Bigma vs Bigmos test

[Ratatosk]

I have a Bigma and I wanted to see if a switch to the Bigmos was a good choice or not.

I decided to do my own tests as when I got the Bigmos there were no tests between these two. I don't know if there are any extensive tests on them yet either.

My test is only on the quality of the images in relation to sharpness using AF.

I also tested the OS feature vs none on the Bigma. There is text on the site to explain the photos and tests.

I had heard, before buying my Bigmos, that the AF was very slow. The tests I've done do not show that, it's at least as fast as my Bigma.

I have not done any post processing to any of my photos. They are directly converted from RAW (NEF) to JPG. They are in ProPhoto RGB color space so a color managed browser is preferred, or you can download them and use a color managed viewer.

I'm not giving any personal thoughts on the results of the tests, other than those about the AF and OS.

It's up to each and everyone to make their own conclusions.

I hope my work helps someone.

Here is the test:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wayuu/s...7607406194742/

All photos are available for download at original size, at the site.

 

[Lardinio]

Your link doesn't appear to work
--
'The value of something is the price someone is willing to pay for it'

 

[JK5700]

Ratatosk wrote:
I had heard, before buying my Bigmos, that the AF was very slow. The
tests I've done do not show that, it's at least as fast as my Bigma.

Do this test with the limiters off on both lenses:

1. Focus closeby on the ground, then
2. Point the lens upwards at the sky and try to refocus
3. Watch the distance scale move as the lens hunts for focus.

The 150-500 is at least twice as slow as the Bigma. This is relevant for when you are tracking birds in flight, etc.

 

[Ratatosk]

The 150-500 is at least twice as slow as the Bigma. This is relevant
for when you are tracking birds in flight, etc.

Didn't I just say it's not? Could it be clearer?

Again. No, the Bigmos is NOT any slower than the Bigma.

You have a problem with the lens you've received. Either return it or get it fixed.

Sigma lenses are not consistent in quality. Same lens can differ a lot depending on which one you get. Anyone with Sigma lens should know that, it's old news.

I've tested mine in good light, poor light, indoors, etc.

Don't ever try AF on the sky, that is silly/childish.

 

[Ratatosk]

Your link doesn't appear to work

Sorry. A copy from a previous post which had shortened the link.
Here it is:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wayuu/sets/72157607406194742/

 

[JK5700]

The 150-500 is at least twice as slow as the Bigma. This is relevant
for when you are tracking birds in flight, etc.

Didn't I just say it's not? Could it be clearer?

Again. No, the Bigmos is NOT any slower than the Bigma.
You have a problem with the lens you've received. Either return it or
get it fixed.
Sigma lenses are not consistent in quality. Same lens can differ a
lot depending on which one you get. Anyone with Sigma lens should
know that, it's old news.

I've tested mine in good light, poor light, indoors, etc.

Don't ever try AF on the sky, that is silly/childish.

From your tone, I obviously upset you. I did not intend to.

Although focussing on the sky might appear silly, if you are tracking a bird in flight or a fast jet, you often lose focus. The lens then racks in and out looking to find focus. It is the speed of focus aquistion that is important then.

That is why I spent so much time testing the 150-500. I tried a few of them and they all did the same. Perhaps my copy of the Bigma is faster than standard? It is quite old and has the earlier dark grey rather than the later black finish.

 

[Ratatosk]

Although focussing on the sky might appear silly, if you are tracking
a bird in flight or a fast jet, you often lose focus. The lens then
racks in and out looking to find focus. It is the speed of focus
aquistion that is important then.

Ok, then I understand what you mean with that method.

My Bigma had a lot of hunting problems when I was in Kenya last year and this Bigmos, although not even closely as heavily tested, has not shown more hunting. I have had problems with my Bigma, as stated on my test site, but with all the new parts in it, it should be as good as it possibly can.

That is why I spent so much time testing the 150-500. I tried a few
of them and they all did the same. Perhaps my copy of the Bigma is
faster than standard? It is quite old and has the earlier dark grey
rather than the later black finish.

