DA 55-300mm vs Bigma 50-500mm at 300mm focal

marc121 · 09-15-2014, 03:02 PM

Hello everyone, I am recent to the photography community. I have recently bought a DA55-300 lens to get extra reach for my kit but I had to return it and get full refund because of a defect.Today an opportunity came up to buy a used Bigma 50-500mm apo dg f4.0-6.3 (the previous version I believe) for 350$. In my opinion it's probably a good deal for that lens but that's were I come to you for advice before I buy it and don't get ripped off. I like this lens because it has extra reach which will most probably be useful next year for my second safari trip. I don't like the fact that it seems heavy and rather hard to carry around while backpacking (I will probably have to unmount it from the body everytime I want to put it back in my backpack (which has a dslr compartment). I do travel often so carrying the lens is important to me as well.

So to sum it up, should I get another DA55-300mm or should I get the Bigma at that price instead? How do both compare at 300mm focal lenght IQ Wise are they on the same level? What about their autofocus too? I tend to think I should go with the 55-300mm but the Bigma seems like a good deal at about the same price.

55-300mm:
+Compact and light to carry around
+Not too bad IQ
-300mm might be too short

50-500mm:
+Long range
+Useful in next safari
-Heavy and harder to carry
- I don't know much about its IQ

Thank you so much for your comments

GoldenRGuy · 09-15-2014, 03:10 PM

I'd go with the 55-300 Pentax. I've had mine for years and it has never let me down!

reeftool · 09-15-2014, 03:21 PM

At $350, that Bigma is a steal but it is a big, heavy lens. If you're up to carrying it around then the Bigma will do fine but you might want a smaller and lighter telephoto. If that Bigma is in good shape, don't let that deal go by. The new ones are around $1500.

**boriscleto** · 09-15-2014, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

The new ones are around $1500.

But the new ones have OS & HSM.

I can't really comment on the 50-500 as I have the 150-500, but for the birding I do the extra 200mm has been invaluable.

Venom3300 · 09-15-2014, 03:36 PM

at $350 for the bigma... if it works, buy it... If you don't like it, sell it for a profit.

nomadkng · 09-15-2014, 03:57 PM

for 350,, ill take the bigma, can always use 500mm.

let me know where and how to buy, will solve your dilemma for you

marc121 · 09-15-2014, 04:12 PM

Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length

Thanks for your input guys

Venom3300 · 09-15-2014, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by marc121

Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length

Thanks for your input guys

I have no experience with both so I can't say for sure. But I can tell you the 55-300 is a bit soft at 300, especially wide open. My guess it that the bigma is sharper at 300 since that is in the middle of its range where as it is at the end of the range for the 55-300.

Mistlefoot · 09-15-2014, 04:54 PM

Unless it's damaged or stolen you will always be able to buy the 55-300 for around that....the Bigma, this will be the only one you see at that price....

**jrpower10** · 09-15-2014, 05:01 PM

I have the 55-300 and it's soft at 300. I've never used a Bigma but by reputation I would expect it to be sharp past 400 but a little soft at 500 (that's what my research told me a year ago when I was looking at one).

**crewl1** · 09-15-2014, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by marc121

Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length

The Bigma has good IQ at 300mm.
In general any zoom will probably be at its best when not pushed to the limit of focal range.

I have experience with a newer version of the Bigma and it is very good in its mid ranges, and requires more care and attention when shooting longest ranges to get sharp shots.

Like others I would say if you can swing it and it is in decent shape, get the Bigma if only to try it and later sell it if you find it is too heavy or not to your expectation of IQ.
I expect you will shoot it at longer than 300 if out in the country.

A monopod helps with the handling.

panoguy · 09-15-2014, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by marc121

Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length

I've had both, and they are roughly equal at 300mm (and both are pretty good). You'll need to stop down to f/8 or f/9 to get the most out of either lens, and long focal length lenses like these require more than just "point and shoot" behavior. You'll get the most using a tripod or a very good stance.

That said, the 55-300 weighs about as much as the hood on the Bigma [exaggeration], so it's much easier to carry and hold while shooting. The old Bigma (without OS) basically requires a tripod for the longer focal lengths, since (from my experience) the SR in Pentax cameras tends to be less effective past 300mm.

**boriscleto** · 09-15-2014, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by jrpower10

I have the 55-300 and it's soft at 300. I've never used a Bigma but by reputation I would expect it to be sharp past 400 but a little soft at 500 (that's what my research told me a year ago when I was looking at one).

