time. Shooting at 500mm the slightest movement cause serious shake and you need fast shutter. So its almost like a macro lens trying to get use to it at the long end and getting good results
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/KH5V0348.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/KH5V0004.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/KH5V0008.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/KH5V0014.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/KH5V0018.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/KH5V0258.jpg

MGW172

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 19:09

Fantastic shots 05XRUNNER! How are you processing those?

05Xrunner

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 19:43

I use lightroom and just play around with everything till I like a setting. Then I usually copy the settings and past it to others with the same lighting so they look the same

MGW172

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 19:53

I use lightroom and just play around with everything till I like a setting. Then I usually copy the settings and past it to others with the same lighting so they look the same

My biggest problem right now with Lightroom is getting the sharpening correct. Looks like you are a wiz at it.

05Xrunner

9th of May 2008 (Fri), 20:22

actually I dont do sharpening in Lightroom. I dont think its very good. I do that in photoshop. I know its more work but the USM is much better I think

danieltr

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 06:17

Another one at 500mm

tiktaalik

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 08:58

http://www.pbase.com/image/82595398/large.jpg

500mm wide open. The tail is blurry because of the exhaust but the bomb doors are sharp.

http://www.pbase.com/image/57475341/original.jpg

266mm. 1/250s handheld. I don't have the original handy or I could show you a very sharp crop of the pilot.

http://www.pbase.com/image/88854375/large.jpg

266mm. 1/250s handheld.

When I get a bad image it's my fault, not the lens'. It's a tough lens to use but I love the range and when I get it right it produces fantastic images.

tiktaalik

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 12:04

Another one:
http://www.pbase.com/image/87227263/large.jpg

266mm, f/5.6, 1/125s handheld.

MGW172

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 12:26

Another one:
http://www.pbase.com/image/87227263/large.jpg

266mm, f/5.6, 1/125s handheld.

Those are some fantastic shots, Julie. Any particular handholding technique you are using to get such great results?

tiktaalik

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 13:04

Those are some fantastic shots, Julie. Any particular handholding technique you are using to get such great results?

Thanks. I use a similar technique as I do when shooting a rifle. I set my feet apart, brace my left arm against my body, pull the camera firmly against my face, breathe out, and gently squeeze the shutter. When panning I pan I turn at the waist and not the upper body.

S-S

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 17:39

im not a fan of plane/car/train etc photos, even though i can appreciate the skill involved in catching them on the move and zoomed in like that - but that heli photo is really striking, i love it!

youve got the same shooting technique as me LOL but i dont shoot firearms
my mum taught it to me when i was quite young - some ppl hold their breath but she said it usually makes you wobble the camera more

eow_1

10th of May 2008 (Sat), 18:53

Bigma @50mm f5.6, 1/50s - handheld
It can be pretty good at the short end too.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/eow_1/IMG_7590.jpg

S-S

13th of May 2008 (Tue), 03:20

handheld @ 500mm
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=271038&stc=1&d=1210666735

kevinf

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 23:17

This lens was formerly 05Xrunner's, I bought it from him a little while ago :)
100% Crop of the moon with RAW processing. Shot with a 40D, manual focus via live view. ISO 200, 1/50th f11 @ 500mm (800mm effective AoV).

http://trickingq3.com/misc/photoshop/forum_posted/photos/800mm%20Moon%206-11-08%20-%20cropped.png

05Xrunner

12th of June 2008 (Thu), 07:21

hmmmm guess I suck at moon pics. I was never able to get one like that..LOL
Glad it looks like its doing good for you.

kevinf

12th of June 2008 (Thu), 17:38

I'm going to throw a 3x converter on at some point and get a good tripod and have another go at it. It's a little soft from my chintzy little tabletop tripod damn near collapsing and I'd like it to fill the frame more. I had a hard time focusing on my lousy tripod because just turning the focus ring was enough to throw the moon almost entirely out of the frame. :P

S-S

13th of June 2008 (Fri), 03:04

IQ might not be so hot with a 3x converter on... ive got a 2x and the pics drop noticeably in IQ when i use it

kevinf

13th of June 2008 (Fri), 04:30

I know but I'm certainly not going to purchase a native 1500mm lens, so for for the ~$250 a top quality TC costs I'll get a "free" 1500mm lens of acceptable quality. The TC will allow me to take shots I just wouldn't be able to otherwise... like a frame filling moon shot :)

Since you've use a large magnification converter, I'm curious exactly how the IQ is affected. Increased CA, decreased resolving power, reduced contrast, inaccurate colors? I hear a lot of people mention IQ loss with TC's but I rarely hear them quantify exactly what that loss is.

S-S

13th of June 2008 (Fri), 15:57

increased CA - tick
loss of sharpness - tick
slightly reduced contrast - tick
overall lack of 'wow' - tick
slower shutter speeds - tick

i know that top-line canon TCs with L glass usually don't have these side effects, but with long slowish sigma glass and kenko TC... that was my experience

sukceno

20th of September 2008 (Sat), 14:28

http://foto.terpe.lt/inkelti/20080920/IMG_9480a.jpg

sukceno

20th of September 2008 (Sat), 14:40

http://foto.terpe.lt/inkelti/20080920/IMG_9476a.jpg

darosk

28th of November 2008 (Fri), 23:04

Just a couple of ducks I shot today. Re-posted from another thread:

http://darosk.smugmug.com/photos/426315761_kE3ER-L.jpg

http://darosk.smugmug.com/photos/426314680_64fcr-L.jpg

sukceno

6th of January 2009 (Tue), 02:10

Two shots of weekend

http://fc44.deviantart.com/fs41/f/2009/006/0/9/Jay_by_sukceno.jpg

http://fc44.deviantart.com/fs40/i/2009/006/8/d/Tit_by_sukceno.jpg

Simon Turkin

8th of January 2009 (Thu), 18:51

would you recomend this lens to a hobbiest??

Borderfox

8th of January 2009 (Thu), 19:02

Definitely would, when I had mine it did sterling work. I had a lot published with it too.

john.hem

31st of March 2009 (Tue), 12:31

All shots were taken with a Canon 20D and a Sigma 50 - 500mm lens(Bigma), tripod mounted.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Pink-Flamingo.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/meerkat.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Cheetah.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Otter.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Jaguar-2.jpg

John