Mine is not as old as yours and it may be that yours is a of better quality, as it seems most older camera equipment is.

As also stated on my site, I may have, for the first time, been lucky with a lens I buy, getting the best possible ex..

I will test my Bigmos with AF on moving targets, possibly birds as that is my main goal for this lens.

 

[rockjano]

I also made a sharpness test of the Bigmos (I never had the Bigma)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=29399583

Thanks for the test very interesting

I downloaded the window pictures. You only used f11 here where the Bigmos is a lot better, probably an f6.3 comparison would have been better. I think the difference is the wide open performance where I think the Bigma is slightly better (probably I did not try).

I also checked the newspaper shots the result is similar to mine but it seems to be a bit more blurry. I had to adjust AF fine tune on the D300 (-7) because the lens was back focusing a little. That alone could make a big difference.

The apple test is problematic because you cannot shot sharp pics at 1/30 with any of these lenses at 500mm (yes NOT with OS on the Bigmos). You have to use 1/250 with the Bigmos (OS on) and I think 1/1000 on the Bigma. All your apple shots has motion blur.

Try it on a tripod or faster shutter speed.

But thanks for the test anyway. The result??? The Bigma probably slightly better at wide aperture, but that is easily compensated with the OS on the Bigmos, which is very important at 500mm. I am not a VR-OS fan on shorter lenses but here it is a must if you want to use it handheld.

The Bigmos also more modern and quite a lot cheaper, it is really a great value.

jano

 

[Ratatosk]

The apple test is problematic because you cannot shot sharp pics at
1/30 with any of these lenses at 500mm (yes NOT with OS on the
Bigmos). You have to use 1/250 with the Bigmos (OS on) and I think
1/1000 on the Bigma. All your apple shots has motion blur.

I certainly disagree on this. I have no problem getting sharp photos with the Bigma at 1/100 sec and even the odd sharp one at 1/30 sec even. Download the photos and check the apple and the leaf at 1300 hours viewed from the apple. Can't get sharper. Remember, this is RAW and therefore no sharpening in the shot and you can never get tack sharp without sharpening in PP.

You also have the breeze moving the leaves, though not strong enough to move the branch.

Getting sharp shots at lower speeds than 1/500 at 500mm is not that hard for us who have the technique and the training to do so. It's basically the same tech a sharp shooter uses, but you have to train this method and have the physique too.

 

[Miljenko]

I decided to do my own tests as when I got the Bigmos there were no
tests between these two.

Not really true, Ratatosk. I've compared early sample of Sigma 150-500 to Bigma in June and presented a report in this very forum: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=28209398

Yes, it was a Canon version (Nikon version was still not available at the time) but nevertheless differences were easily detected and discussed. Being a Bigma user for 4 years and 150-500 for two months now (both Nikon versions) I can probably add couple of thoughts for sure

So far my 150-500 has done a great job at one sailing match race, couple of car races and long visit to city zoo. Most of pic samples are prepared for uploading to pbase gallery.

BTW, thanks for sharing your findings.

--
Best regards, Miljenko
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net

Who dies with most toys, wins.

 

[rockjano]

I fully respect you, and you can really handle the lens better than me, but still the shots under 1/30 has motion blur.

Anyway it could also be the breeze.

What is your opinion about the lens?? Do you like it? Would you use it wide open??? Personal feelings???

Thanks
jano

 

[rockjano]

Yes we saw your test. But...

My copy is really different at f 6.3 or f8 or f11, which contradicts to your findings.

Contrast is more or less OK, but I found this lens a lot sharper at f8 and especially at f11 than at f6.3.

I would even consider it at f 6.3 not really usable at 500 mm.

Which is still OK considering it's price.

It could also be sample variation, but I don't think so.

Thanks
jano

 

[Ratatosk]

I decided to do my own tests as when I got the Bigmos there were no
tests between these two.

