Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma 135-400 or Bigma?

Go to last post
S

snostorm

Senior Member
Messages
2,044
Solutions
4
Reaction score
50
Location
Chicago Suburb, US
Hi Guys --

I have found myself doing a lot of birding in the past couple of years. and find myself yearning for more reach than I get from my up-to-@300mm zooms with TCs.

I was impressed by the Tokina 80-400, but after many calls and inquiries, have not been able to locate one (missed the last one at KEH by @ an hour).

I have recently seen both the Sigma 135-400 and 50-500 (pre-DG) at pretty attractive prices, and know that each are very good lenses for what they are. I realize that the "Bigma" retails at @ 2x the price of the 135-400, and that the smaller lens would give more bang for the buck, and that it's significantly smaller and lighter, but wonder if I'd regret not getting the wider range and extra reach of the Bigma.

Anyone have any experience with both of these -- or been through the same thought process?

Responses from Richard Day and Sophie Wilson would be especially appreciated (they seem to be the main third party long glass guys here) -- not that opinions from anyone else wading in would be dismissed!! :)

TIA
Scott
 
Hi Scott

mpixel was in the same situation as you and recently bought a Sigma 135-400 due to it's smaller size, weight and cost, but I think he returned it as he was dissapointed with the performance.

The Bigma is quite an attractive lens for birding work and I think that if you are prepared for it's massive size and weight, it's not a bad choice.

Now that I have the Pentax FA*300/f4.5 and as it works really well with the Tamron 1.4x converter, I have no need for such a beast as the Bigma. Plus, like many others, I have severe reservations about Sigma lenses.

I still use the Tokina 80-400 as it is small and light for it's range and they are still available here in the UK in Pentax fit, but for a healthy $650 ($550 without tax). I know that many of you in the USA would like the lens to be available again in the US. I recommend that you keep up the search.

JensR in Germany has just ordered one for himself and said that there are some rumours of a digital version arriving in the spring, but whether that will be available in Pentax mount is speculation, I hope so, as it is a really good lens.

Regards
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
 
If money is not the object, I would go for the BigMa! I have wanted a long lens like that for a while.
--
My Location:
New Jersey, USA

 
i had the 50-500 and sold it after 4 months. hated the bokeh, and the usefulness of a huge 50/4 is about non-existent. that plus a lot of falloff wide open and being slower than advertised (i figure actual of f7.2 at the long end). it is a sharp lens with many drawbacks that you have to accept before using. i find the Tamron 200-500 a much better lens at about the same price as the 50-500, but sadly it is not available in Pentax mount.

Herb....
 
Richard--

Thanks for your reply. . .
richardday said:
mpixel was in the same situation as you and recently bought a Sigma
135-400 due to it's smaller size, weight and cost, but I think he
returned it as he was dissapointed with the performance.
Click to expand...
I've seen quite a few examples from this lens and think that it would be a step up from what I've been using, so I don't think I'd be too disappointed -- I'm not as discerning as many in this respect :)
richardday said:
The Bigma is quite an attractive lens for birding work and I think
that if you are prepared for it's massive size and weight, it's not
a bad choice.
Click to expand...
For the longest time I said to myself that I wouldn't even consider this lens, but times change, and I think that I could deal with the size/weight, but I'm not really sure. . .
richardday said:
Now that I have the Pentax FA*300/f4.5 and as it works really well
with the Tamron 1.4x converter, I have no need for such a beast as
the Bigma. Plus, like many others, I have severe reservations about
Sigma lenses.
Click to expand...
Although I haven't had any personal experience with Sigmas, I have some reservations from the experiences of others.
richardday said:
I still use the Tokina 80-400 as it is small and light for it's
range and they are still available here in the UK in Pentax fit,
but for a healthy $650 ($550 without tax). I know that many of you
in the USA would like the lens to be available again in the US. I
recommend that you keep up the search.
Click to expand...
richardday said:
JensR in Germany has just ordered one for himself and said that
there are some rumours of a digital version arriving in the spring,
but whether that will be available in Pentax mount is speculation,
I hope so, as it is a really good lens.
Click to expand...
I may just have to roll the dice and see what happens-- won't be doing much birding until next spring -- I really think that I'd prefer the Tokina . . . or a better deal might happen with the Sigmas . . . or I might win the lottery, and be able to buy them all. . . :)

