Bigma or 400 5.6?

[malawi_luver]

what do you guys think? pros and cons of each lens? dont point me in other directions cause i know about Fred Miranda and a bunch of other forums!

Thanks Guys...

Garrett

[Ibn]

Fixed focal length versus a prime (weight and sharpness versus versatility). What are you planning on shooting?

[malawi_luver]

Birding and wildlife...

thats about it... i dont know if the 400 will be enough... but im also looking for versitility and sharpness....

100-400 is out of the quesiton...

[Ibn]

If it were between those three lenses, I'd say the 100-400mm (good optics with the right zoom range), but that got ruled out...if possible, I'd save a few hundred more for this lens or buy used (I believe that Canon warranty is transferable).

One such example (Canon 100-400L IS lens in almost mint condition for $1,189 on FM):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/276881

Just between these two, the Bigma will give you the versatility while the prime will probably give you a bit more sharpness. Given these choices, I'd go for the prime, since I don't mind stepping back (not always possible, but in the field, it's very applicable). I also like the lighter weight of the prime (easier to handhold and you can be out in the field for longer hikes).

No lens is really enough when you're trying to close on something out in the field. If you're shooting in a zoo then it's more than enough, but otherwise, you'll always wish that you had a longer lens. I know that I do.

[hir0]

or another alternative, you could get a 300 f4 and a teleconverter. a 1.4x tc on this will give you 420mm f5.6. this way if you needed a bit more speed (f4) and a shorter focal length, you have the option. the 300f4 and 1.4x tc should be a very sharp combination.

[malawi_luver]

Got one question... why do you love the 100-400 so much? im looking for sharpness when its opened up nad i dont want it to be soft...

Ive heard the Bigma and 400 prime and 300 prime are very sharp...

[hir0]

well, sorry i cannot speak from experience with any of these lenses. where are all the canon people? i would have to assume that the primes are noticably sharper than the bigma wide open.

[malawi_luver]

Yes but the bigma has more reach? you see where im getting at.. a very hard decision!

[Ibn]

I really like the zoom range that it covers. I used to have the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 lens and for the price, it's a great lens. It could have used a bit more reach and that's the reason why I like the Canon 100-400mm lens.

Got some very sharp images (on par with the Nikon 300mm f/4 AFS) and the versatility of it is amazing. Being able to zoom in and out at those ranges means that during the times when an animal (most recently a little green heron) walks up to you, unexpectedly, you don't have to worry. I ran into this problem when the little guy started walking up to me while I had the 300mm with 2x TC on it. As it slowly approached me, I had to very gingerly remove the 2x TC to make sure that I could capture it, without cropping a large portion of the bird out of the frame. I've ran into similar problems with some in flight birds, when they're within spitting distance.

As for sharpness, I'd definitely say that the primes will always be a hair sharper than the zooms, especially wide open.

[malawi_luver]

Yeah i see your point... versitile vs. sharpness... dont know which one to choose...

I know for a fact that the same experience you had eric will happen to me and ill be screwed!

But i think heavy lenses arent going to be a factor cause ill probably sit down nad take pics of hummingbirds and warblers and other birds from a distance!

hmm very hard decision...

[squidfish]

Hi

I have a 100 - 400 and love it. Seems to performs well even wide open. Its certainly a great zoo lens and I have had a lot of fun with mine this summer. Here some links to pics with this lens.

http://aquatic-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4485

http://aquatic-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3914

http://aquatic-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4432

The image stabilser works well and I have always used it handheld.

A prime lens will always be that bit sharper but is less verstile and you will be running around more to frame the shot. Mind you running around will be made easier by the lightness of your wallet. I was also considering the Bigma and the price difference but was so impressed with the Canon macro lens that I decided to stick with them.

Cheers

Rich

[paradise]

I kind of agree with Rich. I have rented the 100-400 twice now, and while I can not compare it to others due to lack of choice in my area, I found the lens pretty good. It's not tack sharp at 400 but it is good enough. You are right about reach, I found myself shooting wide open or close to it (past 300) a whole lot, specially at the Zoos, and I think it's good enough. Here are a couple of old snaps:

http://egfoto.com/gallery/Zoo/LA%20Zoo%20April%205%202005/Mammals/Others/LAZoo-bambi02.jpg

http://egfoto.com/gallery/Zoo/LA%20Zoo%20April%205%202005/Mammals/Others/LAZoo-11.jpg

http://egfoto.com/gallery/Zoo/LA%20Zoo%20April%205%202005/Birds/Others/LAZoo18.jpg

[malawi_luver]

Thanks alot but im NOT looking for the 100-400... too expensive for me and out of reach...

Thanks but i think ill stick with the 400 5.6... sharpness and quick AF is all i ask for lol..

[meriadoc]

both have their advantages.. if you're talking in flight birding - then the bigma - its sharp, focuses nice...

the 400 is good.. but i work with other kinds of animals - so don't generally use the zoom...

