[missbirdphotos] Re: Birding on Saturday
- From: "Dance, Gayla" <dancegf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:14:54 -0600
Robert, I enjoyed your lengthy review of the Bigma. I do have a question
though: How was your camera gear stolen? What a nightmare!
gayla
From: missbirdphotos-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:missbirdphotos-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Smith
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:41 AM
To: missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [missbirdphotos] Re: Birding on Saturday
Hello Larry -
I'm attaching an overview of my thoughts & experiences with the Bigma that I
wrote almost 2 years ago. If someone had not stolen all of my camera gear last
year, I'd own a Bigma now, but I ended putting all my "discretionary" money
with the insurance money to replace/upgrade what was stolen instead of adding
to my pile of gear.
I find autofocus with the Bigma to be a bit "slow" compared to my "fast" glass,
and especially slow when married to a teleconverter. I don't see the Bigma
plus a teleconverter working well for a quickly moving subject - not saying it
can't be done, but bird-in-flight shots would be tough with it when the
background isn't clear sky.
Anyway, here's what I wrote 2 years ago...
I had the chance to use a Bigma for a little over a week this past summer, and
I'd promised to share what I thought, so here it is...
INTRODUCTION
I thought I'd share my recent experience with the Sigma 50-500 (affectionately
known to many as the "Bigma"). I went on a week-long wildlife photography trip
to Minnesota with our friends Cathy & Gordon Illg. There was a LOT of on-line
imagery available from this location, and I was able to look at a lot of EXIF
data from those shots. Apertures used for shots that I liked ranged from f/6.3
to f/18, and lens lengths ranged from 85 to 500 mm. I certainly had this
covered with a combination of my existing lenses. However, not very many shots
needed the length of 400 or 500 mm. And changing lenses in a fast-paced
wildlife shooting environment has caused many missed shot opportunities in the
past.
After careful thought (and consideration given to the thought of flying WITHOUT
having to carry a big lens) (and consideration given to several friends'
recommendations who had shot with this lens in the past), I rented a Sigma
50-500 (without VR) from Lens Rentals dot com for two weeks.
Of course I was out of town when the lens arrived, so it sat at Fed Ex for 5
days while I itched to try it out. Once I got it, I looked it over carefully,
packed it in a bag, and took it with me while I went to work on a property in
northern North Carolina. As I was leaving the property that day, I got my first
chance to test the lens - a young woodchuck was standing on his hind legs
sniffing some purple asters right in front of my truck. I quickly took off my
short lens, dug the Bigma out of my bag and attempted to put it on my body. It
wouldn't go on!!!! Yikes!!! I've put a Bigma on that same body before when
we've had clients shooting in the bird blind, so I knew it should go. I looked
at the mount, yes it looked like a Nikon mount, but it wouldn't go on! What a
pain!
By this time, the young woodchuck was LONG gone! I continued to wrestle for a
moment, and decided to try it on my D70. It went on like a champ! I tried the
D3 again - no go. It took me a moment to figure out what was different, and it
was the Arca Swiss plate that I had put on the lens foot that was causing the
problem. It stuck back far enough that it wouldn't let the D3 turn to lock onto
the lens, but with the smaller D70, it was no problem. I dug out my Allen
wrenches, remounted the Arca Swiss plate a little further out, and no problem
from then on! I took a few shots of indigo buntings & mourning doves on power
lines, and saw that the lens was functioning like it should!
I then packed everything for the plane trip north. We carried a pair of 28-80
mm and 70-300 mm, an 80-200 mm, and the Bigma (50-500 mm) along with a 1.4x and
a 2x teleconverter for our "long" lenses on this trip (plus 37 pounds of
shorter lenses, tripods, & other gear in a checked bag). It sure was nice not
having to "push" the carry on baggage limits to carry a 400 mm and a 600 mm (I
carry one and my wife carries the other) when we boarded the plane. It was also
nice not having to carry the full-sized Wimberley gimbal head for the tripod in
checked baggage as well. (Of course we carried enough other "odd" photo and
outdoor gear that the Department of Homeland Security checked our bags going
and coming anyway... ).
