Renting a Bigma from BorrowLenses.com

Zerodog

First time renting from them, I usually rent from my local shop Pictureline if I need something I do not have. But, they do not have any Sigma and I have always wanted to try one of these monsters. I am doing a trip to yellowstone and wanted a long zoom. I figure this will be a great opportunity to test a lens on something that is not really important, like an event. I am hoping this things AF is pretty good. The speed doesn't matter a whole lot because I am interested in it for bright light and in low light I can fall back on my ISO if needed so f6.3 shouldn't be a big deal. I just want it to focus fast, track and lock onto something very well. I have heard such mixed things on this lens that I just need to try one to see. I am also interested in the 150-500. But the reviews I have read on this one say the Bigma is better. It will be paired with a D3s and a D300s

What do you guys think? Good stuff or will I be let down?

joeinmiami

I have owned a "Bigma" for over a year, I used it for sports (baseball) and for take photos of animals I do not want to get close to. It is my preferred zoom lens. The photos it takes are sharp and very usable. Now for the cons. the lens is heavy, It is slow in low light. When you walk around with this lens attached to a medium size dslr such as a D80, it gets heavy very soon, I recommend using a mono pod with it. It not designed to be a fast lens, therefore, is you want to take a photo of a sunset, then put it on a tripod.

My does not have OS (VR for Nikon users) they do have a new model with OS witch may allow to take photos hand held, but, remember this thing is heavy.

Have fun and let us know how it went

Joe

PD: If you going into a restricted area, make sure to demonstrate to the guard you are carrying a camera lens and not a bazooka!

ziggy53

Zerodog wrote: »

First time renting from them, I usually rent from my local shop Pictureline if I need something I do not have. But, they do not have any Sigma and I have always wanted to try one of these monsters. I am doing a trip to yellowstone and wanted a long zoom. I figure this will be a great opportunity to test a lens on something that is not really important, like an event. I am hoping this things AF is pretty good. The speed doesn't matter a whole lot because I am interested in it for bright light and in low light I can fall back on my ISO if needed so f6.3 shouldn't be a big deal. I just want it to focus fast, track and lock onto something very well. I have heard such mixed things on this lens that I just need to try one to see. I am also interested in the 150-500. But the reviews I have read on this one say the Bigma is better. It will be paired with a D3s and a D300s

What do you guys think? Good stuff or will I be let down?

I have a slightly older version of the Bigma, specifically the Sigma 50-500mm, f4-6.3 APO EX HSM. (The newer versions may have a "DG" designation and OS image stabilization.)

On my copy, which seems typical, it is a very competent zoom, but it lacks true sharpness used on an APS-C body. I like it better on the APS-H bodies and best on a FF body, where I think it comes into best performance. On an APS-C body I find myself adding a lot of sharpening and I still lack fine detail in feather and fur. On FF it's really very nice.

I find AF to be both fast and accurate.

It's still a very versatile zoom range and almost perfect for airshows and carnivals, etc. There I still use it to compliment other lenses like a 70-200mm, f2.8 and a competent normal/standard zoom lens.

For Nikon and serious work, I suggest nothing less than the Nikkor 80-400mm, f4.5-5.6D AF-S ED VR. For A Yellowstone photographic trip I would easily recommend the 80-400mmD-VR over the Bigma. It's not a "night and day" kind of difference but I do believe that the Nikkor 80-400mmD-VR will yield visibly better images than the Bigma. You may still need post-processing to make the images "pop", but I suggest you will need less with the Nikkor.

Here are a couple of sample images, straight from the camera (Canon 40D, APS-C), showing the vast range of the Bigma, as well as showing the relative softness (not horrible but not good sharpness IMO). Full resolution links underneath:


http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/i-Z2TLfgK/0/O/i-Z2TLfgK.jpg


http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/i-MskRHd4/0/O/i-MskRHd4.jpg

Finally, images with full processing:





... and a 100 percent crop:



All of the above are handheld. A tripod/monopod would probably help.

Harryb

I rented out the Bigma a while back and it was OK. I have also shot with the 80-400 and prefer the 80-400 over the Bigma, mostly due to the weight issue. Both lenses produce good results in good light. IMHO a better option than either of those lenses is the 300mm f/4 paired with a TC.

zoomer

I used a Bigma for years...still have it. I have the older model. I have tried to sell it a couple times, but no bites.

It does not focus fast enough to track a whitewater kayaker coming at you.
It is only acceptably sharp to me at F8 in good light with a rock solid rest.
If there is lots of light, on the tripod, at F8, not required to focus track a moving object.... it can yield very good results.....results with anything else will be disappointing.

