Bigma?

BBones

Is it worth it?

bit of a price difference between the Bigma (50-500) and the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L EF IS Lens

John Mueller

BBones wrote:

Is it worth it?

bit of a price difference between the Bigma (50-500) and the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L EF IS Lens

I owned both and I would go with the Bigma
Then again the Bigma performs best on a tripod.

Andy

BBones wrote:

Is it worth it?

bit of a price difference between the Bigma (50-500) and the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L EF IS Lens

look here in steve cavigliano's gallery try the birds and the surfers galleries.. steve loves his buhigma

BBones

Ok, those officially make my shots with the 70-200 look like P&S work:

http://studio819.smugmug.com/gallery/416795

Though I will say I had to be quite a distance from them (Hookipa for those of you that know Maui)

Steve Cavigliano

Brandon,

I think your shots look good You were a lot farther away and it shows.

Even though I am closer, I pretty much shoot surf shots between 250-350mm's with the Bigma. So at full tele, it might put you really close to those surfers.

I am really happy with this lens. It is my surf shot and wildlife/bird lens. It is pretty heavy, but with high shutter speeds (1/1000+), you usually can get by without a tripod. I went out and bought the heavier duty grip head, just because of the Bigma's weight and I've only used it on the pod twice The rest of the time I shoot handheld. But, there is a bit of a learning curve. I got lots of blurry shots, no matter what speed I used, among my first 500, or so, Bigma images. Once you get the "hang of it", you'll be swinging the 20D/Bigma combo around like it was a compact P&S :lol OK, so I exagerate....lol Still, it's not all that heavy/unwieldy once you get used to it.
Plus, it's hard to beat it's sub-$850 price


Steve

rutt

I love my Canon 100-400. I mean I really love it. I always handhold it. It's good and sharp:



And it also works really well for "close up" candids. Look at the bokah:



Have to reach pretty far out to catch surfers on Nantucket:





And works pretty well closer in:



It's really no heavier than the 70-200 2.8L. So when I don't need the speed and might need the length, this is wonderful utility lens.

I don't know how much the extra 100mm on the long side the bigma buys. The 1.6 tx works OK with the 100-400.

GSPeP

I love the range of the Bigma. See below for a comparison. Both pictures were taken handheld (yes, it can be done at 500 mm.)

Our church at 50 mm.




and at 500 mm.

DoctorIt

Hmm, i just passed on a bigma and got the 100-300mm f/4 sigma instead (with a 1.4tc). Something about the 10x zoom that I just couldn't come to grips with. Although seeing these shots... nah, too late now!

Mongrel

Hey Doc,

Don't sweat it-the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is a great lens. I have one and really, no I mean REALLY like it. Even though I'm considering 'upgrading' to an f/2.8 lens in the future I don't think I'll let the f/4 go, it's just too good. Works well even with my Sigma 1.4x tc.

dragon300zx

Stupid question time.....


Bigma? Huh is this a specific lense, or the long lenses in general? Yup I'm clueless I know. scratch

DoctorIt

dragon300zx wrote:

Stupid question time.....


Bigma? Huh is this a specific lense, or the long lenses in general? Yup I'm clueless I know. scratch

Bigma is the pet name given to the above mentioned Sigma 50-500mm lens. It's been around for a little while now, and as you can see, it's a pretty great lens for the money, so it has quite a following.

System

there's no escape, is there.
...and i thought i had made up my mind just an hour ago to go for the 70-200 by end of the month... now i'm back with the bigma this needs to stop, lol... all your fault, steve

luckyrwe

Get them both!

System

luckyrwe wrote:

Get them both!

yeah, sooner or later, lol. right now it's just a matter of budget... 20d arrived last friday with the 50 1.8 and i'm expecting the 17-40 tomorrow... can't afford another two lenses this month and keep changing my mind

Andy

sash wrote:

yeah, sooner or later, lol. right now it's just a matter of budget... 20d arrived last friday with the 50 1.8 and i'm expecting the 17-40 tomorrow... can't afford another two lenses this month and keep changing my mind

sash on the 20d purchase

Steve Cavigliano

sash wrote:

there's no escape, is there.
...and i thought i had made up my mind just an hour ago to go for the 70-200 by end of the month... now i'm back with the bigma this needs to stop, lol... all your fault, steve

But, but :hide

Sash,
I told you I was in the same predicament as you. I wanted the IS 70-200mm, but in the end wound up with the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 AND the Bigma for the same price. I haven't regreted it for a minute.

I can't say that this is the perfect solution for everyone. For example, I don't do a lot of indoor low light low speed shooting (where the IS really comes in handy). Maybe you do. In which case the IS lens would be a better choice.
I also like lots of reach for sports, birds and wildlife and knew that the 70-200 (even with TC's) wasn't going to make me as happy as a long prime or long zoom.