Once in the north woods of Minnesota, I started out using the 80-200. But when
I needed a longer lens, I went to the 50-500 and kept it on for most of the
rest of the trip. Yes, there were times I went to the 80-200 (or even a shorter
lens), but I kept coming back to the 50-500. At times, I switched between
trying to shoot a song sparrow feeding young or a red-winged blackbird on a
perch over a nest right back to shooting deer, foxes, or other wildlife within
5 seconds - no lens change needed!
I used the 50-500 on a Really Right Stuff ballhead on a tripod, on a Wimberley
Sidekick gimbal mount atop the RRS ballhead, handheld, and on a beanbag.
Handheld was the most flexible (and tiring), but in the late afternoon & early
morning, a tripod or other support was needed badly at longer focal lengths.
The Sidekick/ballhead combination worked well, except when I changed lens
lengths significantly after balancing it for a given lens length. The ballhead
alone didn't work that well for me. Using a big beanbag out the truck window
worked just fine.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Just for grins & giggles, I looked up the technical specifications on the Bigma
and the 3 lenses of mine so that I could compare their "reach out & get 'em"
capability and their length/weight.
Magnification on a full frame camera body
Bigma 50-500 - 1x to 10x
400 f/2.8 - 8x
80-200 f/2.8 - 1.6x to 4x
600 f/4 - 12x
Maximum Aperture
Bigma 50-500 - 22
400 f/2.8 - 22
80-200 f/2.8 - 22
600 f/4 - 22
Minimum Aperture
Bigma 50-500 - 4.5 to 6.3
400 f/2.8 - 2.8
80-200 f/2.8 - 2.8
600 f/4 - 4
Minimum Length
Bigma 50-500 - 8.6 inches (at 50 mm, it is ALMOST twice that long at 500 mm)
400 f/2.8 - 14.5 inches
80-200 f/2.8 - 7.4 inches
600 f/4 - 17 inches
Weight
Bigma 50-500 - 4.3 pounds
400 f/2.8 - 10.2 pounds
80-200 f/2.8 - 2.9 pounds
600 f/4 - 10.7 pounds
Minimum Focusing Distance
Bigma 50-500 - 19.7 to 70.9 inches
400 f/2.8 - 110.4 inches
80-200 f/2.8 - 58.8 inches
600 f/4 - 220.8 inches
The technical specs were pulled off the Sigma & Nikon web sites; the exact
specs on my gear are a little different because I've changed the lens mounting
foot on my 400 f/2.8 and put camouflage material on both of my lenses, but
they're pretty close.
Even though many people complain about how big & heavy the Bigma is, I found it
to be a small & convenient lens compared to the "big glass" in my bag. The
Bigma is about the size of my 80-200 in length and weight, but has more
versatility in some respects. What the Bigma lacked was a wider open aperture
that would reduce the importance of things in the background at times and
(perhaps most importantly) allow for more rapid autofocus. Autofocus speed is
related to the amount of light that passes through to the sensor, so the wider
the aperture, the more rapid the focusing potential.
MY THOUGHTS
Cons:
Slow focus - The autofocus WAS slower than on my 400 f/2.8 or my 80-200 f/2.8,
but with preplanning/prefocusing, I was still able to capture a shot of a
quickly running mink and cougar using autofocus. I would NOT want to use it for
"snap" shots or for flight/running shots where there were gaps in the
vegetation where I had to focus and get the shot.
Lack of "wide open" aperture - There were times that I would have liked to use
a wider open aperture to isolate my subject more. This lack of a wider aperture
also caused to some degree the slower autofocus issue.
The lack of a wide open aperture would REALLY bother me if I had an older
camera body, but as long as I have a newer camera body with great high ISO
capability, I'm fine using it. I would have hated to have had to use the Bigma
on my D70 where ISO 200 is as high as I'd go; however shooting it on the D3 at
ISO 500 to ISO 1250 was fine. Without a newer body, I don't think I'd have been
pleased with the Bigma.
Changing lens length changed center of gravity - This one really bugged me. I
think all of my other variable length telephoto lenses that have a collar are
internal focus. As I changed lens lengths with the Bigma, it changed in
physical length (much like the 70-300). The difference in size and weight
between those two lenses & the total length the Bigma extends results in a BIG
change in the center of gravity. So, if I had my camera body/lens combination
balanced on the tripod head for a 500 mm shot, but then changed to a 150 mm
length, my lens wanted to point up. Similarly, if I went from short to long, my
lens wanted to point down. A seemingly minor thing, but after having been able
to balance "big glass" on a Wimberley gimbal head or even a ball head, it was
very aggravating to me.
