Thoughts on Sigma 50-500mm for Soccer Baseball and Football

Gringriff · August 27, 2009

I am thinking about possibly buying a Sigma 50-500mm for Soccer, Baseball, and Football All During the DAY ONLY!

I've read a bunch of posts and seen lots of bird photos from the Bigma but very little sports photos. A few I've seen have looked very good but I wonder if these are the few good keepers out of many failed attempts due to slow focus or missing sharpness.

Assuming you have day light is the Bigma a good lens for the outdoor field sports? I am going to be shooting some youth football ages 7 to 12, baseball, and a bunch of soccer and am curious as to how well this lens would function on a Canon 50D compared to my 70-200mm L with the 1.4 extender.

I am also considering renting one of these for a couple of weeks to see how it works.

Can anyone provide any info on how this lens should perform for the out door field sports in day light?

Also, does anyone have any good recommendations as to where to rent online as there are no rental places in my area?

Thanks,
Andy

Tee Why · August 27, 2009

I've used the bigma for soccer on occassion before and also for beach volleyball. If you are in good light it should be fine. The AF is a touch slower than an L lens but it's fast enough and the image quality is good (not excellent). But considering the versatility of the lens, the trade off may be worth it.

Cygnus Studios · August 27, 2009

I have shot football, drag racing, soccer and baseball with the bigma without any issues. Good light is required.

Zimtok · August 27, 2009

I currently have the Sigma 70-200 1.8 lens and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens. I find them to be good lenses in general.

The AF is a bit slow on the 70-200 when light is limited but in good light it is not very noticeably different from my Canon 28-70 mm IS lens. It was a little out of focus but I adjusted the microfocus on my Canon 50D to compensate for it.

I am very pleased with my Sigma lenses even without the IS.....

.

ziggy53 · August 27, 2009

Andy,

I have the Bigma and I have the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and EF 1.4x II converter.

While the Bigma is not a first choice for a sports lens, it has enough reach to make it a good alternate. I don't think it couples as well as the Canon 70-200mm for AI Servo, so following action sequences is going to be tougher. For the younger age groups hopefully the action will not be so swift to make it impossible however. I would also try One-Shot AF and see which method yields better results.

I agree with the others that the Bigma needs light, and I suggest that a high contrast day will yield more keepers as well.

Little beats the 70-200, f2.8 by itself for sports, so if you need more AF performance, consideration of the 1D series bodies is in order.

For recommendations on where to rent, please consult our thread:

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=79033

I don't see the Bigma for rent in a cursory review of the vendors, but I see that the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO is available at Glass and Gear.

Manfr3d · August 27, 2009

I have shot soccer with the slow focussing Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS
lens during the day without problems. Considering the reach of the 50-500
and that there is no lens slower than the 80-400 I used, I'd say go for it!

kini62 · August 27, 2009

You'd be better off with the Canon 100-400L.

Gene

Manfr3d · August 27, 2009

kini62 wrote:

You'd be better off with the Canon 100-400L.

Gene

What about his wallet

rookieshooter · August 27, 2009

You can rent the Bigma here: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-50-500mm-f4-6.3-ex-hsm/for-canon

I had a Bigma and thought it was a great lens for the money. For me, buying ANY other 500mm lens is simply out of the question due to cost. Same goes for 300mm and 400mm

I only shot in bright sunlight but got sharp pics, even at 500mm. I now rent it for air shows when I need it. If you have a steady hand and/or monopod you can get good results in decent light.

Example of a moving target in good light handheld. Overall I think it is pretty good.

Gringriff · August 27, 2009

Thanks everyone for the replies
Thank you everyone for the replies. The more I research the more options there seem to be. I believe I will have to rent a Bigma or some long range lens or maybe a couple or a period of time. It would be a large investment to buy one of these so renting first may be the way to go.

AlbertZeroK · August 31, 2009

I too am in need of something for outdoor shooting with a longer reach. Is there any advantage to going with the 150-500 over the 50-500? I would love something with a longer reach than my 70-200 f/2.8, but am wondering what the draw backs of the two lenses would be?

cmason · August 31, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

Andy,

I have the Bigma and I have the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and EF 1.4x II converter.

Ziggy, how does the 70-200+1.4x compare with the Bigma at like focal lengths? Is the Bigma sharper or as sharp compared to the Canon with the extender?

rookieshooter · August 31, 2009

AlbertZeroK wrote:

I too am in need of something for outdoor shooting with a longer reach. Is there any advantage to going with the 150-500 over the 50-500? I would love something with a longer reach than my 70-200 f/2.8, but am wondering what the draw backs of the two lenses would be?