This LBA thing does some strange things to your head

Thanks again for your comments

Scott
 
HerbChong said:
i had the 50-500 and sold it after 4 months. hated the bokeh, and
the usefulness of a huge 50/4 is about non-existent. that plus a
lot of falloff wide open and being slower than advertised (i figure
actual of f7.2 at the long end). it is a sharp lens with many
drawbacks that you have to accept before using. i find the Tamron
200-500 a much better lens at about the same price as the 50-500,
but sadly it is not available in Pentax mount.
Click to expand...
Hi Herb --

Thanks for your input. About the Tamron -- I've seen this in an adaptall mount. As I'm not adverse to a MF, would this be a good alternative, and what do you think fair market would be for a used one?

Scott
 
Sometimes you can find the Sigma 170-500mm fairly cheap on ebay. I got mine for about $350 and I find it OK for what I do. Below are three images taken with it. The Robin was my very first shot with it. The female Pronghorn Antelope was taken by my brother. All were handheld.







--

Ron ~ Retired, just taking it easy with life, and not getting bothered much by these brain excercises. GMT - 7

 
snostorm said:
HerbChong said:
i had the 50-500 and sold it after 4 months. hated the bokeh, and
the usefulness of a huge 50/4 is about non-existent. that plus a
lot of falloff wide open and being slower than advertised (i figure
actual of f7.2 at the long end). it is a sharp lens with many
drawbacks that you have to accept before using. i find the Tamron
200-500 a much better lens at about the same price as the 50-500,
but sadly it is not available in Pentax mount.
Click to expand...
Hi Herb --
Click to expand...
Hi Scott,
snostorm said:
Thanks for your input. About the Tamron -- I've seen this in an
adaptall mount. As I'm not adverse to a MF, would this be a good
alternative,
Click to expand...
I think Herb was speaking of the new AF Tamron 200-500 lens where as
the one you are thinking of is an older Adapt-all mount lens and a behemoth,

if memory serves, but with pretty good optics. If you can dig up an PK/A (Adapt-

all) mount you will have all the features of your Digital with the exception of AF.

Also, a girl who works in the same (camera) shop as I do picked up the Sigma 135-400

last spring and has really been happy with the images and she shoots with the IST*Ds.

Also, I had a customer who has the IST*D and his wife has the IST*Ds and he has the

Sigma 170-500 and has used it quite a bit and is quite impressed with the results. He

is a DPReview forum user but has not posted much of late as he is teacher and...it is that
time of year ;).

Hope this helps a bit.

Cheers and look forward to seeing some pics.

:D

Jack

and what do you think fair market would be for a used
snostorm said:
one?

Scott
Click to expand...
--
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing :)
 
richardday said:
Hi Scott

mpixel was in the same situation as you and recently bought a Sigma
135-400 due to it's smaller size, weight and cost, but I think he
returned it as he was dissapointed with the performance.
Click to expand...
Hi Richard,

Yes, I will return this lens. It has been sitting on my desk, unused, since the day I got (and tested) it - that was until tonight when I used it to take my first moon shots. BTW it does AF with the Tamron 1.4x TC but it’s very slow.

Scott,

My problem with the lens was that it was soft at wide apertures. In fact at the lower focal lengths I tested it was not sharp until f/11.

Others seem to be happy with this lens so it may just have been my copy.

Here's a link to a summary of my experience with this lens.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=15657970
richardday said:
The Bigma is quite an attractive lens for birding work and I think
that if you are prepared for it's massive size and weight, it's not
a bad choice.

