Sigma 50-500mm Bigma (v. 70-300)

canon400d · August 28, 2007

I have just received my 50-500mm Bigma and I am a wee bit dismayed with it. Or is it me? I use a Canon 400D and I have been in the habit of taking photos across the estuary Solway Firth onto the Mountains. I was of the impression that the Bigma would bring the mountains much closer and in more detail. However, I find there is no difference than when I was using the 70-300mm. It seems an awful lot of money for this lens in comparison to the Sigma 70-300. Or as I say is it me? I do find that nearer shots are more clearer and sharper than my 70-300. I would certainly appreciate your comments and any advice you can give me.
Kind Regards
Bob
Dumfries & Galloway

wesleyt · August 28, 2007

Bob,

If you posted some pictures for comparison, it'd be much easier for us to help you.

Regards,
Wes

DoctorIt · August 28, 2007

Well, Bob, that's just plain jibberish. No, really.

Unless you're not telling us something important, there's no way 300mm and 500mm lens give you the same "closeness" (If i read that as "reach"). As for detail, that could be argued, sure...

The Bigma is a great lens, but not one you can just toss on the front of your DSLR and get fantastic photos. It is fairly slow and requires good technique to take truly sharp and stunning photographs at the 500mm end. As in, tripod, or at least monopod, and good light.

Feed us some more details and we'll be glad to help!

davev · August 28, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

Well, Bob, that's just plain jibberish. No, really.

Unless you're not telling us something important, there's no way 300mm and 500mm lens give you the same "closeness" (If i read that as "reach"). As for detail, that could be argued, sure...

The Bigma is a great lens, but not one you can just toss on the front of your DSLR and get fantastic photos. It is fairly slow and requires good technique to take truly sharp and stunning photographs at the 500mm end. As in, tripod, or at least monopod, and good light.

Feed us some more details and we'll be glad to help!

Ya know, I'm getting really tired of people saying that because you have a lens over 200mm or 300mm's you need a tripod or a monopod.

Unless you're in dark conditions (shutter speed less than about 1/400) you can get great shots from this and other long lenses WITHOUT a tripod or a monopod.

Bob, you need to show us what you have, and what you are comparing it to.
That's the only way we can try to help you.

pathfinder · August 28, 2007

Davev,

I do believe that a good tripod is the best accessory to long glass - especially glass longer than 200-300mm. Especially lenses without IS, like most of Tamron's and Sigma's longer lenses. I own and use some from Tamron and Sigma, as well as Canon's IS L lenses.

Can a good, careful, shooter get acceptable images without a tripod - sure, sometimes with fast shutter speeds - I do it at airshows frequently with my Tamron 200-500 Di. But there is no doubt that the images shot from a tripod with that lens, with a remote release, can be even better than handheld.

And for someone who has not used a 500mm previously, a good support is even more important.

You are a highly experienced long lens shooter - You know the requirements for good long lens technique. I am sure you get good images without support from time to time ( more than most folks probably ) but I'll bet you know yourself that you do get sharper images with a good support - monopod, tripod, sand cushion whatever. At 500mm, shooting technique becomes real important.

The increase in magnification from 300mm to 500mm may not seem as much as it "sounds" like either. One of the cruel truths of long lenses is that they are never long enough, even though they are way too, too long to use easily or quickly. I speak from experience here as I never have a lens as long as I truly want, and they are always too big, too heavy, too expensive, too hard to use, unwieldy, etc etc:D

It is truly a love/hate relationship with long glass.

windoze · August 28, 2007

canon400d wrote:

I have just received my 50-500mm Bigma and I am a wee bit dismayed with it. Or is it me? I use a Canon 400D and I have been in the habit of taking photos across the estuary Solway Firth onto the Mountains. I was of the impression that the Bigma would bring the mountains much closer and in more detail. However, I find there is no difference than when I was using the 70-300mm. It seems an awful lot of money for this lens in comparison to the Sigma 70-300. Or as I say is it me? I do find that nearer shots are more clearer and sharper than my 70-300. I would certainly appreciate your comments and any advice you can give me.
Kind Regards
Bob
Dumfries & Galloway

hey Bob,
ive owned that lens ( a few times actually

),
its a nice lens! Give it the light it needs, and it can bring things upclose. I gotta agree with Path ( I'd be a fool to 2nd guess his advice ) a monopod ( which I used ) or a tripod helps with the learning curve associated with these "heavier" longer lenses. Ya know on a 1.6 crop camera at 500mm its like 750 mm so to avoid that camera shake you got to really use a decent SS if you're handholding that lens.
Ya know go to the zoo with a 70-300 and you get a nice animal's face, with the Bigma you get the eye really up close! Shoot soccer with the 70-300 you can reach way down the field, with the Bigma you can catch the goalie from the other team's goal. Im thinking that those mountains might be at such a distance that even at 500 you might not capture the detail you're looking for. But since i dont know the range of the mountains i better keep my opinions to what i do know and that is this.......
The Bigma is a very good lens perfectly capable of capturing nice detail when used proficiently. It has a learning curve, give it another chance and post some pics so we can see what's going on.....

troy

DoctorIt · August 28, 2007

davev wrote:

Ya know, I'm getting really tired of people saying that because you have a lens over 200mm or 300mm's you need a tripod or a monopod.

