Bigma or 170- 500

geordie graham · #1 (**permalink**) 20-10-2007, 08:13 PM

I am in a bit of a quandary.I am after a bigger lens for my Pentax K10D as my 70-300 Sigma just doesn`t cut the mustard for bird photography.After reading numerous threads on this site it seems as though the 50-500 Bigma is the one to have.The main problem is the price.Having read a lot of threads about the 170-500 it seems the main problem is that the images are soft at 500 end.Surely with all the photo editing packages ie photoshop etc surely the photo could be sharpened and the softness could be eradicated.I am new to photography and it will always just be a hobby.I have seen a lot of photo`s where people have found various faults and I don`t know whether its just my eyes but they look perfectly ok to me and would be over the moon if I had taken them.

Graham

geordie1970 · #2 (**permalink**) 20-10-2007, 08:53 PM

Hi Geordie I have the Bigma and it does the job it doesn't get you as close as you would probably imagine though.I've tried the 170-500mm and found the auto focus a bit slow.As for perfection if you are happy with your photo's then it shouldn't really matter if they are not technically perfect.

Boddie · #3 (**permalink**) 20-10-2007, 08:59 PM

Bigma over the coffee grinder every time. I was out with a user of each today and Starbucks said he was going to get a Bigma quickfast. My guess is he will get a PUMP however

Ollie · #4 (**permalink**) 20-10-2007, 11:45 PM

Another vote for the Bigma here. I have a mate who has the 170-500 mm, and he has tried my Bigma and he reckons it knocks spots off his 170-500mm not only in terms of auto focus but also in photo quality as well
Roger

Tormentil · #5 (**permalink**) 20-10-2007, 11:47 PM

And another for the Bigma.

glsammy · #6 (**permalink**) 21-10-2007, 12:24 AM

I was out shooting with a 170-500mm user today, the one really noticeable difference was the shooting speed, with the Bigma faster than the 170-500mm, due to the superior focusing system. The camera bodies were identical, so it had to be the lens making the difference.

Interpreter · #7 (**permalink**) 21-10-2007, 09:05 AM

I think that with all very long telephoto lenses, there will be a lack of contrast at the long end of the range. This should be correctable with Photoshop or similar programmes. There will also be a compressing of the image at this range. Everything will appear closer together. That is the nature of the beast.
I had a look through a superb spotting 'scope a week or two ago, to have a look at two black stork. The image filled the eyepiece, but was flat in that it lacked contrast. It also made things seen a lot closer together. However with the 'scope I could see the birds. With my 5D and 100-400L pump, they were just specks in the distance.
If I had taken photographs through this 'scope the images would have been enhanced later to produce some great prints. The same applies to any very powerful telephoto lens.
For those with the time and knowhow to adapt a lens to fit a camera, I see that my local ex-WD shop recently had some new F52 cameras for sale for £150. They were fitted with 36" f5.6 lenses and were complete with shutters, gearboxes and magazines.