Now that I have the Pentax FA*300/f4.5 and as it works really well
with the Tamron 1.4x converter, I have no need for such a beast as
the Bigma. Plus, like many others, I have severe reservations about
Sigma lenses.

I still use the Tokina 80-400 as it is small and light for it's
range and they are still available here in the UK in Pentax fit,
but for a healthy $650 ($550 without tax). I know that many of you
in the USA would like the lens to be available again in the US. I
recommend that you keep up the search.

JensR in Germany has just ordered one for himself and said that
there are some rumours of a digital version arriving in the spring,
but whether that will be available in Pentax mount is speculation,
I hope so, as it is a really good lens.

Regards
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
Click to expand...
--
GMT
 
If you are looking for a Tokina 80-400 here is one. hope that helps.
--
My Location:
New Jersey, USA
My Profile:



 
Hi mpixel,

I had read your thread when originally posted, but couldn't find it again when this potential deal came up. Thanks for your input -- another example of questionable Sigma QC, and another excuse for me to avoid the potential hassle.

Joel was kind enough to provide a lead on the Tokina, which had been my first choice, so I'll see where that goes. . .

Scott
 
mpixel said:
My problem with the lens was that it was soft at wide apertures. In
fact at the lower focal lengths I tested it was not sharp until
f/11.
Click to expand...
Typical Sigma variances, mine is pretty good from 250mm up to 400mm even wide open or near to it, below that it has backfocus issues which make it soft, unless I use MF... Doesn't bother me much as I generally only use the wide end, and it was worth it for what I paid.. But Sigma are always a gamble... :-/

------------
Joel - *ist DS/P30n/SFX
http://www.pbase.com/joele
 
I too bought the SIGMA 135-400 mm and love it. Attached is a picture I took a few days ago. I don't think I have any other lens that is any sharper. It's cropped but other wise totally unedited. Shot in JPG no extra sharpening in camera etc..Unfortunately the bird was sitting in the shade so the colors are somewhat dull.



ist DS, Sigma 135 - 400mm @400mm, ISO 400, F 9.5 1/250th sec
--

 
Thanks all for your input.

As of right now, I'm gonna try for the Tokina 80-400. The need isn't immediate since I wouldn't be using the lens that much during the winter. . .

. . . But maybe in the meantime I could use the Bigma to build up my strength during the upcoming frigid months here in Chicago. . .

Just kidding :)

Scott
 
You might want to think about a Tamron SP 200 f/2.8 lens in adaptall mount. THey can be had on Ebay in good to excellent condition for as little as $500. I got mine, including a 2x and 1.4x TC, in like new condition for $550 plus shipping. With the 2x TC, you have a 600/5.6 lens. If you don't mind manual focus, this is a really great lens. And it is auto aperture with a KA mount.

THough for the price, you could buy a new bigma on Ebay from Cameta Camera. ANd then have the visatility of the zoom.

But if you think the fast lens would be an advantage ever, such as sports or even flying birds, then I would recommend the Tamron.
 
Hi structuresguy,

Yeah I've thought of so many permutations to get the reach -- like a Tokina ATX SD 80-200 f2.8 MF plus TCs etc. The speed would be nice, and I even like the one touch zoom. So many possibilities . . .

I'll take some time and reconsider all the alternatives -- then sooner or later make a decision -- as I said I don't NEED this right now,

. . . I just need it. :) LBA speaks beyond normal reasoning.

Scott
 
Well, I understand your problem. I have the Tamron 300/2.8, a Sigma 70-300 APO, a Sigma 400/4.5 APO, and the Tokina 80-400. However, I am still wanting to add the Bigma to my collection, as well as an 80-200/2.8, either from TOkina or Sigma.

Personally I don't think you can ever have too many telephoto lenses. :)

So, you can count me in the LBA fraternity as well.
 
i don't know if the manual focus lens is as good. i have the current AF lens in Nikon mount. for the situations i use it in, manual focus works maybe a third of the time. the rest of the time, there isn't enough time for using it.

Herb.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top