bigma 50-500 vs canon 300 f/4 (surf)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/05/2008 05:52:46 PM · #1

ive been contemplateing the two peices of glass for quite a long time, i shoot almost 95% surf/bodyboarding. i shoot around 8am to about 11:30 or so. i basically shoot on 2-3 beaches which are pretty close in focal distance required(saltcreek, 10th street, and wedge) i know that the 300 could do fantasitic at all these, and a 1.4x tele couldnt hurt when the surf gets bigger. but do you think the extra cash[750$(bigma) vs 880$(canon)] is worth to go with the fixed? i thought about the 100-400 but decided against it due to the $. i guess my question is, is the quality a big issue or a huge difference in the two lenses? thanxs

Message edited by author 2008-02-05 17:55:05.

Nuno

Nikon D700

02/05/2008 06:00:24 PM · #2

I think you could also consider the sigma 100-300 f4. It's a very capable lens, better than the bigma optically for what I've read and it should cost about the same. And you've got the versatility of a zoom.

But my personal opinion is that 300mm should be short for what you shoot. Probably a 400mm f4 would suit beter your needs, or a 70-200 f2.8 for general work and a x2 teleconverter for long reach.

And if you want a really usefull tele lens you also have the sigma 120-300mm f2.8. It's one of a kind, if you can afford it and can travel with 3kg of glass.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/05/2008 06:06:32 PM · #3

The 300mm outperforms the Bigma in both speed and sharpness. It's only $100 different. If you know that 300mm is enough for what you need, I wouldn't think twice. From what I've heard, the bigma is quite soft at the long end.

I'd wager that the 300mm plus the 1.4x teleconverter is still sharper than the Bigma.

02/05/2008 06:09:48 PM · #4

ya, ill give the 100-300 a good rundown. but i shoot with a plain ol 70-200 f/4 right now n its a bare minimum to say the least for shooting ocean sports obviously. its super sharp but just not what im lookin for. but i checked out the 400 and found that the focusing was a lil too slow for my likeings. thanx alot though. but ive rented the 300 and fell in love with it has decent range at the local beaches. im not lookin for a north shore lens, but im still lookin for a lil somethin more than 200. haha. well i actually was lookin at checkin out the sigma 300 2.8 caus ive heard its just amazing. but for that price, id be headed for a 100-400 for sure. well thanxs alot!!!

02/05/2008 06:14:50 PM · #5

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

I've got the Sigma 300 2.8 (secondhand) and yet to shoot with it more than once! Its a lens you need to think about bringing with you and takes up plenty of room in my little car. Am sure it would be great on the beach with a mono/tripod.

02/05/2008 06:17:20 PM · #6

are you thinkin bout selling it? n how much? thanxs

02/05/2008 06:26:18 PM · #7

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

are you thinkin bout selling it? n how much? thanxs

Am guessing your not in the UK? but no, not planning on selling it just yet though have pledged I'll sell any lens I don't use in a challenge this year. The good thing is I'll have the highest rated image with the lens as none of the 4 owners have submitted with it (I have plans in the summer).

Anyway, back to your quandry. If you stick a 1.4 on your 70-200 your almost at 300 so I'd suggest you go for a 400 prime. Or save up for the 70-200 F/2.8 and a 1.4/200 converter. Maybe rent a few more lenses till you find exactly what you need for those beaches?

02/05/2008 06:30:41 PM · #8

ya, id love to rent the 400 5.6 cause ive only handheld it once n it really didnt give me much of n experience. but from my buddy who makes his living off what i do for the heck of it, he shoots on the same beaches n says the 300 would do the job. how much do you think i could puck up the sigma 2.8 for? like round 1300?

Quasimojo

Canon EOS-30D

02/05/2008 06:38:19 PM · #9

Is the 100-400 L no good to you? I got some awesome surf shots whilst on honeymoon in Hawaii. From my limited experience I think you'd be a bit restricted with a long prime and/or extender because your subjects will be changing distance (probably towards you). They'll be out of frame and then you're screwed, or if the wind changes or other surfey type factors, you've got some flexibility. You also get IS and that lovely stability mode 2 for panning, which I found ideal for tracking surfers. Plus you've got good light, so even at 400mm you should be able to shoot at low ISO and still freeze the action. Only downside is that people say it's not that sharp at the top end, but my birds shot is sharp enough and did really well here. Here's a surf example:

I've got more if you're interested.