The 150-500 Bigmos has optical stabilization and the 50-500 Bigma does not. Also, it's generally regarded that the 50-500 is a tad sharper than the 150.

hgernhardtjr · August 31, 2009

cmason wrote:

...how does the 70-200+1.4x compare with the Bigma at like focal lengths? Is the Bigma sharper or as sharp compared to the Canon with the extender?

FWIW, I shoot both the Bigma and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and use a Sigma 2x teleconverter on it. Personally, I "feel" the 70-200+2x is sharper at full zoom than Bigma at 400 and similar mid-to low f-stops ... but friends see no difference and bright sky high f-stop airshow photos are equal. I have not used a 1.4x with the 70-200, though, so hopefully Ziggy will respond. Though slow(er) to focus at times, the Bigma is still an excellent, cost-effective lens.

cmason · August 31, 2009

Thanks hgernhardtjr, good info. Unfortunately, I was very unhappy with the 2x on my 70-200 :cry

ziggy53 · August 31, 2009

cmason wrote:

Ziggy, how does the 70-200+1.4x compare with the Bigma at like focal lengths? Is the Bigma sharper or as sharp compared to the Canon with the extender?

I believe that the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L plus 1.4x TC has a slight edge over the Sigma 50-500mm (native) in the 280mm length when they are both wide open. Both benefit from stopping down and then the advantage is less clear.

The Canon 70-200mm by itself, without the TC, will beat the Sigma 50-500mm at like focal lengths and apertures, with the Canon lens offering faster apertures as well as faster focus in that configuration.

I am much happier with the Sigma Bigma performance on the Canon 5D MKII than I am on the crop 1.6x or crop 1.3x camera bodies, and I'm not sure why that is. The lens should be in the "sweet spot" on the crop cameras but the lens just seems to work more to my satisfaction on the full-frame camera.

For travel, the Canon 70-200mm, f4L IS USM and 1.4x TC is what I take and for social situations I use the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L by itself, but I take the TC for the occasional reach.

The only times I have used the Bigma were when knocking around shooting local (fairly tame) ducks and walks on the canal where the instant versatility is nice. If I were doing daytime sports I think the Bigma would be useful as well.

BTW my tests of the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L plus TC (at 280mm) versus the Sigma 50-500mm at 300mm are fairly well corroborated and exemplified at "The-Digital-Picture" site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=374&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=242&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Art Scott · August 31, 2009

AlbertZeroK wrote:

I too am in need of something for outdoor shooting with a longer reach. Is there any advantage to going with the 150-500 over the 50-500? I would love something with a longer reach than my 70-200 f/2.8, but am wondering what the draw backs of the two lenses would be?

ONLY THE OS..............

Gringriff · August 31, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe that the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L plus 1.4x TC has a slight edge over the Sigma 50-500mm (native) in the 280mm length when they are both wide open. Both benefit from stopping down and then the advantage is less clear.

The Canon 70-200mm by itself, without the TC, will beat the Sigma 50-500mm at like focal lengths and apertures, with the Canon lens offering faster apertures as well as faster focus in that configuration.

I am much happier with the Sigma Bigma performance on the Canon 5D MKII than I am on the crop 1.6x or crop 1.3x camera bodies, and I'm not sure why that is. The lens should be in the "sweet spot" on the crop cameras but the lens just seems to work more to my satisfaction on the full-frame camera.

For travel, the Canon 70-200mm, f4L IS USM and 1.4x TC is what I take and for social situations I use the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L by itself, but I take the TC for the occasional reach.

The only times I have used the Bigma were when knocking around shooting local (fairly tame) ducks and walks on the canal where the instant versatility is nice. If I were doing daytime sports I think the Bigma would be useful as well.

BTW my tests of the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L plus TC (at 280mm) versus the Sigma 50-500mm at 300mm are fairly well corroborated and exemplified at "The-Digital-Picture" site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=374&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=242&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Thank Ziggy for the info. Is there a long learning curve with this lens? I have read some comments about that but am wondering if it is really much harder to learn and get comfortable with than the 70-200?

ziggy53 · August 31, 2009

Gringriff wrote:

Thank Ziggy for the info. Is there a long learning curve with this lens? I have read some comments about that but am wondering if it is really much harder to learn and get comfortable with than the 70-200?

Like I already mentioned, I was never really happy with the Bigma on a Canon crop camera. I like it much better on the 5D MKII. Part of the reason (maybe, I think (could I be any more wishy-washy?)) is that smaller apertures are generally required for best results of the Bigma. Smaller apertures are generally better tolerated on larger imagers.

Others are very happy with the Bigma on crop cameras and, our BigAl for instance, get fantastic images with the combination. I have an older non-DG version and could explain part of what's going on, but I really don't know for sure.

Used in good light and with small apertures, the Bigma is a pretty competent tool and I won't part with mine until something definitively better comes along.

Thoughts on Sigma 50-500mm for Soccer Baseball and Football

Comments