Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 DG - Bigma

[cdifoto]

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.





I hope this thread helps at least someone.

[GS Rider]

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

[condyk]

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

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.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by condyk

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

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:


400mm:


500mm:

[tommykjensen]

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.

[condyk]

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]

Originally Posted by tommykjensen

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]

Originally Posted by cdi-ink.com

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]

Originally Posted by tommykjensen

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]

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!

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by Calzinger

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).

50mm:


116mm:


191mm:


313mm:


417mm:


500mm:

[Calzinger]

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!

[blue_max]

Originally Posted by Calzinger

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!

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]

Originally Posted by blue_max

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]

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.