N

02/05/2008 06:41:52 PM · #10

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

how much do you think i could puck up the sigma 2.8 for? like round 1300?

Got mine used for Â£1k but with the exchange rate as it is thats a lot of US dollars!

both cropped purely for composition.

Not exactly surfing shots, the close ups were taken at the boundary the others from 20 yards behind it.

02/05/2008 06:49:02 PM · #11

ya for sure couldnt hurt for more examples. but the 100-400 is one of the most common used handheld lens's for sure. i see more of them than any other len ever. there cheap for what you get basically. it would be like another months worth of saveing to get one, i think i just need to save the money n get the good glass, im n too much of a rush. i think id be happier with a 100-400 or the 300 2.8, but your totaly dead true on the factor of loseing the frame cause they come to close, very valid argument. oh ya, since you have the 30d i would be best to ask you, do you think the 30d is much of n improvement over the 20d to fork over the extra $ to get a bigger screen and spot metering n what i hear, a lil better quality due to tech. n as you know, surfing doesnt really require much spot metering. its not like the surfer comes out way over or underexposed compared to the rest of the pic. thanxs

02/05/2008 06:54:17 PM · #12

(Ecce Signum) perfect, they all seem super crisp at f/7.1, how does the quality look when wide open? would u sudjust me getting the 20d or the 30d? just as questioned before. thanxs

02/05/2008 07:05:32 PM · #13

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

(Ecce Signum) perfect, they all seem super crisp at f/7.1, how does the quality look when wide open? would u sudjust me getting the 20d or the 30d? just as questioned before. thanxs

Txs Jamie, have not opened it up as yet but hope to go out with it more often! As for the cam, well, I love the 20D and often choose it over the 1DMKIIn for extra reach and imho better at high ISO. I'd not suggest upgrading from the 20D to 30D but think its a wise choice upgrading from the 400D to 30D ;)

02/05/2008 07:12:29 PM · #14

yup, basically what im lookin to do. kinda got over the xti as soon as the week was over. wish i had just gone for the 20d first off instead of downgrading to the xti. well, mistakes are always great lessons. dont want to repeat that again when buying the glass. id rather save n get the good stuff than just spontaniously picking n choosing

Prof_Fate

02/05/2008 07:12:40 PM · #15

The 300 F4 is a great lens, and very fast focusing, possibly faster than your 70-200 F4. While I've not use a Bigma, a friend had one and was very disappointed in it, sharpness and IQ wise. I doubt it's gonna focus fast enough to satisfy you.

Do you need an L? Do you need waterproofing? The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM gets good reviews and is around $550.

Get a 40D or used 1Dn, 1D mk2 type body - you'll be amazed at the DR and better focus over a rebel body.

Message edited by author 2008-02-05 19:13:36.

02/05/2008 07:20:36 PM · #16

haha, true, how much does the 1ds go for? im really contemplateing saveing a months worth n just getting the gear i need. i think it would be totaly worth it for sure.

02/05/2008 07:30:24 PM · #17

the thing is i will be still sitting at 3fps and wanting to shoot myself just as i am now. 5fps makes a big difference as i learned this past month. i really was looking to get the glass n have like 500-600 set aside for the body. not the other way around, but its a might fine idea if i had the dough. thanxs alot though

02/05/2008 07:34:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

haha, true, how much does the 1ds go for? im really contemplateing saveing a months worth n just getting the gear i need. i think it would be totaly worth it for sure.

imho the 1Ds is more a landscape camera, if you want to go big/fast cam wise then a 1Dn would be better and with 8.5fps and a 1.3 crop factor (which might mean you wanting the 400).

Prof_Fate

02/05/2008 07:47:54 PM · #19

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

haha, true, how much does the 1ds go for? im really contemplateing saveing a months worth n just getting the gear i need. i think it would be totaly worth it for sure.

Just saw a listing on another site for a used 1D mk2, professionally owned and used, 54k clicks on it for $1500 including all the books, wires, etc. It's the 8.2 Mp 1.3 crop CMOS body (too many 1D varients for me to know off the top of my head so I looked it up). The 1Dn MK2 was what came after and now its' the 1D3.

BTW, 40D is 6.5 FPS, 19 frames in RAW till you fill the buffer. In JPG the action will end before the buffer fills.

1D mk2 per canon

Message edited by author 2008-02-05 19:53:31.