Thinking about getting a Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 or Tamron 200-500m f/5-6.3 lens (M)

[joellyn23]

I have a Nikon D80 that I primarily use to take outdoor soccer photos of both of my kids. I have a 70-300mm Tamron lens that does a great job with my son's pictures as he's on a smaller field. However, I'd really like something that reaches farther for my daughter's games as she's on a bigger field already and moving up again next year.

It pains me to spend $1000 on a lens so initially I was planning to buy the new Panasonic Lumix FZ18 with a teleconverter. I only shoot in sports mode -- haven't quite taken the leap to manual settings.

My question -- do you have an opinion about theses lenses? Would you recommend one over the other? Would they do a good job outside with adequate lighting?

Also, how can I tell how to convert the distance to a regular 35mm camera? If I remember correctly, the Lumix is about 500mm (at 8MP) but about 650mm if I drop down to 5MP.

I played around with cropping this season and while it was OK, I'd really prefer to have the lens do more of the work for me.

Thanks, in advance,

 

[handicap18]

All the Nikon dSLR (except for the new D3) are a 1.5x crop. So a 50mm lens has the field of view of a 75mm lens. A 500mm will have the field of view of a 750mm.

IIRC, 0bli0 has the Sigma 50-500mm and uses it for his sports photography. It is certainly a lens I would put on my list for when my kids get older. For now my 70-300 works, but I can see the need for long reach in the future. Your only issue with these, night sports. f/5.6 is slow for night sports, but during the day should be fine.

 

[Groucho]

I've heard a lot of good things about the Sigma 50-500mm, aka the "Bigma", but I'm not familiar with the other lens. It's not super fast (but then again, if it was, it wouldn't be such a long-range zoom nor would it be as "cheap" as $1k!) but probably not much different than the 70-300mm you use now.

Of course, the longer the focal length, the more important it is to hold the lens very steady - you'll probably want to use a monopod with a 500mm lens no matter how steady your hands are.

 

[0bli0]

the 'Bigma' used top be my primary sports lens, until i got the Sigma 120-300 2.8. as Groucho states, it's not super fast (aperture-wise). you definitely can't use it at night.

its sweet spot is at about 400-425mm, but it's still nice all the way at 500. i would definitely recommend a monopod. it does focus reasonably quickly and i've always been happy with the sharpness.

for outdoor sports, it does work well. there are some examples posted in this thread.

also, here is an example from my african safari a few years ago - handheld (leaning out of a land rover) in early morning light

 

[LMarge]

[also, here is an example from my african safari a few years ago - handheld (leaning out of a land rover) in early morning light

[/QUOTE]


)0blio, I just have to ask, is there any place you haven't been?!

 

[0bli0]

thanks, Marge. there are lots of places i haven't been, but i am fortunate to have travelled to many wonderful destinations.

there are two places on my 'to do' list... Nepal and Antarctica. to make matters worse, my best mate (and photographer i am sharing an exhibition with in April) has been in Nepal for the last month. my other good friend (a photographer from the states) is going to Antarctica next month.

i hope to do both in the not-too-distant future.

 

[mabas9395]

I have been thinking about the Bigma also. What are the advantages of the Bigma over Canon's 100-400 plus a 1.4 teleconverter? I already own the teleconverter so we are looking at 1k for the Bigma and about $1,300 for the 100-400 but for that extra $300 you get an extra 60mm reach, L quality and IS but with the Bigma you get wider at the short end plus an extra $300 in your pocket. Anything else to consider?

Sorry to partially highjack this thread, but I think that Nikon has an 80-400 with VR that the OP might want to consider. That plus a teleconverter would be another way to get her past 500mm.

 

[0bli0]

i originally purhcased the 100-400 prior to getting the bigma. my biggest problem was the push/pull zoom. i found it just wasn't accurate enough (for me) when following the ball passed from the scrum-half to a player. the L glass is good, although nowhere as nice as many of the other L lenses. also, using the 100-400 with a 1.4x really slows down the AF. i found it more or less useless except in bright daylight with white jerseys.

going over 400 is going to mean either sacrifice of speed (light and/or AF) *or* sacrificing wallet. IS/VR unfortunately don't make up for light... but i agree the 80-400 is a good alternative for the OP. my oldest sister got one for her birding and she has been producing fantastic pictures.

 

[AndrewWG]

Ok so now I think I have to rent a bigma for my Florida trip in February. I'm trying to find a real nice lens for birding as I will be in the Everglades for a couple days. The 70-200 f2.8L IS is super nice for many things but it isn't exactly long enough for what I seem to need though. Even with the teleconverter, I don't get what I really want. Not sure if I would ever buy the bigma, but if my results are even half as nice as 0bli0's, I'll certainly consider it.

 

[dburg30]

I love my bigma, especially places like the oceanfront when I want to get that 'right there' look, but be safely away from the actual water

One thing to remember though, it is BIG and HEAVY. It took me a while to get used to the idea of putting a camera on a lens, as opposed to a lens on a camera

Not gonna be a real good lens for lower light events, but for outdoor long distance shooting, the BIGMA will sure reach out and touch someone..

 

[handicap18]

Ok so now I think I have to rent a bigma for my Florida trip in February. I'm trying to find a real nice lens for birding as I will be in the Everglades for a couple days. The 70-200 f2.8L IS is super nice for many things but it isn't exactly long enough for what I seem to need though. Even with the teleconverter, I don't get what I really want. Not sure if I would ever buy the bigma, but if my results are even half as nice as 0bli0's, I'll certainly consider it.

I plan on renting this lens next year for Sail Boston '09 (hey, ya gutta think ahead for an event like that). I figure I get to Castle Island early enough. Set up the tripod and get some nice shots of the tall ships entering Boston Harbor from way out. Yet even as the ships get closer it gets wide enough to get shots up close too. I'm also thinking about renting a 2nd body, but thats another topic for another thread sometime in the future.

Then I figure use it at a few Gatemen Games around that time too. Right now it can be rented for about $125 for 3 weeks at lensrentals.com ($150 for a month).

 

[dburg30]

Ok so now I think I have to rent a bigma for my Florida trip in February. I'm trying to find a real nice lens for birding as I will be in the Everglades for a couple days. The 70-200 f2.8L IS is super nice for many things but it isn't exactly long enough for what I seem to need though. Even with the teleconverter, I don't get what I really want. Not sure if I would ever buy the bigma, but if my results are even half as nice as 0bli0's, I'll certainly consider it.

I think you'll be pretty amazed with some of the shots you'l take with that lens The reach of the bigma is just wonderful.

 

[dburg30]

http://dburg30.smugmug.com/gallery/4173630 that's a couple of pictures that I just have close by. Nothing special, and they arent great by any stretch, one shows how the bigma can focus on something moving, the other shows what happens when the shooter is a little off target and it focuses on something else Some of the pictures I've gotten with it have made it worth every penny to me. Were any of them awesome pictures? Maybe 1 or 2, but that doesnt matter to me, what matters to me is that I like what it does.

The one that's in focus, I was a long way away. That's not a cropped picture or anything, and it's for sure not processed in anyway at all. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better 'long shot' picture then I'd ever taken before then.