Zerodog

I have heard more bad about the 80-400 than good. That is why I tried the bigma first. It sounds like it focuses very slow. And for the majority of what I need it for, that just doesn't cut it. The 300 is very attractive, but it isn't a zoom. I really want something like the canon 100-400. Nikon please update the 80-400!

It seems reviews of the bigma are so mixed that I just need to try it. Weight isn't a huge issue for me but focus speed and tracking are. I might be hoping for too much.

zoomer

Oh yeah, the reason I quit using the Bigma was because I went to full frame.
For me it was pretty much unusable on full frame, very dark, much better on a crop camera.

Zerodog

zoomer wrote: »

Oh yeah, the reason I quit using the Bigma was because I went to full frame.
For me it was pretty much unusable on full frame, very dark, much better on a crop camera.

Exactly opposite of what ziggy said! This is why I gotta try it.

joeinmiami

When looking to purchase the "Bigma", I also consider the 80-400mm from Nikon, but besides the fact the the Sigma lens has 50mm more on the low end and 100mm more in the high end, the difference in price (about $500.00 more for the Nikon) help me make the decision.

If I ever decide to replace this lens, it probably will be to get the new "Bigma" with OS!

Joe

angevin1

Zerodog wrote: »

I have heard more bad about the 80-400 than good. That is why I tried the bigma first. It sounds like it focuses very slow. And for the majority of what I need it for, that just doesn't cut it. The 300 is very attractive, but it isn't a zoom. I really want something like the canon 100-400. Nikon please update the 80-400!

It seems reviews of the bigma are so mixed that I just need to try it. Weight isn't a huge issue for me but focus speed and tracking are. I might be hoping for too much.

Hey...You know what you're doing right? You're retreading down those same stairs so many of us have tread before. Wanting a 0-1000 zoom that is perfect. And you know that answer too.

That 300 with/ w/o TC is tops, and Nikon has a zoom that is nice too it's the 200-400. You know all this.:D

Zerodog

angevin1 wrote: »

Hey...You know what you're doing right? You're retreading down those same stairs so many of us have tread before. Wanting a 0-1000 zoom that is perfect. And you know that answer too.

That 300 with/ w/o TC is tops, and Nikon has a zoom that is nice too it's the 200-400. You know all this.:D

You are right. I am sure I will be underwhelmed by this beast. But I am hoping for better than OK results with it. Gotta find a Canon 100-400 for my Nikon. Is there a way to adapt? Make my Nikon a transsexual Canon hybrid?

A 300 would be great, if it zoomed. I know I would love the 200-400. But for the amount I would use it, I do not need a lens that $$$. I could rent it, but, that is $$$ too. But not the worst possible option for me. $80 per day from my local shop. I mostly want it for the WidowMaker hillclimb next year. 3 days wouldn't be too bad on the wallet, and I would make it back. But, what ifffffffff the bigma works? Gotta find out.

angevin1

Zerodog wrote: »

You are right. I am sure I will be underwhelmed by this beast. But I am hoping for better than OK results with it. Gotta find a Canon 100-400 for my Nikon. Is there a way to adapt? Make my Nikon a transsexual Canon hybrid?

A 300 would be great, if it zoomed. I know I would love the 200-400. But for the amount I would use it, I do not need a lens that $$$. I could rent it, but, that is $$$ too. But not the worst possible option for me. $80 per day from my local shop. I mostly want it for the WidowMaker hillclimb next year. 3 days wouldn't be too bad on the wallet, and I would make it back. But, what ifffffffff the bigma works? Gotta find out.

A Canon 100-400? That is Nikons 80-400. And reviews are about equal on them, which is why I won't be getting the 100-400 for my Canon.

My simple thoughts are you have to decide if you want stellar imagery or just good enough. oh, and if you want a Zoom that'll compete with the big boys, Zoom and you can add a TC: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is known for stellar imagery.

joeinmiami

I would love to have a Nikon 200-400, but my wife refuses to let me put a second mortgage on the house so I can buy the lens! I wonder why.

Let us see: Nikon 80-400 about $1,500
Nikon 200-400 about $5,000
Sigma 50-500 about $1,100

If money is an issue, which one would you buy?

If money IS NOT ans issue, then the Nikon 200-400

Joe

ThatCanonGuy

joeinmiami wrote: »

I would love to have a Nikon 200-400, but my wife refuses to let me put a second mortgage on the house so I can buy the lens! I wonder why.

Let us see: Nikon 80-400 about $1,500
Nikon 200-400 about $5,000
Sigma 50-500 about $1,100

If money is an issue, which one would you buy?

If money IS NOT ans issue, then the Nikon 200-400

Joe

Probably the 80-400 either way, but it depends on the type of shooting I'd be doing. That 200-400 is WAY heavy.

Zerodog wrote: »

You are right. I am sure I will be underwhelmed by this beast. But I am hoping for better than OK results with it. Gotta find a Canon 100-400 for my Nikon. Is there a way to adapt? Make my Nikon a transsexual Canon hybrid?

Yeah, it's called "switch to C" :

joeinmiami

I did extensive research on both the Nikon 80-400 and the Sigma 50-500 before purchased the lens. (It is not every day that I can afford a $1000 lens) What I saw was that they were more or less identical in their performance, while Nikon has VR, the Sigma had more reach, while Nikon cost was about $1500 the Sigma was about $1000 ( I got my from Adorama for about $960).
Since my main purpose in purchasing a zoom lens was its reach I settle for the Bigma and, so far, I have not been sorry.

In my website there is a section dedicate to an air show, all the photos in this section were take with the Bigma HANDHELD. I seems to me they are pretty decent quality.

Joe

Zerodog

So I got my lenses today. I wussed out on the Bigma. I figure I would rarely use it in real life. It is not something I need often enough. But a lens that has struck my fancy since I went full frame is the Nikon 28-300. Great reviews on this lens. 100 more mm than my 70-200. And it is small and light and reasonably priced with VR. Would be a great lens for either body FX or DX for snowboarding. The price difference in rental made my justify giving the TC 2.0 III a try. I was not overly impressed with the II. So maybe the III is better? I will be trying this on the 70-200 to see what I think. Maybe this is my 140-400 lens? What will that give me? Constant f4 right? Maybe it will suck as much as the II did?? I will see though!!

Now if I only had my D3s back from Nikon.......

ziggy53

I believe that the 2x teleconverters are only designed to be used on a 70-200mm lens at the 200mm end of the zoom. You will probably see a lot more corner aberrations at the 70mm setting.

A 2x teleconverter affects the effective lens aperture by 2 - f-stops. A 70-200mm, f2.8 constant aperture lens with a 2x telextender would be a constant f5.6 effective aperture maximum.

rwells

Zerodog wrote: »

So I got my lenses today. I wussed out on the Bigma. I figure I would rarely use it in real life. It is not something I need often enough. But a lens that has struck my fancy since I went full frame is the Nikon 28-300. Great reviews on this lens. 100 more mm than my 70-200. And it is small and light and reasonably priced with VR. Would be a great lens for either body FX or DX for snowboarding. The price difference in rental made my justify giving the TC 2.0 III a try. I was not overly impressed with the II. So maybe the III is better? I will be trying this on the 70-200 to see what I think. Maybe this is my 140-400 lens? What will that give me? Constant f4 right? Maybe it will suck as much as the II did?? I will see though!!

Now if I only had my D3s back from Nikon.......

Here are some zoo shots with a D3s, 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 & TC 2.0 III. All shot at 400mm @ f/5.6.
I was VERY pleased with the performance and sharpness. I don't have any @ 140mm to show (not even sure I took any @ 140mm). I also just got back from a visit with my grandsons and shot his football game with the above setup. Game started at 2pm, so good light. Tracking was very good, no complaints at all at this point. I was very hesitant to buy the 2.0 TC, but it has turned out to be a very good decision so far. YMMV

Harryb

rwells wrote: »

Here are some zoo shots with a D3s, 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 & TC 2.0 III. All shot at 400mm @ f/5.6.
I was VERY pleased with the performance and sharpness. I don't have any @ 140mm to show (not even sure I took any @ 140mm). I also just got back from a visit with my grandsons and shot his football game with the above setup. Game started at 2pm, so good light. Tracking was very good, no complaints at all at this point. I was very hesitant to buy the 2.0 TC, but it has turned out to be a very good decision so far. YMMV

I rented out the 2.0 TC for my recent trip to Kenya and used it with the 70-200 2.8 VR II on the D3s. I was very surprised that it worked so well for me. IQ and AF performance were very good. I'll be buying the 2.0 TC in the near future.

nightowlcat

I had rented the 80-400 and a CP from BorrowLenses for an airshow, and did very well with it. First time shooting an airshow, and now I'm saving my pennies up to buy myself a used 80-400. I had considered renting the Bigma, or the Tamron 200-500, but am extremely pleased with everything. I used the focus limit switch to cut down the hunt for focus, since I knew I wasn't going to need the closer ranges. Good luck with whatever you end up with