Sigma 50-500mm. Is it so uncommon?

[tonytony]

I am in the film -> digital switch phase. I am intersted in doing work at professional level in portraiture, fashion and glamour. I enjoy several type of photography, but those 3 stated above are the main ones.

A part from the lens Kit and a nifty-fifty (for full body), I was thinking to buy a Sigma EX 50-500mm. Is it so uncommon lens for my stated purposes?

In traditional film photography I own a zoom 75-300 and I often find myself (especially outdoor) to photograph closeup at 300mm.

What do you think? Would you advice other type of lenses for my purposes?

Thanks in advance,
Tony

PS: my budget is limited so 70-200mm 2.8 L I is out of discussion. :D
PS2: posted in the people section as well, but it is more appropriate here, and I don't know how to delete my previous post.

[blue_max]

The Sigma (bigma) is covering a lot of ground in terms of focal length. It seems, from reviews, that it does so remarkably well.

Perceived wisdom suggests that the less the lens is trying to achieve, the better the quality that can be attained. This is largely the advantage that prime lenses have.

If you are entering the professional arena, then surely you should be looking at the finest lenses in their category, regardless of expense.

The Sigma breaks ground for practicality and value. Those considerations may not apply at a professional level.

Graham

[LightRules]

I wouldn't recommend the Bigma for pro work in fashion and portraiture. It's way too big and heavy, and without IS/OS. It's a superb lens for wildlife, but not for your needs. You should look into the new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX "DG" HSM (plus 1.4xTC) or possibly the Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4xTC.

[ScottE]

I have a Sigma 50-500 and a Canon 70-200/2.8. For the purposes you describe I would take the 70-200/2.8. On a 20D this gives the equivalent to a 112-320/2.8 lens on a 35 mm film camera.

If you are on a budget, the non IS version is cheaper than the IS version and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is a little cheaper than that. All have similar optical quality.

[Mohawk]

Tony,

The Bigma is a fun lens, I have one. It's nice on those bright days for shooting wildlife. For a studio, it ain't the lens to have. Indoor usage should be strictly for dust collecting, it's good for that, not so outdoors.

I would look at the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS with a 1.4x TC, and maybe a fast prime like the 85mm 1.8 or 1.2L. I have all of these except for the 85mm 1.8. If you are doing portraits professionally, I would seriously consider the 85mm 1.2L, it is worth every penny. The bokeh is to say the least, incredible.

Mike

[milou]

A pal of mine has one. This is what it looks like on his 300D:

http://www.thehidaway.dsl.pipex.com/fotopics/bigbigma.jpg

http://www.thehidaway.co.uk/c597484.html - all taken with said zoom (he does virtually nowt to the pics in PS etc)

[Hellashot]

I wouldn't recommend the Bigma for pro work in fashion and portraiture. It's way too big and heavy, and without IS/OS. It's a superb lens for wildlife, but not for your needs. You should look into the new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX "DG" HSM (plus 1.4xTC) or possibly the Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4xTC.

The poster has stated he has a 300mm and that he's often at that length. a 200mm *1.4 is not even 300mm! So that isn't what he needs.

If you're doing all your work on a tripod or monopod, you'll probably be fine with the Bigma. If it's what you can afford, it'll probably suit you good. It is a very heavy lens, 6 lbs.

[condyk]

For length and lower light performance then the 100-300mm f4 Sigma is about as good is it gets for not much money. I love the Bigma but the 100-300mm is maybe a tad better in quality terms. The constant F4 is nice. Add a Sigma 1.4x and you have 420mm of clean, sharp image quality. Like the Bigma, it needs tripod, monopod or beanbag secure mounting to give its best. It is capable of great results.

It feels like you're trying to fit too many eggs in one basket and I doubt anyone who does portraits, fashion, glamour, whatever uses theses kinds of zooms. Not good reason not too, of course ... BUT personally I would go for something like a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and some decent flash gear rather than the big zooms. Ideally, a nice set of primes, like the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 Canon and a good wide zoom might work better.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's simply too slow for portraits..

If a long zoom is really required.. I'd enthusastically second Condyk's recomendation of the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX .. it's simply the best 300mm zoom around. (other than it's f/2.8 big brother)

A more common choice for telephoto zoom in portrait work is any of the 70-200mm Zooms.. the Canon f/4 and Sigma f/2.8 are the more affordable options.

You may also want to look at this;
-=Top 10=- Recommended Portrait Lenses (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58577)

[Andy_T]

The poster has stated he has a 300mm and that he's often at that length. a 200mm *1.4 is not even 300mm! So that isn't what he needs.

It certainly is :wink:

He uses 300 mm at a FILM camera.
So he will get 320 mm equivalent focal length with the 70-200 lens, if you take the CROP FACTOR into account.

Best regards,
Andy

[MadMesh]

FOR THE MONEY... would you rather take a 100-300 f/4 Sigma or the 100-400 Canon L IS?

[Pb2Au]

120-300mm Sigma F/2.8 with 1.4x and 2.0x APO TCs. Pricey, but awesome.

Or

Canon 300mm f/4 IS

[Cadwell]

FOR THE MONEY... would you rather take a 100-300 f/4 Sigma or the 100-400 Canon L IS?

I own the 100-400L, two of my friends own the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX and I've used them a lot. For the money I'd rather have the Sigma.

[condyk]

Even though I have the 100-300mm f4, which is great with a 1.4x too BTW, I would go for the 100-400mm IS L and that is PURELY because it has IS and not on image quality. I need the reliability of IS for handheld on safari walking around. If I was on a tripod ... oh, that's a tricky one. But if you look at Cadwells shots then you know if he recommends the 100-300mm f4 then you need to take that seriously.

My first decent tripod and ballhead is due any day now. The shots I can get from my 100-300mm f4 can already be stellar when conditions are right and I expect a 20% increase in both keepers and quality with the tripod. The constant f4 is readily usable even when light starts to dim a little, unlike my ex 70-200mm f4 Canon L. For the cash the Sigma is unbeatable.

[KevC]

Also consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8!