I have the 55-300 and used it almost exclusively at 300mm. It was not soft IMO. I now have the 150-500 and use it almost exclusively at 500mm. Again, apart from a very thin DoF, it is not soft even wide open. You do need ro stop it down to avoid halo in certain lighting conditions, but the same is true of the 55-300.

Rupert · 09-15-2014, 06:18 PM

I don't have the 55-300, but have seen results that make me assume it is a very nice lens. I do have Bigma 50-500.....have for several years and the first thing I can tell you is that it is fantastic for long shooting. 300 becomes way too short once you have become used to 500mm and realize all you have missed because of the lack of reach.

The vast majority of shots here were shot with the Bigma and most at 500mm. You can view the EXIF and decide if it would work for you.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35763648@N05/sets/72157617360255629/

Here too...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35763648@N05/sets/72157618670129997/

All above 300mm were the Bigma for certain. If I only had one lens, it would be the Bigma 50-500. Big....but easy enough to handle once you get used to it. Great color, nice bokeh, and very decent from anywhere in its range of 50-500.

Regards!

**Des** · 09-15-2014, 06:31 PM

Are you sure it is a 50-500, not a 170-500 or 150-500? Sure it isn't defective? Or, dare I say it, stolen? $350 seems too good to be true.

Although the Bigma cover the focal range of the 55-300, the weight and bulk are so different that they are really a different type of lens. It's like comparing the 50-135 with the 55-300.

I have the Sigma 170-500 and the Pentax 55-300. The Sigma is really good at 300 (stopped down a bit); the IQ might even be a fraction better than the 55-300 at say f8. But if I only really need 300mm, most of the time I would just use the 55-300, because it is so much easier to handle (and the 170-500 is a lot lighter than the Bigma). And the 55-300 is a bit faster.

As others have said, you buy a 500mm zoom mainly to use at max reach. The real question is whether the extra weight and bulk are worth it for the extra reach. I would say for safari or dedicated birding, yes; otherwise no. YMMV.

09-15-2014, 03:02 PM	#1
marc121 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 42	DA 55-300mm vs Bigma 50-500mm at 300mm focal Hello everyone, I am recent to the photography community. I have recently bought a DA55-300 lens to get extra reach for my kit but I had to return it and get full refund because of a defect.Today an opportunity came up to buy a used Bigma 50-500mm apo dg f4.0-6.3 (the previous version I believe) for 350$. In my opinion it's probably a good deal for that lens but that's were I come to you for advice before I buy it and don't get ripped off. I like this lens because it has extra reach which will most probably be useful next year for my second safari trip. I don't like the fact that it seems heavy and rather hard to carry around while backpacking (I will probably have to unmount it from the body everytime I want to put it back in my backpack (which has a dslr compartment). I do travel often so carrying the lens is important to me as well. So to sum it up, should I get another DA55-300mm or should I get the Bigma at that price instead? How do both compare at 300mm focal lenght IQ Wise are they on the same level? What about their autofocus too? I tend to think I should go with the 55-300mm but the Bigma seems like a good deal at about the same price. 55-300mm: +Compact and light to carry around +Not too bad IQ -300mm might be too short 50-500mm: +Long range +Useful in next safari -Heavy and harder to carry - I don't know much about its IQ Thank you so much for your comments

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape New lens (DA 55-300mm) vs Quantaray 70-300mm	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	5	08-31-2010 01:19 PM
Sigma 50-500mm vs 150-500mm or Pentax DA 55-300mm with 1.4 TC?	mikejustice	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	12-18-2009 07:59 PM
Samyang 500mm f6.3 mirror vs DA 55-300mm	newarts	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-13-2009 02:39 PM
Pentax DA 55-300mm vs Tamron 70-300mm at long end (brickwall)	tcdk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-15-2009 12:52 AM
Tamron 28-300mm vs Da 55-300mm	thomps	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	06-24-2008 01:08 PM

09-15-2014, 03:10 PM	#2
GoldenRGuy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Kingston, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 154	I'd go with the 55-300 Pentax. I've had mine for years and it has never let me down!

09-15-2014, 03:21 PM	#3
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	At $350, that Bigma is a steal but it is a big, heavy lens. If you're up to carrying it around then the Bigma will do fine but you might want a smaller and lighter telephoto. If that Bigma is in good shape, don't let that deal go by. The new ones are around $1500.

09-15-2014, 03:26 PM	#4
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	Originally posted by reeftool The new ones are around $1500. But the new ones have OS & HSM. I can't really comment on the 50-500 as I have the 150-500, but for the birding I do the extra 200mm has been invaluable.

09-15-2014, 03:36 PM	#5
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	at $350 for the bigma... if it works, buy it... If you don't like it, sell it for a profit.

