Bigma

-Cerberus-

Has anyone used the sigma 50-500mm (Bigma) on its own and in combination with teleconverters?
What's the verdict on this lens?

Calina

I use the 50-500 regularly, albeit without teleconverters mainly because Ireland is a tad too dark for the stop you lose with them.

The lens is great - I use it a lot - although it is relatively soft at the very long end. Some of my best photographs I took with it though, even at full stretch.

It's a heavy lens to lug around though - a monopod is absolutely mandatory. I think Borderfox uses one too.

corkandproud

I use the 80-400 and find it grat, use it for golf mainly.

Borderfox

I use it for equestrian sports and it pretty cool.
This is with a 1.4x Teleconverter @ 700mm this is not a crop but the full shot and manual focus too. You need a big strong tripod too. Works great though.

georgey

Its a great lens, it is very heavey and big but thats all thats bad about it, the HSM motor is great the zoom is free moving and the range is super.
It is usable at all FL but as has been said its a tad soft at 500mm but nothing to give out about really
Here are some shots I took with it, dont remember if the swans are at 500mm but the robin is, hand held at
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/250
Av( Aperture Value )
6.3
ISO Speed
640
Philip

Eirebear

How is it in sporting terms? I', guessing for the Kite Surfing stuff it needs to be fairly quick?
Also whats a ball park figure on it?

Oriel

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, personally.
If you want a good photograph, in sports photography anyway, then I'm afraid there's no other way than to spend the money on a good lens.
There's a reason why a 500mm lens is so cheap, and I'm afraid that reason is quality.

Calina

Well that's just fine Oriel, some of us have to work within a budget however. I also add that all the money spent on lenses isn't going to provide a good photograph if you're not a good photographer in the first place whereas sometime spent on taking photographs on a learning curve will make you a good photographer even within the limits of your equipment.

OP, I find it more than okay for the kitesurfing - the autofocus is very quick although a shallow DOF can make for an interesting life. In practical terms, it's a battery eater. You will most likely need spare batteries if you take a large number of photographs at a time which is likely if you are shooting sports.

Most people I know who have gone to the trouble of getting one have been very positive about the lens. Quite a few people who've played with mine have expressed an interest in getting one. Like Borderfox I've done some moon photography with mine, albeit without the converter and have been more than pleased with the results.

The two comments that have come back in terms of reasons not to get the lens is a lack of IS and also, the fact that you can only lock the lens at something like 50 or 100mm.

I paid 1250 for mine if I remember rightly.

Eirebear

Fair enough oriel, unfortunately my predicament is this.
My work has dumped a whole pile of sports photography on me due to the fact that no-one else is willing to do it.
Thats fine because i enjoy it, yes i need a bit of practice, but im quite happy to do that also.

Now ive been using my Cannon EF 70- 300mm which to be honest has taken a bit of a beating over the last couple of years and is beggining to really struggle with its autofocus and it really doesnt like the dark/rainy light weve been getting recently.

Unfortunately due to the fact that this has been thrown on me before i expected it, i simply cannot afford something like the 300mm 2.8 that City exile raves about (granted his shots are quality) but i cant afford it right now.
So i'm looking for something, as a stopgap of sorts, but something that is quality enough that i can fall back on when needs be after i manage to buy the top quality lenses that i crave.
Callina seems to get some cracking shots with the 50-500mm at the kite surfing judging by his/her flickr where some of the shots are pretty fantastic.

So if you dont like the 50-500 what do you suggest as a stopgap?

leakd

Maybe you could get a Canon 200mm f/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, the only problem then is that the lens doesn't have an IS. A 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS might also be just about in your budget (although I don't know what your budget is ). If it isn't, a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a bit cheaper, but doesn't have an IS. Another good choice might be a Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS or a Sigma 100-300 f/4.

Morlar

Eirebear wrote:

So i'm looking for something, as a stopgap of sorts,

Berminghams currently have this in their pre-owned canon-fit lens section:


Vivitar 500mm f8, mirror lens FD, including filters
Price: €49.00

http://www.berminghamcameras.ie/store/index.php?target=products&product_id=2418


Though its a legendarily bad lens according to what I have read

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/vivitar/PRD_142399_3111crx.aspx

- it might be worth checking out at that price as an interim measure.

Valentia

How often would you need the wider end (50-100)?

I didn't realise that it was that expensive (€1,200). I see Kea have the Canon 100-400 for €1,120. I have this lens but haven't given it a thorough going over yet. What I can say is the it is really sharp and has IS. Well worth considering.

As Calina says you have to work within your budget but the Canon would be better both build and image quality wise.

To be brutally honest, anything I have seen from the Sigma has a touch of softness. It really couldn't be any other way with a lens that has to deal with that range.

Borderfox

Maybe have a look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, no IS but a class lens or as Valentia suggested the 100-400 L. Oriel, you might not touch it with a bargepole but a lot of editors I sell pictures to have no such qualms (PQ International - The Irish Field - Irelands Equestrian - Polo Times) Everything has a niche where it can perform well. What sport is it Eirebear?

Valentia

Just checked the Kea price for the Sigma, it's €690. A big difference from the €1250 you paid Calina . That's a significant difference from the 100-400.

GristlyEnd

Sigma also do a 100-300 f/4 which is highly rated. Should be a good price on eBay.

Borderfox

And I believe the 100-300 takes a tc very well

Paulw

You could always consider the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L and then add a 2x extender. This works brilliantly. I also have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L and it's a great lens but slightly expensive.

I've used both for showjumping shoots.

Eirebear

Cheers everyone, youve been a lot of help (sorry i feel i may have hijacked your thread a little OP)
Borderfox, its Mainly soccer and GAA with a little bit of track and field stuff.

Anyway im off to look at how much money i can spend and then read up on all the lenses and convertor combinations!
thanks everyone.

ladgie353

I have the sigma 100-300 F/4 and I really like it.
It kept up with the Superbikes in mondello without problems.
The only time I felt it struggling was at a road race, but then it could have more to do with the 10d than the lens.
It is very sharp and tough as well.

il gatto

Sigma also do a 170-500 for a good bit less than the 50-500, although I don't know what it's like. The 80-400 with OS (IS) is about €100 more than the Bigma on ebay. Apperently it's very good.
Was considering the Canon 100-400mm IS myself, but can't justify the cost at the moment.

-Cerberus-

Thanks for the replies, the IS on the sigma 80-400 is a nice feature! I tried the Sigmonster (300-800mm) when I was stateside and thought it was great but it is way out of the budget and you would need to mount it on a half-track to be able to bring it around with you.

Paulw

That Sigmonster looks like some mad lens. Expensive but could be fun for sports and wildlife. Now, if it only came in white.

mervifwdc

Also take a look at the Canon 300 f4. Very fast autofocus, one of the sharpest lenses they make.

Merv.