Discussion
I've had both types.
I bought a non-OS for use on my crop-body Nikon - found it very versatile and quite crisp, as long as you weren't at 500mm and weren't fully wide-open and whatever you were hoping to capture wasn't moving too quickly....
As I'm into motorsport, I quickly found that the lack of OS compromised my other settings (had to use a faster shutter speed than I wanted to compensate for shake, but ended up with not enough motion blur).
I sold the non-OS and bought a bargain secondhand (but unused) OS version. Definitely a marked improvement, but still suffered the same softening at wide open or max focal length. Also, it was definitely better in good light - but still not very good in low light, even with high ISO on a full-frame body
I then upgraded to full-frame and the Bigma came into its own - extremely versatile and much sharper than it was on the crop-body. It still wasn't the fastest at autofocus, but it was decent as long as the sun was out. The problem is that when I bought the full-frame body, I also bought a 70-200 f2.8, which is massively better than the Bigma in just about every respect other than reach (although I've also recently bought a 200-500 f5.6 for use on sunny motorsport outings).
Overall, I'd rate the Bigma as great value for money for 90% of circumstances. It can come up lacking when asked to perform at its limits (whether that's aperture or focal length or AF speed). The 50-500 versatility is great - almost a walkabout lens (buy yourself a BlackRapid strap if you get a Bigma - makes it much easier to live with.
My recommendation - if you don't have £1200 - £2000 for Nikkor glass, the Bigma is great, as long as you understand its limits. Don't bother with the non-OS unless your only work is still-life on a tripod. I bought the OS version for £600 and sold it a couple of years later for £500, so you'll be unlucky to lose much money if you buy wisely.
I bought a non-OS for use on my crop-body Nikon - found it very versatile and quite crisp, as long as you weren't at 500mm and weren't fully wide-open and whatever you were hoping to capture wasn't moving too quickly....
As I'm into motorsport, I quickly found that the lack of OS compromised my other settings (had to use a faster shutter speed than I wanted to compensate for shake, but ended up with not enough motion blur).
I sold the non-OS and bought a bargain secondhand (but unused) OS version. Definitely a marked improvement, but still suffered the same softening at wide open or max focal length. Also, it was definitely better in good light - but still not very good in low light, even with high ISO on a full-frame body
I then upgraded to full-frame and the Bigma came into its own - extremely versatile and much sharper than it was on the crop-body. It still wasn't the fastest at autofocus, but it was decent as long as the sun was out. The problem is that when I bought the full-frame body, I also bought a 70-200 f2.8, which is massively better than the Bigma in just about every respect other than reach (although I've also recently bought a 200-500 f5.6 for use on sunny motorsport outings).
Overall, I'd rate the Bigma as great value for money for 90% of circumstances. It can come up lacking when asked to perform at its limits (whether that's aperture or focal length or AF speed). The 50-500 versatility is great - almost a walkabout lens (buy yourself a BlackRapid strap if you get a Bigma - makes it much easier to live with.
My recommendation - if you don't have £1200 - £2000 for Nikkor glass, the Bigma is great, as long as you understand its limits. Don't bother with the non-OS unless your only work is still-life on a tripod. I bought the OS version for £600 and sold it a couple of years later for £500, so you'll be unlucky to lose much money if you buy wisely.
FidoGoRetroGo said:
I would give VERY serious consideration to the Nikon 200-500mm. It's not the quickest of the quick when focusing but the image quality is right up there with the best, even wide opn at 500mm.
That's exactly what I did - the AF is only marginally faster than the Sigma, although it locks straight on, whereas the Sigma would occasionally "hunt". However, the optics and build quality of the 200-500 are clearly way better than the Sigma, which is to be expected when comparing Nikkor with Sigma, but not so much when you look at the modest differences in RRP between the two lenses.I've yet to use my 200-500 in good light on fast-moving race cars, but I'm looking forward to it
However, what I'm already missing with the Sigma is the range - the ability to go down to 50mm was really convenient
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff