Should I buy a BIGMA 50-500?

[jaypie77]

That's the question, should I buy it? I have read good and bad but I just want people to dump into this thread. I want to take pictures of pretty things but I don't want to break my bank. This lens is about $1000 and that means that I can afford it. It also has awesome zoom capabilities (although I would give up 50-200 range for better high-end capabilities).

If you think I should avoid this - alternatives please?

[timmyquest]

I think you'd be better off with the 100-400 for a little more money. And if ya ever needed to, and could give up the use of AF (depending on the camera), you could buy a 1.4 extender.

[eastcoast909]

Jay:

What is going to be your primary use of this lens?? Everything I have read says that this dictates what you look for. If you need the extreme range then go for it. If you are looking for a fast lens over the entire range of 50 to 500 your not going to get it, you will have to break it up into several lenses.

If you want some examples of pic taken with this lens then look for the posts by rockc2 about his pet clyde! :D They are awesome.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not a lens to avoid at all.

The "Bigma" is a great bargain for all it can do.

It's the best balance of price Vs. quality in a 500mm lens in history!

But.. don't get it because you want one lens to do it all.. it is far to big and heavy to be anything other than a long range wildife lens. You'll want to use it on a monopod or tripod too.

Also.. look for posts in "Share Photos" by "Yason"

He is one of our very talented contributors who uses this lens almost exclusively for his fantastic wildlife photos.

[jaypie77]

"it is far to big and heavy to be anything other than a long range wildife lens"

That's pretty much what I'm looking for. Other than quality, what else would one want from a 100-400mm?

Also, I just noticed that sigma makes another bigma-like 135-400. Any thoughts on that as compared to the canon? It costs about $550.

What is the #1 and #2 reason to buy the EF 100-400mm

[tpinchback]

"it is far to big and heavy to be anything other than a long range wildife lens"

That's pretty much what I'm looking for. Other than quality, what else would one want from a 100-400mm?

Also, I just noticed that sigma makes another bigma-like 135-400. Any thoughts on that as compared to the canon? It costs about $550.

What is the #1 and #2 reason to buy the EF 100-400mm

IS and L glass

[blackviolet]

it's not just a wildlife lens, it's also a decent sports lens- albeit a bit slow (light-wise, not focus-wise). but if it's daytime, it's great! yeah it's not L glass, but it's EX which is still pretty darn nice...

also, regarding the 135-400 - it was nowhere near as sharp, and pretty unusable fully open. also, lots of them out there are older and need to be 'rechipped' for them to work.

[wolf]

In my opinion if you are looking for a long lens that is sharp right from 50mm through 500mm at an extremely reasonable price the Bigma is the one to get.

It is very sharp even wide open at 500mm. I supply images to a stock photo house that is very particular about sharp, in focus images when viewed at 100% and have never had a rejected image using the Bigma.

Mind you it is not an everyday walk around lens as it weighs in at 4.1 lbs, so you need to eat your wheaties before attaching it to your camera.

[2new]

When this lens was first introduced POP Photo was quoted as saying...

The sharpest extremely long-focal-length zoom we have ever tested, and incredibly good short-focal-length performance....
Popular Photography, July 2000

IMHO - It is a great lens.

heavy = Yes
Image quality = excellent
Build quality = superb -It is built like a tank

'In the 500mm focal length you cannot touch another lens for it's price to quality ratio.' Absolutely true

If you have the opportunity to check one out in the local store I would suggest that you do so, that way there are no surprises. If you are going to buy new than also look at the 100-400L for 45% more money you get IS but lose 100mm. If you use a tripod or monopod for wildlife the IS factor becomes less important and extra 100mms is nice to have.

Regards & Good luck,
Michael

[Adam Hicks]

Well it's also a 4.0 at 50mm (which isn't that great if you need it for the wide end) and a 6.3 at the long end which is going to require some decent available light. I guess if you're just buying a zoo lens then it's the one to have. I chose the 100-400L after playing with the 50-500. I didn't feel like the weight and lack of IS justified the extra 100mm. 400 reaches out really nicely for anything I've done, and I've learned to love the IS (even in motorsports mode 2 does a great job!)