There's one more option, the Sigma 70-200mm and a Canon 400mm F5.6L, will also run you about what the 70-200mm IS runs. This option gives you an effective 640mm L lens and a nice 112-320mm zoom (add a 1.4X TC and you're at 156-448mm).

Good luck Sash, and remember that good lenses hold their value extremely well. Much, much better than bodies


Steve

System

thanks andy... and i'm lovin it

sorry steve, should have mentioned the "sigma" 70-200 it's just a question of which one first... that or the bigmama. i keep changing my freakin mind, so don't start bringing primes into the picture, lol. i really haven't looked into the primes-option yet but imagine i'd miss the flexibility of a zoom. maybe after spending a year or so with the bigma i'll get a better understanding of my needs... or cravings for that matter. so far the only experience i have with primes is my dinky lil' 50mm. but i really appreciate your input :

sash

gubbs

While your on the subject, (well kinda) how well do the extenders work, what sort of quality can you expect compared with a lens of equal quality and fl,
say for example a 200L with a 2x compared with a 400L

Steve Cavigliano

gubbs wrote:

While your on the subject, (well kinda) how well do the extenders work, what sort of quality can you expect compared with a lens of equal quality and fl,
say for example a 200L with a 2x compared with a 400L

Gubbs,
From what I have seen, TCs cause some image degradation. 2X's are usually the worst. 1.4x's not as bad.

I'll look around for a 200mm F2.8 with a 2X TC versus a 400mm F5.6 bare comparison. Which should be a good comparison, since using the 2X will cost 2 stops. Effectively turning the 200mm f2.8 into a 400mm F5.6.

Good question


Steve

System

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Gubbs,
From what I have seen, TCs cause some image degradation. 2X's are usually the worst. 1.4x's not as bad.
Steve

among the better comparison's i've seen... take a look here. text is in german, just scroll down to the watches and cars.

not a direct comparison between 70-200+2x tc vs. 400... but the 400 can't possibly be that bad!

sash

System

hehe, nevermind... there's a direct comparison between 70-200 + 2x tc and the 400 on their next page here

sash

Steve Cavigliano

Hey Sash,

If you do wind up getting the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, the cheapo Tamron 1.4X TC ($80) works pretty well with it. It slows down the AF some but it doesn't seem to degrade the image all that much for the extra 130mm's of reach it gives.


Steve

wxwax

gubbs wrote:

While your on the subject, (well kinda) how well do the extenders work, what sort of quality can you expect compared with a lens of equal quality and fl,
say for example a 200L with a 2x compared with a 400L

My experience, mounting a 1.4x and a 2x on a 300 f4 lens... is that i don't like either.

The 2x is really soft, basically not usable IMHO. The 1.4x is better, but frankly, not all that great. I haven't tried the 1.4 on a faster lens, say a 200 f2.8. Perhaps it performs better on faster glass.

As they say, you can't something for nothing.

wxwax

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Hey Sash,

If you do wind up getting the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, the cheapo Tamron 1.4X TC ($80) works pretty well with it. It slows down the AF some but it doesn't seem to degrade the image all that much for the extra 130mm's of reach it gives.


Steve

Well, that's very impressive. And a nice exposure, too, Steve.

System

sweet! awesome shot, steve now you got me thinking of the 70-200 again

gubbs

Thanks for the advice,

Steve that's pretty impressive!

Harryb

sash wrote:

sweet! awesome shot, steve now you got me thinking of the 70-200 again

Just to stir the pot some more Sigma has an 80-400 lens with image stabilization that is very good. It will give you good reach and can be handheld and is half a pound lighter than the Bigma and costs just about the same.

gus

Harryb wrote:

Just to stir the pot some more Sigma has an 80-400 lens with image stabilization that is very good. It will give you good reach and can be handheld and is half a pound lighter than the Bigma and costs just about the same.

Thanks harry i didnt need to know that.

DoctorIt

Harryb wrote:

Just to stir the pot some more Sigma has an 80-400 lens with image stabilization that is very good. It will give you good reach and can be handheld and is half a pound lighter than the Bigma and costs just about the same.

Another plus of this lens is that it's two touch (twist) zoom, as opposed to the more dust prone push/pull bigma.

but my new lens is fixed aperture for the same money... don't discount the 100-300 w/1.4tc. Man I LOVE this lens! Too busy shooting and PSing. tomorrow I post results.

gus

DoctorIt wrote:

Another plus of this lens is that it's two touch (twist) zoom, as opposed to the more dust prone push/pull bigma.

but my new lens is fixed aperture for the same money... don't discount the 100-300 w/1.4tc. Man I LOVE this lens! Too busy shooting and PSing. tomorrow I post results.

Doc...is this the f/4 that youve got ? Sorry i havnt been paying attention.

DoctorIt

Humungus wrote:

Doc...is this the f/4 that youve got ? Sorry i havnt been paying attention.

Yup. You've been paying attention, I just got it yesterday and haven't properly introduced it to anyone yet