Sigma 120-400 or 50-500 OS? (1 Viewer)

G'day mates!!

Just to symply ask you which one is the best to use with a 7D for birding?

In my opinion the 120-400 should be better because it opens at f/4.5-5.6.
This point should make the AF more accurate and a better work in low light situation.
Then of course, the 120-400 is lighter than the Bigma.

But the Bigma, despite a smaller aperture/less OS/more weight and price, as something more : it's 500mm reach...

As Im new into bird Photography, I dont know which one to choose, dont know if 400mm will be enough...

I will use everything mainly on a tripod, hiding under a ghillie poncho.

Could you give me your opinion and some advices please?

Thx!!

Andy

I use the current Bigma, and it's my go-to birding lens. I'm a Nikon user, so your experience with AF performance may be different from mine, but the Bigma has excellent autofocus performance, and has very good image quality at 500mm when stopped down to f/8. The Bigma is also reported to be sharper than both the 120-400 and 150-500 at the long end. I haven't had the chance to compare it to those lenses, but I did find it to be roughly as sharp at 500mm f/8 as a 300mm f/4 at 420mm f/8 (with a 1.4x TC attached).

Functionally, I haven't noticed any AF difference between lenses with a max aperture of f/5.6 and those with a max aperture of f/6.3. It's only a 1/3 stop difference in light, and you will probably want to stop down to f/8 on either lens for optimal sharpness, so the slight aperture advantage has negligible practical effect.

Here's the most direct comparison of the two lenses:
Sigma 50-500mm OS
Sigma 120-400mm OS

Also, since you're a Canon user, you might also consider the Canon 100-400mm IS, which in most tests is sharper than both Sigmas.

Regardless of your choice, I doubt you'll go wrong with the lenses you're considering!

Thank you very much Flanken!!

Indeed, the Bigma wins everywhere vs the 120-400.

The Canon isnt an option for me coz of its price and pump thing.

Glad that helped! One thing to note is that the Bigma reviewed there (which is the one that I own) is the new OS version, not the older non-OS version. The new one does cost significantly more (~50% more in the US) than the 120-400, and is virtually impossible to find used unlike the 120-400. The old Bigma can be found used for the same price or less than the 120-400

I've tried out an old Bigma, and optically it's also a good lens, although perhaps not quite as sharp as the new one. If you're planning to shoot mostly on a tripod, you won't miss the lack of OS.

Here's a test that compares the 120-400 directly with the old Bigma, the 150-500, and the 100-400: http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

Hi,

Thx for the link to Juza; I already know it and read the forum often; But Im sure it would be interesting for other to get a look on it.

On the following like, you will find the New Bigma Vs the Canon 100-400L :
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=54

The Canon clearly wins; however I have a doubt bout the OS as I know it takes 1sec before to finally work; but the Bigma is cheaper with more reach.
If someone wants a zoom with 500m reach...prices are just another world comparing to the Bigma OS.

Something interesting : Sigma called back some series of the Bigma OS, due to AF problem. From there, the new series are ok.

In my case, I wont purchase a old Bigma, I will go for the New One.
The Optical Stab is clearly something better and opticaly it has been changed as well.
Of course its more expensive, but again its still much more cheaper than the other zoom.

Another usefull Link bout this lens :
http://www.tobiashjorth.com/sigma-50-500mm-f4-5-6-3-apo-dg-os-hsm-review/

I think between you and I we've probably covered most of the long-lens review sites available! I like Tobias Hjorth's reviews, and think he gives some of the better real-world nature photography assessments available.

Sigma seems to have resolved the AF problems with the Bigma OS at this point. Mine has worked quite well, although at 500mm in questionable light it sometimes needs a little "encouragement" by rotating the focus ring if it has a long distance to travel to get to the right focal length (e.g., if the focus is set to 1.6m, but you're shooting at a bird 50m away). Once it gets within a few degrees of the right focal length, autofocus is very quick.

As far as sharpness goes, the Bigma is more than sharp enough for my uses, and resolves feather detail superbly at short to medium ranges. My optically sharpest lens is an ancient 400mm f/3.5 manual-focus prime, but it's far heavier, far less versatile, and far more difficult to use. So I think the Bigma will serve you well, and be a lens that you will always have a use for even if you later own one of the big telephoto primes.

Also, here's a gallery where most of the bird shots (except for the indoor flying kittiwake photos) were shot using the Bigma OS.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/sets/72157627605071887/

Many of these shots were done in dreary light at or near ISO3200, but the Bigma pulled through. Many of the other bird shots in my Flickr stream were also done with the Bigma, but there are also a number that were shot with other lenses (the 400 3.5, and the 300 f/4 that I used to own).

Just a point,if you plan to use the lens on a tripod most of the time then you don`t need OS.Plus sigma recommends that you turn off this feature when using a tripod.

I don't have both Sigmas, but I have the 150-500 OS. The price of this one is more close to the 120-400 than the Bigma OS. Before getting the 150-500, I have also done a bit of search in the web and found this one has got better comments over the 120-400. Not quite matches the Canon though, and according to many users, not even the Bigma. But I found it works fine.
The plus point is the 100mm longer, and the minus point is the slightly smaller aperture (6.3Vs5.6) and a little bit pricier than the 120-400.
Your call.

One last aspect that may or may not matter to you is whether the lens will fit into the camera bag you're using; many bags are designed to fit 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms (typically 195-210mm in length), either attached or detached from the body. The 120-400 (203.5mm) is about the same length as a 70-200, so it should fit into most camera bags. I've had no trouble putting the Bigma OS (219mm) into typical 70-200 bags (the Think Tank Urban Disguise 35 and the Vanguard Up-Rise 48), but the 150-500 (252mm) might be too long for some bags. That said, the Bigma is the widest lens of the bunch by a good bit, so it might not fit into tightly-spaced bags where the others would.