• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Sigma 50-500 too good to be true? (1 Viewer)

Mad_Sunday

Mad_Sunday

Well-known member
I was hoping that one day maybe I could get this lens and then all the inherent problems of long range/small subject/wrong focus/image quality would simply vanish and all my shots would be great. Having read through this review I don't think I want to risk £1000+. The depth of field wide open (I imagine it would always be wide open in order to get the fastest exposures) conclusions are a real worry.

Anyone care to comment or counter this opinion?

Pete

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/si-050-500.html
 
I think you should get an Olympus 70-300 and perhaps add an EC-14 teleconverter to it. That will give you enough reach and still be nice and sharp, and be cheaper than the Sigma lens (and much smaller too).

As far as depth of field, that's always going to be pretty shallow with a long lens.
 
Last edited:
I haven't used the 50-500 Bigma myself as it is much too heavy for my requirements (even the 70-300 + EC-14 makes its presence felt after a day out with it). If you look in the Gallery for 'Mali' you can find loads of shots taken by him with the Nikon version of the Bigma. He is a big fan of the lens and is on his second one now after dropping the original out of a first floor window. You can judge for yourself what the lens is like in a real world situation.

There still isn't the perfect four-thirds birding lens available, unless you are able to spend big bucks on the 300 prime. Sigma used to do a 135-400 in four-thirds mount which was lighter than the Bigma but they discontinued it, so secondhand is the only route there. In the meantime I am quite happy with the 70-300 + 1.4 converter when light allows.

Ron
 
Chrysophylax said:
What camera are you using with this lens please. Neil.
Click to expand...

I have an E510 that I use with various old manual focus lenses. The Sigma was my idea of a "cure all" but I can't now see that being the case.

I'm now thinking about another old manual focus lens (Leica, Nikkor or Zeiss etc) and the E510 short term and later changing to a Panasonic G1 (or other micro 4/3rds) at some time later.

Pete
 
Last edited:
I like the bigma but it is big and heavy and lots of time i don't feel like lugging it round when i'm just birding.
Chris
 
Mad_Sunday said:
I have an E510 that I use with various old manual focus lenses. The Sigma was my idea of a "cure all" but I can't now see that being the case.

I'm now thinking about another old manual focus lens (Leica, Nikkor or Zeiss etc) and the E510 short term and later changing to a Panasonic G1 (or other micro 4/3rds) at some time later.

Pete
Click to expand...

My set up for Insects and birding is a Canon 50D body with a Canon 300mm f/4Lis lens. I will carry a small bag which straps to my belt, in this I take 1.xTC, a 2xTC and my set of extension tubes with and spare battery. This way I have the best of both worlds. For insects I will use the 300mm with a combination of the extension tubes, then if I want to move on to bird photography I will put the 1.5x TC on which gives me a 450mm f/5.6 or a 600mm f/8 with 2xTC. I can walk around with this set up all day and the weight is no problem at all. My ideal set up would be to change the lens for an f/2.8 but I can't afford at the moment having just been made redundant. Neil.
 
Chrysophylax said:
My set up for Insects and birding is a Canon 50D body with a Canon 300mm f/4Lis lens. I will carry a small bag which straps to my belt, in this I take 1.xTC, a 2xTC and my set of extension tubes with and spare battery. This way I have the best of both worlds. For insects I will use the 300mm with a combination of the extension tubes, then if I want to move on to bird photography I will put the 1.5x TC on which gives me a 450mm f/5.6 or a 600mm f/8 with 2xTC. I can walk around with this set up all day and the weight is no problem at all. My ideal set up would be to change the lens for an f/2.8 but I can't afford at the moment having just been made redundant. Neil.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this lens cannot be used on an Olympus body, hence the discussion on the Bigma.
 
The Bigma should be viewed as good value for the money. Long, fast lenses that perform well wide open are extremely expensive to build and so to buy. A lot of those old MF aren't particularly sharp either. Shallow DOF is just something you have to learn to work with when using very long lenses.
 
Mad_Sunday said:
I'm now thinking about another old manual focus lens (Leica, Nikkor or Zeiss etc) and the E510 short term and later changing to a Panasonic G1 (or other micro 4/3rds) at some time later.
Click to expand...
I'm just wondering what it is you find objectionable to the Oly 70-300, since you seem to completely dismiss it, when to many Oly users it is the lens of choice for just this type of photography.

As far as the description of the Canon 300mm lens, although this is a prime and not a zoom, what he says about it and its usage also applies to the Oly 70-300 mounted on an E-510, with the added advantage that the 70-300 is already fairly macro-capable without an extension tube.

Finally, I'm not sure what you think micro four-thirds will get you over the E-510, except less size and weight. I don't think most m4/3s enthusiasts are looking at these cameras as wildlife/long-lens cameras anyway. What's the point of putting a heavy telephoto lens on a small camera body? I mean, it's the lenses that are the heavy part anyway.
 