Lens attachment - The foot that was on the tripod collar for the Bigma only had
one hole to attach to a tripod/tripod mounting plate. Since the tripod heads
that I was carrying (ball head and Wimberley Sidekick) both had Arca/Swiss
mounts, I put an Arca/Swiss plate on it. Since I knew: 1) that I'd have to
adjust the lens back & forth a good bit to balance it and 2) that there were
times that I'd want to attach an external flash bracket to the Arca/Swiss plate
as well, I used an 8" Arca/Swiss plate (which caused my initial mounting
problem with the groundhog). If the tripod foot on a lens is over 3" long, and
the lens is "heavy", it should have two ¼" 20 tpi female holes to mount the
plate with - especially if another 2 ½ pounds of flash accessories will be on
that same plate. The plate only slipped twice during the week, but that is two
times too many as far as I am concerned.
Camouflage - I didn't really need camouflage on the camera gear on this trip,
but I didn't feel comfortable camouflaging a rental lens (other than putting it
in a shirt sleeve...). If I was going to use this lens for waterfowl or
turkeys, I'd sure want to break up that black cylinder as much as I could. This
isn't a con of the lens, but more a con of RENTING the lens.
Pros:
Small size - While people talk about how big and heavy this lens is, the small
size (to me) was GREAT for carrying on an airplane & for walking/hiking.
Finger grips on foot for "handle" - While I didn't like only one mounting hole
in the lens foot, really did like the finger grips in the foot for a more
comfortable "handle".
Extremely wide range of lens lengths (magnification) in one lens - I really
liked the wide range of magnification in the one lens. While I didn't shoot it
side-by-side with my other lenses at given lengths to compare it's sharpness,
it was sharp enough to produce images pleasing to me.
SUMMARY
I wouldn't want this to be my only "long lens", but I'd like to have one for a
"carry" lens. That is, a lens that I could carry on a body in my truck, a long
lens that is easier to carry onto a plane, or a lens that I can carry on
walk-abouts. When I'm working out of my truck, I usually either have the
80-200, the 400, or the 600 mm lens pre-attached to a body & ready to shoot.
Unfortunately, I often have the wrong lens attached. Sometimes you need a 200
mm lens and sometimes even the 600 mm lens isn't quite enough; having this lens
would provide an opportunity to get shots that would otherwise be missed. It
would also be a good lens to carry to an event with my family. Rather than
having to change lenses when alternatively wanting to take a picture of my
daughter or a flying plane, I could just use the one lens.
Overall, I was happy enough that if I see a Bigma for a real deal, I'll end up
owning one, just for those times when I need to travel lighter. It'll be
interesting to see how that compares to some of the Bigma owners' thoughts in
this forum.
Robert Smith
336-339-3497
rsmithent@xxxxxxx<mailto:rsmithent@xxxxxxx>
www.photobiologist.com<http://www.photobiologist.com>
________________________________
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:49:29 -0800
From: larrypace64@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [missbirdphotos] Re: Birding on Saturday
To: missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Several of you have mentioned the Bigma. What are your thoughts on pros and
cons for this lens. I think part of my problems have to do with lack of reach
with the 100-400. particularly on the smallest subjects. I have to crop way
too much.
I am aware that most problems related to quality photos are related to poor
technique but equipment does matter especially in NATURE photography.
Does the Bigma allow autofocus when using tele-converters?
Larry
________________________________
From: Frank Hensley <dr_frank_hensley@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:49 AM
Subject: [missbirdphotos] Re: Birding on Saturday
I plan to go! First day of Spring Break so I asked for time off at home. Look
for a tall guy with a gray goatee and a BIGMA.
________________________________
From: "Dance, Gayla" <dancegf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:22 AM
Subject: [missbirdphotos] Birding on Saturday
I believe there is a birding event on Sat. near Turcotte Labs and Highway 43.
Weather permitting, I wondered if any of the MissBird Photographers were
planning on attending.
gayla
Other related posts:
