Sigma 120-300 f2.8 or Bigma 50-500 (1 Viewer)

AlexH · Dec 13, 2005

Hi

I am hoping for a bit of advice or opinions from users of the above lenses.

I have a D70 and am looking for a New lens for wildlife photography.

I can't decide to stretch myself and get the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and use it in conjunction with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter (very expensive option)

Or

buy the new DG Bigma and save £500

Part of me says go for the Bigma as it is the cheaper option and by all accounts takes some good pictures, though some say a little soft . I guess the advantages are a wider zoom range and the price.

The 120-300 f2.8 doesn't have the range at f2.8 but with a 2x teleconverter it is 600mm at f5.6. - both faster and a little extra range.

Is it really worth the extra money and a cross wife!

Any help appreciated

PS other options considered Tamron 200-500 and the Sigma 100-300 f4

Cheers

Alex

PWG · Dec 13, 2005

Hi Alex and welcome to the forum,

I have just last week bought a 120-300 canon mount and would recommend it to anyone. It's fast enough to use with a 2x and still keep AF, the controls are rotary and the objective doesn't move so you don't get problems with creep on the pump action zooms like the 50-500 and your filter would stay where you put it. Filter size is 105mm so you may have problems getting filters without a second or third mortgage.

For Canon users with the canon 2x it won't fit as the front of the converter will hit the rear glass (which doesn't move). There is a review of the 50-500 in the review section but I haven't used one myself to compare it.

My decision to buy was easier than yours as being single I only have the bank manager to worry about. Even the guy in the shop was surprised at the quality of the lens and the demo shots he took in the shop, but then most salesmen are

So far I have only taken a few trial shots and am waiting to get out there at the weekend, weather permitting.

AlexH · Dec 13, 2005

Thanks Paul - perhaps you could let me know how you get on with it at the weekend - I am very very tempted and besided its CHristmas!

postcardcv · Dec 13, 2005

The Sigma 50-500 is an excellent lens that delivers very good results across the zoom range. The 120-300 is supposed to be excellent (though I've not used it myself), and obiously with the 2x tc you get a 600mm auto focus lens, which is very appealling.

If you can comfortably afford the 120-300 with both tc's, and are happy to carry it all around with you I very much doubt you'd be disapointed with it. However if it would really be a stretch why not go for the 50-500 instead, you'll find a lot of very happy users on here - it really is a lens for all occassions.

PWG · Dec 28, 2005

Finaly I managed to get out and about with my new toy.

I've attached a few shots using the 120-300. These are all hand held and in the cold so there is probably some minor camera shake. They were all shot in RAW with a canon 20D. I have done nothing with them, with the exception of converting them using the canon Digital photo professional raw converter that came with the camera and then resized in PS. So what you see is the quality of the lens, camera etc. and my poor photography

The light was quite variable as most were taken later in the day and in between snow showers with lots of cloud. All that said I am quite pleased with the results so far.

Keith Reeder · Dec 29, 2005

They're very nice pictures, Paul.

They have the (to my eyes) characteristic Canon "smoothness" of image.

It's hard to say whether the same shots taken with a D70 would look the same (I'm speaking as a D70 use myself) because in my experience the D70 tends to produce slightly "grainy" images compared with the 20D.

This isn't a bad thing at all - I really like the image quality from my D70 - but I can often spot which pictures in the Gallery were from a D70 and which were from a 20D/300D/350D because of that "Canon smoothness".

I mention it just in case anyone thought that sticking a similar lens on a D70 would guarantee images that looked just the same as these... they might be just as good (that's mainly down to the photographer), but they won't necessarily be the same.

paul goode · Jan 4, 2006

Keith Reeder said:
They're very nice pictures, Paul.

They have the (to my eyes) characteristic Canon "smoothness" of image.

It's hard to say whether the same shots taken with a D70 would look the same (I'm speaking as a D70 use myself) because in my experience the D70 tends to produce slightly "grainy" images compared with the 20D.

This isn't a bad thing at all - I really like the image quality from my D70 - but I can often spot which pictures in the Gallery were from a D70 and which were from a 20D/300D/350D because of that "Canon smoothness".

I mention it just in case anyone thought that sticking a similar lens on a D70 would guarantee images that looked just the same as these... they might be just as good (that's mainly down to the photographer), but they won't necessarily be the same.