There is a lot of discussion about the merits of this lens versus the Oly 50-200. From what I've seen, most seem to prefer the Oly. Both are pretty expensive. Buying one of these lenses plus an Oly EC-20 converter will set you back many dollars, more than the cost of a Sigma 50-500, and MUCH more than the cost of a 70-300 plus EC-14, for about the same magnification. The 50-200 plus EC-20 may be somewhat sharper than the Sigma 50-500 and the 70-300 plus EC-14. But you pay for that.
 
RAH said:
I'm just wondering what it is you find objectionable to the Oly 70-300, since you seem to completely dismiss it, when to many Oly users it is the lens of choice for just this type of photography.

snip

Finally, I'm not sure what you think micro four-thirds will get you over the E-510, except less size and weight. I don't think most m4/3s enthusiasts are looking at these cameras as wildlife/long-lens cameras anyway. What's the point of putting a heavy telephoto lens on a small camera body? I mean, it's the lenses that are the heavy part anyway.
Click to expand...

The 70-300 is not long enough without at least a 1.4x TC. That means £300ish for a lens then £250ish for a TC. The Sigma seems a bit less "complex" and with a much wider zoom range. The 70-300 + TC gives 900mm EFL but I already have 1100mm EFL and that sometimes ain't enough. I'm now considering a 500mm F5.6 prime that looks interesting.

The 4/3rds system will take more of the old "legacy" lenses than most other camera types, the micro 4/3rds will take even more. The Panasonic also seems to be an excellent digiscoping camera with it's internally focusing kit zoom.

Pete
 
If you need more than 900 mm equivalent, I assume you cannot handhold that. At the same time, you are far enough away that the quality is likely to be determined even more by air movements influencing the image than by the quality of the lens. Are you simply not getting close enough?

Niels
 
I agree that you would need the EC-14 with the 70-300 for adequate reach. That gives you 840mm equivalent.

I don't mean to disparage the Bigma. From what I have read, it is a nice lens. Also from what I've read and results I've seen, its sharpness seems to be about the same as the 70-300 plus EC-14. The Bigma does get you out to 1000mm, at f6.3, which is better, of course.

It's just that it costs about twice as much as the 70-300 plus EC-14, and it is much heavier and larger. As Niels says, forget handholding any lens like this. So, my thinking is that you might be disappointed in the results you get and you will have spent a lot of money.

As others have mentioned, legacy lenses are not a sure thing, as far as sharpness. I forget if I mentioned it on this Forum, but I bought a legacy Vivitar 120-600mm lens on Fourthirds forum for only $230. It is just as sharp as the 70-300 + EC-14. The guy I bought it from claimed that it was a "good" version (i.e. there is variability between samples of many lenses), and based on the sample shots he showed (and others I've taken since then), he was right. It comes in an exact-fit (i.e. made for that lens) leather case, if you can believe it. It weighs about 5 lbs.

And of course it gets me out to 1200mm! So you might try to find a lens like that on Ebay or keep your eyes open on fourthirds forum. Or I could sell you mine for $800 ;) . It sounds like just what you are looking for.
 
Last edited:
I had a Sigma 50 to 500 that I used with a 510, I found that I simply could not get any good photos from it and sold it at a loss on Ebay .... the buyer assures me that he gets excellent photos from it!

SW
 
njlarsen said:
Are you simply not getting close enough?

Niels
Click to expand...

That's the main problem I suppose. I like to shoot from hides, resting the lens on the viewing slots. I want to fill the frame, so small targets at long range are a challenge. Maybe I can try a camo net? ;)

My wife is going (hopefully) get me the 500mm f5.6 as a birthday pressy so I'll see how that goes. That will give me 1000mm at 5.6 or 1850mm at about f7 with my tele converter. If that don't work........... plan B ;)

Pete
 
Last edited:
Mad_Sunday said:
That's the main problem I suppose. I like to shoot from hides, resting the lens on the viewing slots. I want to fill the frame, so small targets at long range are a challenge. Maybe I can try a camo net? ;)
Click to expand...

You're probably not going to get frame-filling photos from a bird-watching hide regardless of how long a lens you've got. Get out and learn to get closer.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

G
Valentines Day & Presidents Weekend Sale
Replies
1
Views
572
gr8fuldoug
G
chill6x6
Birding after surgery...
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
hopster
hopster
P
Vortex Razor HD 13-39 x 56 - first impressions
Replies
8
Views
4K
Steve Babbs
Steve Babbs
Samolot
Maven B5 15x56 - Some Thoughts
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Tringa45
T
G
Valentine's Day Sale that You'll Love
Replies
3
Views
918
dries1
dries1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top