Not really true, Ratatosk. I've compared early sample of Sigma
150-500 to Bigma in June and presented a report in this very forum:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=28209398

I did miss that test. Very professional one IMO. TY for the URL.

Yes, it was a Canon version (Nikon version was still not available at
the time) but nevertheless differences were easily detected and
discussed. Being a Bigma user for 4 years and 150-500 for two months
now (both Nikon versions) I can probably add couple of thoughts for
sure

I can see that the difference between the two lenses is more than noticeable.

It is the complete opposite to my tests as my Bigmos shows sharper results in all situations, except 500mm at 3 meters distance.

It could be that I was lucky to receive a very good example. As stated in my test, my Bigma has been replace with a lot of parts so it should be as good as it can be.
I have come to realize that Sigmas lenses can vary quite a lot from one another.

 

[Ratatosk]

What is your opinion about the lens?? Do you like it? Would you use
it wide open??? Personal feelings???

It's better than I expected and it looks like it will be a keeper and the Bigma will be sold but I still need to test the AF of it in live situations, mostly bird photography.

I would use mine wide open, even if it's like you said, it's much better around f/11.

 

[Miljenko]

Hi Jano,

funny enough, my sample of 150-500 (replacing good old Bigma) for Nikon shows quite different results than the one tested with Canon 20D. It is tack sharp from 150 to 400 mm at all f-stop settings so I use it wide open most of the time.

However, at 500mm it is lacking sharpness and contrast even at f/8. Only when stopped down to f/10 it reaches similar IQ achieved at 400mm and f/6.3:



D300+Better Beamer @ f/11 1/250 500mm
--
Best regards, Miljenko
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko
http://www.fotomag.net

Who dies with most toys, wins.

 

[Ratatosk]

Hi Jano,
funny enough, my sample of 150-500 (replacing good old Bigma) for
Nikon shows quite different results than the one tested with Canon
20D. It is tack sharp from 150 to 400 mm at all f-stop settings so I
use it wide open most of the time.
However, at 500mm it is lacking sharpness and contrast even at f/8.
Only when stopped down to f/10 it reaches similar IQ achieved at
400mm and f/6.3:

I'm glad it's not only MY example of the lens that shows those values. We seem to have reached the exact same conclusions. Now I can take this to other forums too where I'm getting hell for my findings (at times ).

 

[Daves602]

I am not sure if it is reflective of your grasp of the English language, or if you just have a plain arrogant nature.

Maybe if you were a little more polite in the way you challenge other forum members you may find them more co-operative.

--
Warm regards, Dave.

 

[Ratatosk]

I am not sure if it is reflective of your grasp of the English
language, or if you just have a plain arrogant nature.
Maybe if you were a little more polite in the way you challenge other
forum members you may find them more co-operative.

I'm not sure if it's me you are talking to but you probably have have a psychological problem (not too uncommon, so don't get to depressed) in not being able to handle straight on, honest comments, but have the need for conversations to be on an ass licking level with padding on the back attitude, for you to respond in a sensible and mature way.

Your problems with not being able to deal with grown up straight forward individuals is something you will have to seek help for. Not my problem.
Most people are not as sensitive as you are.

I don't even know what has flipped you out actually. I just know there are many weird people like you out there.

 

[rockjano]

Thanks for the info I will retest my lens at 400mm, it should surely be better there the question is how much.

As for the difference between Canon and Nikon version, it could also be that the 20D is a 8 Mpixel cam and the D300 is 12 Mpixel and that could make quite a difference in this case.

It also could be sample difference I don't think mine is tack sharp at 400mm wide open but probably a lot better that at 500mm.

Well 500mm is quite a long lens

Nice Zebra shot!!!

How do you like the bettre beamer??? With this long lens I might also should get one.
Or the new SB900 with it's better light focusing method???

Do you use it often?? Is it effective at 500mm (depending on the distance I guess)

Thanks
jano

 

[rockjano]

That was not a very polite reply.

Please stay calm.

jano