Adam

[hipshot]

so even though the sigma is very sharp the L beats it over the entire range?...what bout 400mm (or more w/ TC) where the L is wide open?

[2new]

L beats it over the entire range?...

Not in my opinion - Aside from the fact that the 100-400 cannot cover the 'entire reange' :wink: IMHO The image quality of both lenses are comperable to one another.

I own both lenses and cannot tell by the end image which lens was used to create which picture.

[Adam Hicks]

Have you tried shooting the same subjects both handheld with Tv at say 1/60 or slower? I'm curious what kind of improvement you'd see with the IS enabled vs. the Sigma. One would think that there would be a big advantage of a...say 400mm f3.5 after IS vs. a 400mm f5.6 or 6.3.

Just an observation, not trying to beat up the Sigma...

Adam

[2new]

Adam,

IS is great, and of course a lens with IS shooting Hand Held will have an advantage when shooting longer exposures. That is a no brainer. :wink:

The image & build quality of both lenses are comperable. The prices are not.

FWIW - I almost always use a tripod or mono pod with the Sigma. It is heavier than thew 100-400, and at 500mm hand holding can be quite difficult especially if there are some additional environmental factors such as wind, etc.

[sjprg]

Try some of these images. Look around the site for more.

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/image/34978290

[CyberDyneSystems]

Have you tried shooting the same subjects both handheld with Tv at say 1/60 or slower? I'm curious what kind of improvement you'd see with the IS enabled vs. the Sigma. One would think that there would be a big advantage of a...say 400mm f3.5 after IS vs. a 400mm f5.6 or 6.3.


IS is great.. but it does not give you faster shutter speeds.. so the 400mm f/3.5 analogy is out of place.

If wildlife is the predominant intended use of the lens... shutter speeds will more likely be needed to help stop the motion of the subject.. something IS does not help with.

In this case,.. both lenses are @ f5.6 @ 400mm

Both lenses have there plusses and minuses.
*500mm Vs. 400mm
*50mm vs. 100mm
*IS vs. no IS
*The Canon is smaller and MUCH lighter and great to use hand held.
*I personally think my images from the 100-400mm tend to be sharper and offer better color and contrast. But I do not think the difference is so astronomical as to rule out the Sigma as a qulaity lens.

*As for focus speed and accuracy I'd call it a dead heat.. the 100-400mm IS is known to be slow and difficult for tracking a moving object compared to other "L"... and the Sigma is pretty damn quick with it's HSM focus motor..

Honestly I would not be surpirsed if the Sigma tracked moving objects better.. really. I have lots of trouble with the 100-400mm.. even on the 1D mKII and 20D,.. where as I used to nail dragonflys in flight with the Sigma mounted on the 10D with little trouble at all.

And of course there is price.

Bottom line?
These two lenses happen to be the TWO BEST zooms available for wldlife.
Either one will be an excellent choice. Both offer rock solid build quality (and in the Sigma's case .. rock heavy!)

It is up to the purchaser to decide which features are more relavant and offer more value at the given prices.

I went to a 100-400mm IS AFTER I bought a 500mm prime. If I did not have the Prime.. I would still NEED my old Sigma 50-500mm. Using the Sigma on a tripod or monopod would not be an issue.. as that is how i have to use the Prime.

However.. anyone who moves on to a big prime will have no reason to keep the 50-500mm. Since it is so n\heavy and requires a stable platform.. it becomes redundant. The 100-400mm however does not.. as it is easi\y to carry and use hand held.

[karusel]

No disrespect to those who like Sigma 50-500, but I would certainly not be happy with it. It is slow it doesn't have IS, it has warmer color rendition and it's softer than 100-400 L IS. And I find the 100-400 a bit soft, but it's well acceptable. I imagine with bigma one would need cloudless sunshine and possibly a monopod...