09-15-2014, 03:57 PM	#6
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	for 350,, ill take the bigma, can always use 500mm. let me know where and how to buy, will solve your dilemma for you

09-15-2014, 04:12 PM	#7
marc121 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 42 Original Poster	Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length Thanks for your input guys

09-15-2014, 04:30 PM	#8
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	Originally posted by marc121 Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length Thanks for your input guys I have no experience with both so I can't say for sure. But I can tell you the 55-300 is a bit soft at 300, especially wide open. My guess it that the bigma is sharper at 300 since that is in the middle of its range where as it is at the end of the range for the 55-300.

09-15-2014, 04:54 PM	#9
Mistlefoot Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Unless it's damaged or stolen you will always be able to buy the 55-300 for around that....the Bigma, this will be the only one you see at that price....

09-15-2014, 05:01 PM	#10
jrpower10 Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Richland, Washington, USA Posts: 935	I have the 55-300 and it's soft at 300. I've never used a Bigma but by reputation I would expect it to be sharp past 400 but a little soft at 500 (that's what my research told me a year ago when I was looking at one).

09-15-2014, 05:09 PM	#11
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by marc121 Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length The Bigma has good IQ at 300mm. In general any zoom will probably be at its best when not pushed to the limit of focal range. I have experience with a newer version of the Bigma and it is very good in its mid ranges, and requires more care and attention when shooting longest ranges to get sharp shots. Like others I would say if you can swing it and it is in decent shape, get the Bigma if only to try it and later sell it if you find it is too heavy or not to your expectation of IQ. I expect you will shoot it at longer than 300 if out in the country. A monopod helps with the handling.

09-15-2014, 05:10 PM	#12
panoguy Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,327	Originally posted by marc121 Yeah ok I thing I get it ahah! No one has told me if the Bigma is sharper than the 55-300 at 300mm focal length I've had both, and they are roughly equal at 300mm (and both are pretty good). You'll need to stop down to f/8 or f/9 to get the most out of either lens, and long focal length lenses like these require more than just "point and shoot" behavior. You'll get the most using a tripod or a very good stance. That said, the 55-300 weighs about as much as the hood on the Bigma [exaggeration], so it's much easier to carry and hold while shooting. The old Bigma (without OS) basically requires a tripod for the longer focal lengths, since (from my experience) the SR in Pentax cameras tends to be less effective past 300mm.

09-15-2014, 05:28 PM	#13
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	Originally posted by jrpower10 I have the 55-300 and it's soft at 300. I've never used a Bigma but by reputation I would expect it to be sharp past 400 but a little soft at 500 (that's what my research told me a year ago when I was looking at one). I have the 55-300 and used it almost exclusively at 300mm. It was not soft IMO. I now have the 150-500 and use it almost exclusively at 500mm. Again, apart from a very thin DoF, it is not soft even wide open. You do need ro stop it down to avoid halo in certain lighting conditions, but the same is true of the 55-300.

09-15-2014, 06:18 PM	#14
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I don't have the 55-300, but have seen results that make me assume it is a very nice lens. I do have Bigma 50-500.....have for several years and the first thing I can tell you is that it is fantastic for long shooting. 300 becomes way too short once you have become used to 500mm and realize all you have missed because of the lack of reach. The vast majority of shots here were shot with the Bigma and most at 500mm. You can view the EXIF and decide if it would work for you. https://www.flickr.com/photos/35763648@N05/sets/72157617360255629/ Here too... https://www.flickr.com/photos/35763648@N05/sets/72157618670129997/ All above 300mm were the Bigma for certain. If I only had one lens, it would be the Bigma 50-500. Big....but easy enough to handle once you get used to it. Great color, nice bokeh, and very decent from anywhere in its range of 50-500. Regards!

09-15-2014, 06:31 PM	#15
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Are you sure it is a 50-500, not a 170-500 or 150-500? Sure it isn't defective? Or, dare I say it, stolen? $350 seems too good to be true. Although the Bigma cover the focal range of the 55-300, the weight and bulk are so different that they are really a different type of lens. It's like comparing the 50-135 with the 55-300. I have the Sigma 170-500 and the Pentax 55-300. The Sigma is really good at 300 (stopped down a bit); the IQ might even be a fraction better than the 55-300 at say f8. But if I only really need 300mm, most of the time I would just use the 55-300, because it is so much easier to handle (and the 170-500 is a lot lighter than the Bigma). And the 55-300 is a bit faster. As others have said, you buy a 500mm zoom mainly to use at max reach. The real question is whether the extra weight and bulk are worth it for the extra reach. I would say for safari or dedicated birding, yes; otherwise no. YMMV.