A&P Opinions Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 (Bigma)

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by 3-THREE-7, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. 3-THREE-7

    3-THREE-7 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,781
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    I know that a general rule is that lenses with a long focal range are shit. However, this lense seems to have great reviews.

    I'll be doing outdoor sport photography, usually of full sunny days. Anyone have any seat time with one of these?

    BTW, I'm no pro, but but have a good chance to sell the photos. Photo quality isn't too big of an issue, it's the subject that is going to sell the photo.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Spurious

    Spurious New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas Bans: 5
    The only problem is how ridiculously slow it is at 500mm, which is what you expect for a $800 lens at 500mm, but it means it's pretty much an outdoor lens or some sort of elaborate strobe setup indoors.
     
  3. Jhegro

    Jhegro wtf is a jhegro?

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    i'd probably rent it first. make sure the focusing speed is decent cause for sports u'd want something fast and accurate.
     
  4. SuperCzar

    SuperCzar Mac Crew, DSLR Crew

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SLO, CA, USA
    For 900 you can get a lightly used 70-200 F/2.8

    Do you need the 500mm? Do you need IS if you are shooting at 500mm at F/6.3?
     
  5. spizarxxx

    spizarxxx DSLR, GSD, DJ CREW & OT's Resident On Air Personal

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    8,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    541/Oregon
  6. Devin

    Devin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    That lens is god the fuck awful .
     
  7. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I'd stay away.
     
  8. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
     
  9. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    100-400L >>>>>>>>>>> bigma
     
  10. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I made a similar post in the past.

    Around the time the 50-500 was released I used to hear a shitload about it on the internet. I've heard all ranges reported for the sharpness of this lens near the long end "it's great!"... "it sucks balls" and everything in between.

    Based on trends, I'd be willing to bet it loses a lot of sharpness as it approcahes the long end.

    Another big thing to consider is the extremely slow aperture near the long end. When you lose that much light your viewfinder becomes extremely dark and autofocus has a hard time.

    I would not attempt to use the lens for anything other than outdoors on bright sunny days.

    Even if you could use it to shoot a basketball game with strobes, it's doubtful the AF sensor in the camera would have enough light to work with.
     
  11. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    Great for shooting the sun...if you have a tripod.
     
  12. Dismay

    Dismay Elitist Prick OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    48,632
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCalish
    Those of you saying the lens sucks, have you used it? I've seen some decent results.

    :dunno:

    This was with the 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX and no OS

    [​IMG]


    100% crop

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Dismay

    Dismay Elitist Prick OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    48,632
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCalish
    This was with the Sigma 120-400

    [​IMG]


    Not bad IMO. Especially for $900-1000
     
  14. Dismay

    Dismay Elitist Prick OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    48,632
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCalish
    shit, just realized this thread is old as fuck
     
  15. Girth

    Girth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    71,430
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Houston
    what does ken rockwell think about this lens?
     
  16. Dismay

    Dismay Elitist Prick OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    48,632
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCalish


    he hasn't reviewed any Sigma ultra-telephoto lenses :o
     
  17. Dismay

    Dismay Elitist Prick OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2000
    Messages:
    48,632
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCalish
    and Ken Rockwell doesn't seem to like Sigma :o
     

Share This Page