Bigma vs Skywatcher 80ED Pro (1 Viewer)

I am interested on buy a Skywatcher 80ED Pro but I am a little bit confused!!
It's possible somebody post some pictures from the same target taken with an SLR (Canon) attached to a Sigma 50-500mm and a Skywatcher 80ED Pro and at the same distance?

Thanks for your help.

Your choice is really not one of image quality but ergonomics and ease of use. Many advantages to an autofocus lens if 500mm is all you need. But if you need longer focal lengths for image scale, then a telescope will get you there cheaper than the camera lens. BUT it is big and long so needs a good mount and tripod and manual focus is VERY difficult, especially through the typical dslr viewfinder.

cheers,
Rick

RJM said:

Your choice is really not one of image quality but ergonomics and ease of use. Many advantages to an autofocus lens if 500mm is all you need. But if you need longer focal lengths for image scale, then a telescope will get you there cheaper than the camera lens. BUT it is big and long so needs a good mount and tripod and manual focus is VERY difficult, especially through the typical dslr viewfinder.

cheers,
Rick

Click to expand...

Very true Rick. I can add that the astro scope will probably be sharper than the zoom lens and that it will provide better results with a 2X device added, barlow or TC, than the Bigma. Also, it is about 1/3 the price...

However, the scope is entirely manual and much bigger. But it can double as a spotting and astro scope.

Hi,

Thanks for your replies.

RJM said:

But if you need longer focal lengths for image scale, then a telescope will get you there cheaper than the camera lens. BUT it is big and long so needs a good mount and tripod and manual focus is VERY difficult, especially through the typical dslr viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Yes, I need longer focal lengths. More distance with less money...
I have a Manfrotto 055x Pro tripod and a 804RC2 head.
What do you mean with "especially through the typical dslr viewfinder"?
Do you know another way to focus with a DSLR?
I have a 400D and a 40D from Canon.

JGobeil said:

I can add that the astro scope will probably be sharper than the zoom lens and that it will provide better results with a 2X device added, barlow or TC, than the Bigma. Also, it is about 1/3 the price...

However, the scope is entirely manual and much bigger. But it can double as a spotting and astro scope.

Click to expand...

I have a KENKO 1.4x TELEPLUS PRO 300 DG.
It is the TC + Scope + DSLR sufficient to get better pictures than the Bigma?

Most viewfinders in cropped dslrs are rather dim compared to the viewfinders in their full frame cousins aka D3, D3x, D700, 5D, 5DII, AS900.

As for the price performance equation I see it as a toss up between something like the new Sigma 150-500 OS HSM (~$800) that can be be used handheld in many situations and the typical 80mm ED telescope (~$400) + an adequate $300 tripod and head + adapters and TCs. Sure you get a little more focal length but with some important tradeoffs. Not having to lug a tripod can let you get closer to some wildlife for more candid shots too. And AF capability for action is a no-brainer.

I have been a big proponent of digiscoping value, using both telescopes and fieldscopes. Still am too. But I am not married to anything. Technology changes, and the 3rd party lens makers are starting to offer some compelling products at prices that are making me reconsider. I am coming to the conclusion to get the kind of action shots I really want, I really need fast AF capability.

Rick

Interesting discussion gentlemen.

The way I see it, and I could very well be wrong, is this:

A zoom like the 100-500 Bigma or the new 150-500 or the Canon 100-400 will give you at the most 500 x 1.4 = 700mm. IMO, the zooms are not sharp enough to allow 2X TCs.

On the other hand, a 600mm ED astro doublet will take a 2X barlow or a good 2X TC and still provide quite good results, as good if not better than the 500mm zoom with a 1.4X TC. 600 x 2 = 1200mm. In fact it is quite a bit more if you account for the spacers.

This is about twice as much in terms of magnification or reach. Quite significant.

I have a Canon 100-400mm and an Astro-Tech 560mm and there is no comparison in terms of reach - I'll take the scope any time if I need reach. However, the scope is a big bugger, heavy, slow and entirely manual. But when I don't need the reach, I use the Canon Zoom all the time. So much easier and faster !

Well... this what happens when you don't have the budget for a 600mm lens... And anyway, when birding for water birds, I need a spotting scope !

By the way Skimmer, a 1.4X Kenko TC is fine. Will it take better pictures ? I don't know - it depends how well you'll be able to handle your setup. You'll have to be patient because there is a learning curve - at least it was the case for me.

I disagree that manually focusing a telescope through a viewfinder is VERY hard. In fact I find it INCREDIBLY easy. I took around 200 photos on a trip out yesterday with the Skywatcher and maybe 10 at the most were not in focus and there were a lot of flying shots in there too and some of them required split second focusing. Boils down to the individual and how easily they give up in the beginning learning phase. Only takes a little bit of practice to start getting good results and after a a fair bit of practice you sort of focus on instinct rather than knowing if it's really in focus or not. Your tripod will be perfect for the scope. My dad has the exact same tripod and head and it's rock solid with the scope on. The way I see it is that it just comes down to whether you will be ok to manually focus. I'd say the bigma is good enough within the range that it can be used, wouldn't get the massive reach of a scope though.

I doubt you are going to find someone with the bigma and the scope to do a comparison. Here's 3 long range shots I took yesterday with the Skywatcher at 1300mm (2080mm with crop factor). My local lake is near the airport so it's good for planes as well as birds.

Email Fernando Batista at http://fernandobatista.smugmug.com/ He lives in Portugal and uses the Skywatcher and could give you some good advice.

Paul.

JGobeil said:

A zoom like the 100-500 Bigma or the new 150-500 or the Canon 100-400 will give you at the most 500 x 1.4 = 700mm. IMO, the zooms are not sharp enough to allow 2X TCs.

On the other hand, a 600mm ED astro doublet will take a 2X barlow or a good 2X TC and still provide quite good results, as good if not better than the 500mm zoom with a 1.4X TC. 600 x 2 = 1200mm. In fact it is quite a bit more if you account for the spacers.

This is about twice as much in terms of magnification or reach. Quite significant.

.

Click to expand...

Worth considering an Olympus or other Four Thirds DSLR with their 2x "crop factor"? Oly + Bigma = 1000mm ..... dare to add a 1.4x TC and get 1400mm?

still not digiscoping range, but edging nearer ........those comparison shots would be nice!

A 4/3 lens would imply changing the camera on top of buying a new lens... Quite expensive !

Yes sorry Jules, of course. I was broadening the discussion rather than answering the original question. An interesting debate, but I'm sure it has probably aired elsewhere also.


OB

Old Blue said:

Yes sorry Jules, of course. I was broadening the discussion rather than answering the original question. An interesting debate, but I'm sure it has probably aired elsewhere also.

OB

Click to expand...

No harm done ! IMO, cameras like the G1 without a mirror for the viewfinder are the way of the future, at least for the next few years, but they are not there yet. They are still quite noisy at high ISO and the choice of lenses in 4/3 format is quite limited.

Im from Portugal too. So skimmer did you buy the scope?