Hi Keith

I like your comments aout being able to recognise which cameras have been used. I was looking on DPReview last night and a thread on there reckoned you can always recognise a 20d because the picture will be soft! As a 20d owner I completely disagree with this.

For this thread I thought I would attach a couple of shots from a 20d & sigma 50-500 (earlier non DG version)

postcardcv · Jan 4, 2006

paul goode said:
For this thread I thought I would attach a couple of shots from a 20d & sigma 50-500 (earlier non DG version)

great shots Paul - I love the tree sparrow :clap:

baillieswells · Jan 4, 2006

AlexH said:
Hi

I am hoping for a bit of advice or opinions from users of the above lenses.

I have a D70 and am looking for a New lens for wildlife photography.

I can't decide to stretch myself and get the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and use it in conjunction with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter (very expensive option)

Or

buy the new DG Bigma and save £500

Part of me says go for the Bigma as it is the cheaper option and by all accounts takes some good pictures, though some say a little soft . I guess the advantages are a wider zoom range and the price.

The 120-300 f2.8 doesn't have the range at f2.8 but with a 2x teleconverter it is 600mm at f5.6. - both faster and a little extra range.

Is it really worth the extra money and a cross wife!

Any help appreciated

PS other options considered Tamron 200-500 and the Sigma 100-300 f4

Cheers

Alex

I am awaiting delivery of the Sigma 170-500mm DG lens. After a lot of thought I decided on this as opposed to the Tamron 200-500mm lens. I shall probably never know whether I am making the right choice. I chose the 170-500mm lens over the 50-500mm lens primarily on weight. The Bigma weighs approximately 500 gm more. If I want to take shots between 50 and 200mm, then I would prefer to use lighter lenses. Candid shots in that range would be difficult with a 'lump of concrete' on the front of the camera. Also a faster aperture is an advantage. I have the 50mm f1.8 prime lens (which hardly weighs anything. 425gm. Bigma 1840gm) left over from my film days and the 70-200mm f4 L lens which is hard to beat.

When I have got my 170-500mmDG lens and tested it, will report back to the forum.
According to Sigma's website the 170-500mm lens will not take either the x1.4 or x2 extender whereas the 50-500mm lens will.

(As a result of Sigma producing the DG version, presumambly the non DG will become obsolete and should fall in price. As the moment it can be difficult to determine which version a particular camera shop is advertising)

AlexH · Jan 9, 2006

Guys

Thank you for putting up some photos they all look very good - I will put up some shots this week with the 120-300 and my D70 as may be interesting for you all with D70s.

They are not great as they are all handheld in snow; I think I am going to have quite a learning curve with this lens.

Can't believe how bad the weekends have been since Christmas!

Will post some pic soon, when I have figured out how to upload them

Thanks
Alex

Keith Reeder · Jan 9, 2006

paul goode said:
Hi Keith

I like your comments aout being able to recognise which cameras have been used. I was looking on DPReview last night and a thread on there reckoned you can always recognise a 20d because the picture will be soft!

I do rather like the way Canon images can look - it can mean very aesthetically pleasing results (regardless of what you call it): but as I say, what I regard as the "Nikon look" does it for me too!

And I've also noticed recently that there's a lot of "cross-over" between the two..!

For example, if I didn't know this was a D70 user's site, I'd have taken it as Canon:

http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/raptors

Quality is quality I guess, whichever camera (and photographer!) it comes from.

AlexH · Jan 10, 2006

Here are my first attempts with the 120-300 f2.8 and my D70, it was very cold and snowing quite hard I felt very sorry for the Ducks!

The quality not fantastic as I had to use a high ISO and I was handholding, I should have used some exposure compensation to take account of the snow but I guess you learn to shoot anther day! I shot them in Raw and have used some basic RAW adjustments before converting them to JPEGs.

Keith I am not sure what the different looks between the Cannon & Nikon Cameras are, perhaps you can elaborate?

Thanks
Alex

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 or Bigma 50-500 (1 Viewer)

More options

AlexH

Member

PWG

Well-known member

AlexH

Member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

PWG

Well-known member

Attachments

Keith Reeder

Watch the birdie...

paul goode

Well-known member

Attachments

postcardcv

Super Moderator

baillieswells

Well-known member

AlexH

Member

Keith Reeder

Watch the birdie...

AlexH

Member

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread