- This topic is empty.
Bigma or new 150-500mm?
-
As an enthusiastic beginner I was hoping for some advice on a long lens: I’ve been offered a 50-500mm sigma in mint condition for 650 euro. However, I reckon this would require a tripod (which I don’t yet have) and had my mind made up (obviously now only almost made up!) to bite the bullet and buy the new 150-500mm with image stabilization from Sigma (899 euro). I’ve got the range up to 200mm pretty much covered with an existing nikon lens and the reason for the long lens is primarily for wildlife especially birds. What would you do? Regards to all.
I don’t use a tripod for my Bigma. If you’re shutter speed is over 1.5 times the length of the lens (eg, 1/750 sec for 500mm) then you should get sharp images. Assuming the lens has VR (you’ve a Nikon, right?) this should help. What I find myself doing is proping my elbow against something for stability too.
I’ve got the range up to 200mm pretty much covered with an existing nikon lens
That’s a non-argument. Even though you have it covered doesn’t mean you’ll have the time to whip the 150-500 off and put on your “cover” lens in time to get that shot that will never happen again. The Bigma is sharp across the range and you’ll only kick yourself for that 50-150mm loss. Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with the range of 150mm to 500mm but given the choice I’d always go with the 50-500mm.
Alan.
buy the 150-500- better newer and you’re right about having the length covered-otherwise we’d all be using 18-500mm f2.8 lens. also you can buy the lens on ebay for just over 650 euro new(the150-500)
Don’t be fooled by the assumption that newer is necessarily better, Stephen.
I have the range of 80-200 covered 4 times with my lenses – different lenses for different subjects or target areas. Now if someone like wrongfoot is looking for a lens for wildlife the wider the range you have the better as far as I’m concerned as wildlife has a habit of being unpredictable. I’ve used an 80-200mm f2.8 for wildlife on occasions and was lost even for that 50-80mm range at times. If you’re going to carry a similarly weighted and sized lens there’s no reason why you wouldn’t go for the extra 50-150mm.
The original 170-500mm Sigma wasn’t rated too well. When I was in the market or such a lens I was advised by Joe_Elway (Aidan) to go for the Bigma. I don’t regret it as this came from a very experienced wildlife photographer who had the 170-500mm but got rid of it.
But, the decision is with the originator…
dont take me the wrong way alan, the bigma you own isnt a terrible lens in case you think i’m implying that. far from it it rates quite respectably in a lot of reviews and if you manage to avoid that wonderfull ‘sigmaness’ of woefull focus problems then i agree that if you could only take 1 lens the bigmas not a bad choice. it just reminds me of canons 35-350L it tries to be everything but it isnt, and no lens can ever be, this is why canon/nikon dont just make 1 lens -say a 17-500L 2.8 is, cause as you know in reality we all need a series of lens for different siuations. as regards the short end of the bigma over the 150-500 i can’t think of too many situations where if shooting wildlife that you’d need a 50mm f5.6, but using every lens we could always do with longer/shorter/faster/slower. i will wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on the 170-500 though – really terrible lens for anything
I don’t photograph wildlife, but for photographing my childrens’ football and hurley teams playing I use an EF 80-200mm L f2.8. Sometimes I need to step back from the side of the pitch because the 80 is too long! So, along the lines of what Alan was saying, sometimes the extra 30mm can be of benefit.
Now, if Canon had made fast 30-200mm lenses 15 years ago, I’d be using one of them.
dont take me the wrong way alan,
Hell no, I know what you’re saying. I think if someone asks an either/or question it’s good to get both sides of the viewpoint out. If we all went in one direction the decision made by wrongfoot (real name??) could be a wrong one for them. I go by experience of the Bigma but none of the 150-500mm. As much debate on these occasions as possible is benificial not only to the originator bot to anyone else pondering such a move.
Alan
agreed, the debate can only lead to good things. Actually though, if asked i’d say buy neither and get the tamron 200-500. i’ve been using one for years and i’m still impressed every time i use it.
scas wrote:
agreed, the debate can only lead to good things. Actually though, if asked i’d say buy neither and get the tamron 200-500. i’ve been using one for years and i’m still impressed every time i use it.
Thanks Alan, Stevan and Brian. I too agree debate is a good thing and its especially good on this photography Ireland website. Although I haven’t posted for a long, long time I enjoy learning from all those who regularly contribute to the questions forums and especially the Wildlife, landscape and Urbanscapes forums. With regard to the lens I’ve decided to bite the bullet and have bought the new Sigma 150-500mm. For a novice like me, it takes a bit of getting used to but I spent Sunday out in the fields and aside from trying to get a handle on the optical stabilization function I believe I’ll get the hang of it eventually – and in many ways its a great, albeit expensive, excuse for getting out and about although the whole photography thing is now in competition with my other solitary pursuit: my saltwater flyfishing ambitions!! (For those in the know, you know the dilemma: an 7lb to 12lb bass on the fly or a shorteared owl up close and personal??
Thanks again to all who’ve helped me make a decision. regards Kieran (Wrongfont)
Great choice Kieran – I said it all along. :wink:
Hope you come back with some stunners and do please come back with a review of how you find the lens. Others may be interested.
Fly fishing for bass…how odd! :shock:
irishwonkafan wrote:
Hope you come back with some stunners and do please come back with a review of how you find the lens. Others may be interested.
Fly fishing for bass…how odd! :shock:
Me too, Alan, although I suspect it’s goin’ to take a good while: still trying to get to grips with just a few small things like:
exposure, composition, depth of field, etc. :wink:regards Kieran
any updates on that lens investment ? I’m about to buy one of them myself. Primarily for Surf photography. I’ve already got the 70-200mmf/2.8 Sigma which I use for rugby matches, and I’ve a second older DSLR with a more wide ranging lens 18-250mm. That is now my wwalk around camera, and backup for when stuff gets too close to me when I’m using the bigger lens on the other camera.
My choice would be sigma 150-500. Same optical quality plus OS. However, I’m going to buy sigma 100-300/4, and to use it with TC x1.5 (I have one), if necessary. It is excellent piece of glass.
Piotr M wrote:
My choice would be sigma 150-500. Same optical quality plus OS. However, I’m going to buy sigma 100-300/4, and to use it with TC x1.5 (I have one), if necessary. It is excellent piece of glass.
I’ve used the 100-300/4 a few times, my father has it. It’s grand in daylight, I just wasn’t comfortable using it for nighttime matches. I perfer to have the f2.8 70-200mm under the floodlights. given the majority of Munster games are nighttime it doesn’t make sense for me to invest in anything not f2.8, and anything other than the lens I’ve already got is way too pricey.
The 150-500mm investment is primarily for surf photography, which will of course be daylight photography. I may use it for the odd rugby match, but most likely when I know I’ll a distance from the pitch.
This sigma needs to be used during very sunny days. It is f/6.3 from 370mm or less (at 500mm best when stopped down to f/11). There is a link to review of this sigma. It is in Polish although you don’t need to speak Polish to understand graphs. First one shows sharpness in the center of image, and second one on the border. Acceptable/good level is 30 lines per mm.
Conclusion – you can either buy a good 300mm and use with TC or buy s150-500. In both cases you would print only small photos. If I were you I would buy TC and use your fathers sigma 100-300/4 with it on monopod and start saving money for good lens. Next cheapest acceptable lens is canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS. For nikon you won’t get such a good lens for twice the money. Lucky canon users… (I have a nikon camera)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