Well good morning crank-a-saurus!

Notice I said: tripod, monopod, OR good light

I'd also like to add to what pathfinder said: shooting at things halfway across the world (mountains, the mooon...) the difference between 300 and 500, especially on a crop camera, does indeed seem less than one would expect.

Allen · August 28, 2007

Just throwin' a thought here, but with that distance there's has to be a lot of
haze, heat waves and such. I don't think any lens would be sharp thru that.

windoze · August 28, 2007

Allen wrote:

Just throwin' a thought here, but with that distance there's has to be a lot of
haze, heat waves and such. I don't think any lens would be sharp thru that.

also what i think is happening is that Bob is also probably using the Bigma wide open at 500mm and i dont beleive that is going to get him the "sharpness" he is looking for.
id close the bigma down a step or two, crank up that ISO, use that tripod / monopd and hold back a little from 500mm and i think it'll work fine. Thats what i used to do .........
troy

davev · August 28, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

Well good morning crank-a-saurus!

Notice I said: tripod, monopod, OR good light

I'd also like to add to what pathfinder said: shooting at things halfway across the world (mountains, the mooon...) the difference between 300 and 500, especially on a crop camera, does indeed seem less than one would expect.

Not to get into a pissing match with you doc, but in your post you put "and" good light.
I don't have a 500mm lens, I have the Canon 400L 5.6.
I've had it on a tripod once, and that was trying to shoot bumble bees on the flowers in the back yard.

Some examples of what you can get from a long lens hand held I guess are in order.
Most of these were in good light.

And just because you say you can't...

F5.6, shutter 1/25th, ISO 800, 400mm.

Don't even make me talk about i.s. lenses.

DoctorIt · August 28, 2007

davev wrote:

I don't have a 500mm lens, I have the Canon 400L 5.6.

that lens is worlds sharper than the bigma. the bigma copy I owned was very good in respect to other bigma's, but no match for the 400L.

let's see what our OP offers us...

davev · August 28, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

let's see what our OP offers us...

I agree. Bob, we need to see some shots.

windoze · August 29, 2007

davev wrote:

I agree. Bob, we need to see some shots.

but the canon 400 f/5.6 weighs under three pounds and the bigma weighs over 4 lbs. That extra pound can make a difference when hand holding....

doesnt it? well actually i know it does. I owned the 400 f/5.6, Bigma and 100-400 at the same time. Bigma is / was the harder to hand hold.

troy

davev · August 29, 2007

windoze wrote:

but the canon 400 f/5.6 weighs under three pounds and the bigma weighs over 4 lbs. That extra pound can make a difference when hand holding....

doesnt it? well actually i know it does. I owned the 400 f/5.6, Bigma and 100-400 at the same time. Bigma is / was the harder to hand hold.

troy

Does it make a difference that I had a battery grip mounted?

I don't really want to get into this with you guys.
Although a tripod will help many people, some people just don't need it.
It's not always going to be the cure all for a bad pic. That's all I'm saying.

BTW
Sigma 80-400os (3.7 pounds) on a 300D.
1/6s f/8.0 at 250.0mm ISO 1600 (hack installed on the camera)
Hand held, free standing. Yeah, I'm a rock.

Harryb · August 29, 2007

davev wrote:

Does it make a difference that I had a battery grip mounted?

I don't really want to get into this with you guys.
Although a tripod will help many people, some people just don't need it.
It's not always going to be the cure all for a bad pic. That's all I'm saying.

The simple fact is that you get better and sharper shots if your camera and lens are welll supported. Do you need a tripod, no. Will you get better pics if you use a tripod or monpod with the Bigma, yes.

Simple test. Go out with the Bigma and find a scene. Take 10 shots handheld and 10 with the bigma on a tripod or monopod. See which method produces the higher number of keepers.

Telecorder · August 29, 2007

Probabilities...

canon400d wrote:

I have just received my 50-500mm Bigma and I am a wee bit dismayed with it. Or is it me?
Kind Regards
Bob
Dumfries & Galloway

...are, Bob, its more likely your technique as others have alluded to. While one can't rule out possible actual issues with your lens, odds are its more to do with technique. As to the difference between 300 & 500mm reach ---

As an example, this is my Bigma at 50mm (75mm EQ)... (all hand held, BTW)

Here is the same at 300mm (450mm EQ)

And here is 500mm (750mm EQ)

You'll notice there is a difference in the FOV between the latter two...

Posting some images of the 300 v the Bigma will be a big aid in assistance as to what's at play. FWIW, the Canon version of the Bigma can be tweaked for possibly better IQ as detailed in...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=12833550&page=1

sirsloop · August 30, 2007

ya know... I've got some shots that were taken with long lenses that were at ridiculously low shutter speeds. I'm sure everyone here does and could post a couple. What you don't see is that your keeper rate is low. Also, at these web resolutions you cannot really see the motion blur. Having said that, do I use a tripod? No... when I'm event shooting I think it inhibits fast movement and quick changes from landscape to portrait shooting. When I shoot stuff like the moon, etc, yeah i'll brush the dust off it and bolt it on.

jonh68 · August 30, 2007

My take on Tri-mono support is most photogs need it. However, many photogs like myself like to go into special forces mode and move about in a stealthy way to get that one great shot. When shooting landscapes, portraits etc, support is a must. When trying to get that one shot, it can be missed by carrying extra equipment.

Van Isle · August 30, 2007

jonh68 wrote:

However, many photogs like myself like to go into special forces mode and move about in a stealthy way to get that one great shot.

I'm soooo guilty. I even turn my ballcap around to look like a photo-journalist

But I also have my tripod near or on me almost all the time when I am out on shooting mission (vice just walking around with the camera) and I can whip it out pretty quick when the light gets low, even if it's just as a mono.

VI

pathfinder · August 30, 2007

No doubt about it - a good, heavy tripod is a royal pain to use. It inhibits movement, and stealth. Some of my lenses with the tripod, head, and camera weigh over 25 -35 pounds.

I frequently shoot without one, but I also know that the images shot with a tripod will almost always be the sharper, crisper, more detailed images, particularly with lenses longer than 400mm. When I abandon a tripod, I am accepting a slightly lesser level of image quality - UNLESS I am shooting with flash, which is the equivalent of a very high shutter speed. Just one of the reasons I like to use flash.

canon400d · September 2, 2007

Those photos are fantastic. How far were you from the subjects when you took those?
Bob

canon400d · September 2, 2007

Thanks For Your Replys
I have just received the replies from my question about the Bigma. I have been in hospital and I apologise for the delay in replying. I will take a photo of the Mountain across the Solway Firth with my Bigma and also with my Sigma 70-300 and post them on here for your comments. I realise I should have done this earlier. I have just received my Canon 70-200mmF/4L lens and I will let you know how that performs in due course. Thanks again for your kind replies I really do appreciate your comments and I want you to be as firm as possible with me in your replies. It may take a wee while to send the two photos for comparison because of my circumstances at the moment.
Thanks All
Bob

canon400d · September 3, 2007

Photos taken with Sigma 70-300 and Bigma for comparison

This is Mount Skiddaw which was taken across the Solway Firth with a Sigma 70-300mm lens.

This is Mount Skiddaw taken with my Bigma. It has turned out poor. I took it on ISO 800. It was a clear day and the mountain appeared perfect for photographing. The first photo taken with the Sigma 70-300 was taken minutes before this one.
I am referring to a previous thread I posted about the Bigma and the Sigma 70-300 lens. Can you please put me on the right path to take good photos with my Bigma. I know it is me who is at fault and not the Bigma lens. When I examine my photos taken on the LCD they all look sharp and clear and with plenty of light and when I come to look at them on the computer they are dark. I keep cranking up the ISO and it doesn't appear to be making a big difference. I have been told the Bigma likes plenty of light and here in Scotland we are not as fortunate to have the continuous sunny days as the majority of you lucky people. The photos you sent to me in my previous thread were absolutely fantastic and I just cannot see me ever taking photos like those with my Bigma. Your firm comments will be more than appreciated.
Sorry for rambling on but it is quite frustrating.
Kind Regards
Bob

davev · September 4, 2007

canon400d wrote:

I have just received the replies from my question about the Bigma. I have been in hospital and I apologise for the delay in replying. I will take a photo of the Mountain across the Solway Firth with my Bigma and also with my Sigma 70-300 and post them on here for your comments. I realise I should have done this earlier. I have just received my Canon 70-200mmF/4L lens and I will let you know how that performs in due course. Thanks again for your kind replies I really do appreciate your comments and I want you to be as firm as possible with me in your replies. It may take a wee while to send the two photos for comparison because of my circumstances at the moment.
Thanks All
Bob

No problem Bob.
I hope everything went well and that your on the road to recovery.

DoctorIt · September 4, 2007

Hi again Bob,
I think it's best if these photos are in your original thread (since many of the people who posted there asked for them). I'm going to merge the two threads together.

claudermilk · September 4, 2007

Now that we have some images to compare.

First of all you stated in the original post there was no difference?

There's quite a difference & it's obvious which shot is 300mm and which 500mm.

Now, for the Bigma image, I'm seeing a lot of haze. That is probably why the image looks soft was well. This is where a UV or CPL filter would come in handy--I'm not entirely certain of which is more appropriate in this case.

As for reviewing on the camera LCD, you now see the pitfalls of that. The LCD is not an accurate indicator of what the final image is going to be. Use it for basic composition checking and a very rough metering check--turning on the histogram makes that more useful. Don't use it to verify focus, color, or sharpness.

Telecorder · September 4, 2007

Post Processing would also help...
Hope you don't mind but I did a minimal amount of post processing in Picasa2 -- Auto Contrast, Shadows/Sharpening tweaks and find this version gives a lot more image detail that your 300 missed. As Chris pointed out, a CPL would have helped with the haze but most all digital images benefit from some post processing... In looking at the PP version, a bit of desaturation would possibly have helped...

The Bigma is a great lens for its price point but does benefit from good technique, good light and some post processing. Did you try the same scene with the Bigma at 300mm to have a better IQ comparison?

As to cranking the ISO up, this would only allow for a higher shutter speed and possibly more noise. Its always better to use the lowest ISO unless you need the faster shutter speed for movement.

canon400d · September 4, 2007

davev wrote:

No problem Bob.
I hope everything went well and that your on the road to recovery.

Thanks ever so much for your kind words. I am doing fine taking it easy for a wee while.
Bob

canon400d · September 4, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

Hi again Bob,
I think it's best if these photos are in your original thread (since many of the people who posted there asked for them). I'm going to merge the two threads together.

I couldn't agree more. I should have known better. Thank you.
Bob

canon400d · September 4, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

Now that we have some images to compare.

First of all you stated in the original post there was no difference? There's quite a difference & it's obvious which shot is 300mm and which 500mm.

Now, for the Bigma image, I'm seeing a lot of haze. That is probably why the image looks soft was well. This is where a UV or CPL filter would come in handy--I'm not entirely certain of which is more appropriate in this case.

As for reviewing on the camera LCD, you now see the pitfalls of that. The LCD is not an accurate indicator of what the final image is going to be. Use it for basic composition checking and a very rough metering check--turning on the histogram makes that more useful. Don't use it to verify focus, color, or sharpness.

Hi Chris,
I have UV filters on all my lenses and I never take them off for lens protection etc. Am I doing the right thing. One day I just couldn't get a shot right and then when I removed the lens it was much lighter.
Thanks ever so much for the advice on the LCD screen. I will have to work on the Histogram as I don't know how it works. If you can tell me in laymans terms I would appreciate it so much.
Thanks again.
Bob

canon400d · September 4, 2007

Telecorder wrote:

Hope you don't mind but I did a minimal amount of post processing in Picasa2 -- Auto Contrast, Shadows/Sharpening tweaks and find this version gives a lot more image detail that your 300 missed. As Chris pointed out, a CPL would have helped with the haze but most all digital images benefit from some post processing... In looking at the PP version, a bit of desaturation would possibly have helped...

The Bigma is a great lens for its price point but does benefit from good technique, good light and some post processing. Did you try the same scene with the Bigma at 300mm to have a better IQ comparison?

As to cranking the ISO up, this would only allow for a higher shutter speed and possibly more noise. Its always better to use the lowest ISO unless you need the faster shutter speed for movement.

Hi Dave,
Wow you have certainly sharpened that photo up. Well done. I will try the shot again at 300mm. Can you please remind me what CPL is again? Must be my age, sorry. The reason I cranked up my ISO was to give the photo more light. It was a sunny day and when I took the picture on 100 it was too dark when I checked it on my computer so I thought I would crank it up to make it lighter. Did I do wrong by doing this? By the way Dave I have UV filters fitted to all my lenses and I never take them off for protection purposes as well as strong sunlight. Am I doing right?
Mmmmmmm, hopefully I will get there. I am getting more confident with the kind help and sound advice of all you good people. Thank you all.
Cheers
Bob

Sigma 50-500mm Bigma (v. 70-300)

Comments