Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma 135-400 or 50-500 ???

Go to last post
Hi i had the 135-400 lens and found it to be excellent, go to my profile and follow the link to my Pbase gallery you will find loads regards Alan.
http://www.pbase.com/aland100/e500
 
If i where you and you have the $$$.

I don't have any of those but why:
Is wider and have more reach
I had read from people that have it and the'r happy

I'm planning to buy a telephoto not to late and thst 50-500 is one of my main target.

That's just my thought, so i please do more research and post your shots don't matter wich you choose.
--
Misa
 
Gary,

I own the 135-400mm and it's a fine lens. Tends to hunt; you need to step it down, but it's OK.

There was an interesting thread not too long ago (sorry, don't know by whom and when, except that it was this year) on these two lenses. The 50-500mm was considered to be the quite superior one: HSM (=SWD) focusing motor and lens quality.

All best,

Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

 
Misa said:
If i where you and you have the $$$.

I don't have any of those but why:
Is wider and have more reach
I had read from people that have it and the'r happy

I'm planning to buy a telephoto not to late and thst 50-500 is one of
my main target.

That's just my thought, so i please do more research and post your
shots don't matter wich you choose.
--
Misa
Click to expand...
I have this lens (135-400) and like it a lot, but different strokes for different folks. The 50-500 is a big and heavy lens, the 135-400 is lighter and somewhat more portable. The reach of the 50-500 is formidable, there is no doubt, but the 135-400 is no slouch!

If you don't have a good solid tripod now, with either one, you need one. With the 135-400 you can get away without one up to about 250mm beyond which a tripod is necessary. It is lighter and easier to handhold. Because of it's weight (50-500) you need a tripod throughout it's entire reach.

If a reach of 400mm will do the 135-400 is the better alternative; if you need the extra reach, the 50-500 is the choice. The 135-400 is best stopped down on the tele end and the 50-500 has to be stopped down as well.

There is also a cost difference. Both are well regarded; your choice!

Ron

--
E-500, ZD14-45, ZD14-54, ZD40-150, FL-36, ZD50 f2, Sigma 135-400
'And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong
I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.'
Lennon & McCartney
 
I'm a wide shooter so why am I replying?

Well, I've decided that I'd like to try something new and want to make an attempt at shooting long.

After reading reviews and seeing posted images here and elsewhere, I've set up a 50-500 account and am saving for the Bigma.

I understand that it will be a tripod only lens but that's OK with me as I need to expand my horizons a bit.
It may take me a year to accumulate the funds but it's a goal.

--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/rise_n_shine

 
Claus A said:
There was an interesting thread not too long ago (sorry, don't know
by whom and when, except that it was this year) on these two lenses.
The 50-500mm was considered to be the quite superior one...
Click to expand...
Agreed! If we're talking about the same thread, the individual had both the 135-400mm and the 50-500 and preferred the bigma.

--
Colin
 
Gary,

I really think if you go the Sigma route, you turn to the bigma. You are going this way for reach, of course. I only have the 50-500, and have my share of buyers remorse, but you have to love the reach.

It's slow, and it is unsealed. My copy has enough dust in it to stop a couple dozen 30D's in their tracks. Others have confirmed the same issue to me. On the other hand, the new sensor seems to get along very well with this lens. I'm finding less need to stop down, whereas with the E1 I almost never shot wider than f/8. In sweet light, you'll produce some fine images, and as long as you're not expecting a $1000/500MM Zuicko, you'll be happy.

Rob Davies
Searun
http://www.pbase.com/searun
 
I don't agree that Bigma is tripod lens only. It performs well in good light, and in good light you don't need tripod. Here are few shots taken in "good light", all hand held at 500mm (1000mm equiv.)







regards,

happy 4/3
Bootstrap said:
I understand that it will be a tripod only lens but that's OK with me
as I need to expand my horizons a bit.
It may take me a year to accumulate the funds but it's a goal.

--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/rise_n_shine

Click to expand...
 
Firstly (and I might get shot down ) when working with a long sigma lens I think you have to stop down on the long end. You also can’t expect to used "out of the camera jpg’s" all the time as some sharpening is required. Most users of the bigma are normally the more experienced photographer (Who goes and buys a bigma if you don’t really need one). A lot of first time long lens users buy the 135-400 and somtimes battle with the adaptation.

I think the initial expectations of a lot of users who buy a longer lens are shattered due to the not understanding the nature of using a long lens. A lot of people expect to put it on the camera and get the same quality at 400/500 they get from the 50-200/40-150. This is not going to happen as it takes quite awhile to accustom yourself to the quirks of a longer lens. Its all in the user, I have seen a few shoots taken with the 300/f2.8 that looked very poor.

I have the 135-400 and its not a bad lens. You have to stop down at the last 100mm due to the lens not automatically stopping down the last 100mm. It is in fact an F/4.5 – F/8.0. The lens needs good light and you must also be prepared to do some PP (sharpening ) on the long end. Up to 300mm I think it performs the same as the 70-300. As to huntting/focus the lens uses a rear focusing system which is not bad and not to slow . I have very few focus issues but there again I live in sunny South Africa.

I have not used a Bigma but the shots I have seen are good.

--
Collin
 






Sigma 13-400 far better lens in my opinion regards Alan.
 
I just got a 135-400mm for my E500. Haven't had a chance to play with it much, yet. I think I'm going to like it a lot.
 
I have the sigma 135-400mm and it's the best buy for my camera so far. It has giving me such a boost in IQ and so much fun because of the reach. I have a thing with birds, so i mostly do nature pictures and then the 135-400mm is great.

However, I am still dreaming about the bigma sometimes. And I have no doubt that the bigma is a better lens. How does the HSM perform compared to the 135-400mm?
Is the auto-focus much faster compared to the 135-400mm?

I think i will start saving money to buy the bigma. Are the images of the bigma much sharper then the 135-400mm?

if someone needs examples of pictures taken with the 135-400mm, there are plenty on my website: http://www.chonwai.nl

Bye!

Chon.

--
Olympus E-500 ~ Fuji Finepix F700 ~ Fuji Finepix F810



http://www.chonwai.nl/
 
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