I've used the 400 on more than one occasion, but it takes getting used to a long prime. Course, I'm a prime fan - I love them...

[Ibn]

Here's a birding photographer from my local group. Check out his gallery with the 400mm f/5.6. Some truly amazing shots. It's where I want to be eventually.

http://www.pbase.com/khanh007/birds_of_prey

[Schnauzer]

Eric ,
I looked at your friends bird pictures and just loved them . I looked at them , then again and again .

[Ibn]

My thoughts were very similar to yours when I saw them, Ron. There are 2-3 others in the group who are really into bird photography and we're trying to get together one of these days. Too bad they're all Canon shooters...well, on second thought, one of them is a Nikon shooter. Trying to borrow his rig at the moment (500mm f/4). :-D

[JerseyJay]

Eric,

Honestly ..... I looked at your friend's website and wasn't that impressed. I guess when you dive into 400mm and TCs you are "INTO" bird shooting. I know that quality comes with the HUGE tag price but I just don't see the point spending all that money on long glass w/ 5.6 and still putting 1.4 TC. Those pictures are clearly SOFT. If my financial situation allows me for 300VR 2.8 or 200-400VR f/4, I will go for it. If I have to buy "an excuse" lens to get ~400mm+, I will pass. This is just my honest opinion.

I guess after seeing some bird shooters with 300VR 2.8, 200-400 f/4 or 500 f/4 (*talking NIKON here) ...... there is really not much out there that will give you the same outcome - QUALITY wise. This has been proven over and over again.

[Ibn]

That's very true, Jay. As you're stepping into the longer primes, those lenses really shines. Most of these guys are doing it for the hobby of doing so and if they had the money (pro), I have no doubt that they would go for those lenses.

Also, I think it's subjective and dependent on the photographer. For some it's better to get a soft shot rather than not being able to get a shot at all. Take for instance, those shots of the white tail kite.

http://www.pbase.com/khanh007/whitetailed_kite

To be able to even get to where they are takes a bit of hiking (approx. 20 minutes up a decent grade hill). It's a small feat to be able to carry a 500mm lens and support up to them and to do so inconspicuously. Also, these guys are very skittish. If they see you approaching within a 1,000 yards, they take to the air and off to another perch (it also doesn't help that the area where they roost has very little tree cover). I think that part of my appreciation of the pictures is due to the patience and work that was put to be able to be in the position to shoot them.

[JerseyJay]

Eric,

I agree with you 100% !

[JerseyJay]

Check out this topic

http://aquatic-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?p=36103#post36103

[malawi_luver]

Thanks everyone for your honest opinions... but im still very torn between the two... there are some amazing bird shots with both lenses but dont know whether the extra 100mm will seriously count or if the sharpness wont be there.

thanks for the link jay but i dont want to pay for that right now though...

[paradise]

thanks for the link jay but i dont want to pay for that right now though...

I am confused, is not that an INSANE price comparing to those other options?? That 550 seems very low to me, sounds like a great deal.

If this was Canon mount, I would own it :)

[benny]

My opinion...

Prime lenses usually have sharper optics and hopefully the lens you get is a good copy. At 400 mm, if you find it slightly lacking in reach compared to the 500mm, just crop. Assuming you have a 8.2 megapixel camera, a slight crop will not lose much. And if you need a wider angle, you can always move back. On this assumption, the 400 mm would seem to be a better and lighter decision.

On Bigma, it's a good solution for folks who need the versatililty and work in situations where there is no time to change lenses. If you can live with the crop and physically moving backwards, the zoom factor may not be much of an issue. Sharpness is questionable as some folks have bad copies of this lens and in general, compared to prime lenses, this baby is just a notch below, but marginal for most folks. However, if you never blow up a print, you are never going to really tell the difference. Computer monitors are the worst way to check for quality of a lens. Lastly, take note that Sigma lenses may need to be rechiped when you upgrade a camera body.

Given that the resale value of the 400 mm lens holds pretty well. I would probably go for the prime over the zoom.

Cheers,

[malawi_luver]

Thanks for that Benny... after looking and comparing and alot of reasoning i have choosen the 400 prime over the bigma...

And paradise i am going to by buying this lens mount closer to christmas and i would like to make the decision now so i dont second guess myself when purchasing it...

Thanks alot guys, you rock

Garrett

[paradise]

Garrett, that makes sense. :) Through, I guarantee you, you will second guess yourself at least once a month till then :) :) That is the nature of the thing.

[malawi_luver]

I know i will then all i have to do is think...

I also dont want to be kept on a tripod all day...

Thanks...

Garrett

[hir0]

don't hate the tripod! :) my list of important gear

1. camera
2. lens
3. tripod

[malawi_luver]

I dont hate it, i just dont like relying on it to take good shots... i dont think i could handhold that beast for more then 10 minutes...

My list would go the exact same as yours but maybe a lenses would come first because there will always be better bodies...

Garrett