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]

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:thumb
Then again the Bigma performs best on a tripod.

[Andy]

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 (http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/) try the birds and the surfers galleries.. steve loves his buhigma :lol3

[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 :thumb 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 :rolleyes 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 :thumb


Steve

[rutt]

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

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/5973907-L.jpg

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

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/10385469-L.jpg

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

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/8151306-L.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/8150960-L.jpg

And works pretty well closer in:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/6960468-L.jpg

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.

http://gspep.smugmug.com/photos/11052034-M.jpg


and at 500 mm.

http://gspep.smugmug.com/photos/11052040-M.jpg

[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! :D

[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. :dunno:scratch:huh

[DoctorIt]

Stupid question time.....


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

[sash]

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 http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/clap.gif this needs to stop, lol... all your fault, steve http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif

[luckyrwe]

Get them both!

[sash]

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 http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/headscratch.gif

[Andy]

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 http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/headscratch.gif

sash :clap on the 20d purchase :D

[Steve Cavigliano]

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 http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/clap.gif this needs to stop, lol... all your fault, steve http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif
But, but :hide

LOL 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 :thumb


Steve

[sash]

thanks andy... and i'm lovin it :D

sorry steve, should have mentioned the "sigma" 70-200 :thumb 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]

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 :thumb


Steve

[sash]

Gubbs,
From what I have seen, TCs cause some image degradation. 2X's are usually the worst. 1.4x's not as bad.
Steveamong the better comparison's i've seen... take a look here (http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check.php). 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

[sash]

hehe, nevermind... there's a direct comparison between 70-200 + 2x tc and the 400 on their next page here (http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php#Bildqualität%20II):r olleyes

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.

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/15081415-L.jpg
Steve

[wxwax]

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. :dunno

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

[wxwax]

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.

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/15081415-S.jpg
Steve
Well, that's very impressive. And a nice exposure, too, Steve. :nod

[sash]

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

[gubbs]

Thanks for the advice,

Steve that's pretty impressive!

[Harryb]

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

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 :wxwax i didnt need to know that.:1drink

[DoctorIt]

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.
:D

[gus]

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

[DoctorIt]

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 :D

[gus]

Well come on lad, get on with it...its 90f outside & sunny as hell.

Show me your stuff !

[DoctorIt]

Well come on lad, get on with it...its 90f outside & sunny as hell.

Show me your stuff !you're not that far off - 40f and sunny here. but I had to pick up a washing machine from the repair shop, go to my building lot check on my contractor, do the shopping since MrsIt was sick, etc etc. I snuck in a quick 20 minutes at the campus pond with the ducks, but nothing too great. tomorrow though.

[gus]

The bigma with a 2x TC in line...man thats not to shabby at all. From my limited knowledge & what i read & see....this softness arises from people not using a tripod & having a slowish shutter. Maybe this lens would well suit the 20D with being able to shoot at higher ISO.

Have a butchers at this blokes 1000mm stuff...f/16 & quite sharp considering.
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/sigma_2x_tc




.

[gus]

you're not that far off - 40f and sunny here. but I had to pick up a washing machine from the repair shop, go to my building lot check on my contractor, do the shopping since MrsIt was sick, etc etc. I snuck in a quick 20 minutes at the campus pond with the ducks, but nothing too great. tomorrow though.
So what the go with the 120-300 f/2.8 mate? I thought you had your eye on it ?

Did you find through searching that it was a hard lens to get a good one with ? I cant count the number of times ive read that on the net.

Would be a good lens with a 1.4 TC

[DoctorIt]

So what the go with the 120-300 f/2.8 mate? I thought you had your eye on it ?

Did you find through searching that it was a hard lens to get a good one with ? I cant count the number of times ive read that on the net.

Would be a good lens with a 1.4 TCAnd now I think we've officially hijacked this thread... it's now "baby brother of bigma" :D

I would have loved the faster version of my lens, but just like you, I read a couple bad reviews. Not a singl one about the f/4. Also $$$ was a big factor. Most of my shots are outdoor anyway with this lens, so hopefully it won't be a big deal.

It is a good lens with the 1.4... :evil
(another reason I got the f/4, freed up money to get the tc at the same time)

[wxwax]

this softness arises from people not using a tripod & having a slowish shutter.

.
Maybe. I used a tripod and the quickest shutter I could. 2x on a 300 f4. Soft results, I was very disappointed. The only things I didn't use were a remote shutter release and mirror lockup.

[rutt]

Maybe. I used a tripod and the quickest shutter I could. 2x on a 300 f4. Soft results, I was very disappointed. The only things I didn't use were a remote shutter release and mirror lockup.
I tried alsmost the same experiment as Sid did and arrived at the same conclusion. I think it's better to use the 1.4 and crop. At least on my 100-400mm the 2x is a dog. Anyone want to buy it? (What a bad sales job!)

[wxwax]

I tried alsmost the same experiment as Sid did and arrived at the same conclusion. I think it's better to use the 1.4 and crop. At least on my 100-400mm the 2x is a dog. Anyone want to buy it? (What a bad sales job!)
:rofl :rofl

[luckyrwe]

I tried alsmost the same experiment as Sid did and arrived at the same conclusion. I think it's better to use the 1.4 and crop. At least on my 100-400mm the 2x is a dog. Anyone want to buy it? (What a bad sales job!)
Are you selling the 100-400, the 2x, or the dog? :D

[rutt]

Are you selling the 100-400, the 2x, or the dog? :D
Make me an offer.

[LiquidDye]

And now I think we've officially hijacked this thread... it's now "baby brother of bigma" :D

I would have loved the faster version of my lens, but just like you, I read a couple bad reviews. Not a singl one about the f/4. Also $$$ was a big factor. Most of my shots are outdoor anyway with this lens, so hopefully it won't be a big deal.

It is a good lens with the 1.4... :evil
(another reason I got the f/4, freed up money to get the tc at the same time)I have this lens and haven't seen anything but good reviews which is why I bought it, one chap even said they had this lens and then exchanged it for the prime Canon 300 F/2.8 and wished he hadn't.
Here's a couple of hand held indoor shots taken with only a single window light some 25 feet away from behind the subjects. The one with the cupboard door is 1/60th at 300mm and the video selection is 1/25th at 120mm both F2.8 and both handheld, and no flash. Bothj heavily cropped and resolution dropped to 72 dpi etc, not sure how to post a link that shows the full resolution image other than a link you have to click for a new window to my site.

[DoctorIt]

I have this lens and haven't seen anything but good reviews which is why I bought it, one chap even said they had this lens and then exchanged it for the prime Canon 300 F/2.8 and wished he hadn't.
Here's a couple of hand held indoor shots taken with only a single window light some 25 feet away from behind the subjects. The one with the cupboard door is 1/60th at 300mm and the video selection is 1/25th at 120mm both F2.8 and both handheld, and no flash. Bothj heavily cropped and resolution dropped to 72 dpi etc, not sure how to post a link that shows the full resolution image other than a link you have to click for a new window to my site.Your family lets you take that lens out in the house?!? I obviously tried out mine as soon as it came and I nearly killed two of my housemates swinging it around... and if I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is even bigger than my f/4, right?!!

:lol3

[LiquidDye]

Your family lets you take that lens out in the house?!? I obviously tried out mine as soon as it came and I nearly killed two of my housemates swinging it around... and if I'm not mistaken, the f/2.8 is even bigger than my f/4, right?!!

:lol3yer yours is 227mm and 1440g with a 82mm filter and the best UK price I can find is £549 plus £3.95 P&P for yours,
mine is 271mm and 2600g with a 105mm filter and the best UK price for mine is £1379 Plus £3.95 P&P so that is one hell of a lot of money just for one stop extra plus all the extra bulk. At the time I didn't know about the F/4.0,:huh

[DoctorIt]

At the time I didn't know about the F/4.0,:huhoops :doh