This continues from Part I and Part II on my new lens. A friend came over and I used his camera either to take some pictures, or to model the lens.

I'm no good at product photography (I tried it once a few years ago, and failed miserably), but I've tried spicing these up a bit to keep them interesting....

The puppies on the hood and under the lens are tiny chopstick holders, seen in my “New Camera” post the other day, and I used the “Mostly Monochrome” Lightroom develop preset seen in my Stupid Tone-Curve Tricks post as the basis for this look.

So, just how big is it? The photo below shows my (very big) full-frame Nikon D700 with MD-10 vertical grip, a combination which is even larger than Nikon's flagship D3. It looks small in the photo below because the camera is zoomed so far back. Mouse over each button below the photo for a different situation...

In Part I I was astounded at how huge the lens is, yet, every time I see pictures of it, it doesn't seem that big. A reader (thanks Itano-san) pointed me at the blog of someone who just got The Bigma, and the photos of it on make it look cute. So why was I so astounded at the size?

I think one reason I was surprised at the size is because I had seen this cool five-minute video at LensRentals.com showing the sizes of a bunch of large lenses, including the previous (non-stabilized) version of the Sigma Bigma. The guy in the video has massive hands that would make a basketball look like a grape, and is surrounded by HUGE lenses that rightly make The Bigma look like a child's toy.

It was suggested to take a comparison shot against the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR, and when I stood them up next to each other, I was shocked to find them to be exactly the same length. And when I added the lens hoods, the 70-200 was actually longer by a bit. (This is, of course, when The Bigma is zoomed back all the way... as you can see above, it gets substantially longer as you zoom out.)

But The Bigma is much heavier and thicker, Here's a thickness comparison with a consumer zoom:

I'm feeling less intimidated now that I'm getting used to it, but wow, I was surprised when it first showed up.

Over all, I'm really impressed with it — thrilled with it — but I have noticed a few drawbacks...

• It makes me feel like a paparazzi when I'm out with it. Yuck. Not a nice feeling.

  The feeling is particularly pronounced when bracing the lens against something (railing, telephone pole, etc.) because it looks like you're trying to hide behind something and photograph covertly.

• The balance places the zoom ring in the perfect spot for gripping with the left hand while holding the camera with the right, but the focus ring is too far back to be reached when holding the lens comfortably, so to manual focus, I have to adjust my grip to one that's less comfortable and less steady. Since I prefer to use manual focus when I can, this is unfortunate.

• Because the forward/inner barrel extends out from inside the rear/outer barrel, I worry about using this in the rain. It was misting slightly this morning when I was out with it for a bit, and the thought of getting the inner barrel wet then retracting the wetness back into the lens when unzooming scared the heck out of me, so I abandoned the outing. I don't know whether this is a valid concern, but I'll not use The Bigma in the rain until I know for sure.

  (The Nikkor 70-200's zooming is all internal, a benefit I didn't appreciate until today.)

• It has a zoom lock to stop the zoom from self-extending due to gravity when you're walking around with the lens pointing down, but I wish you could lock at 200mm as well (the focal length that has the maximum magnification).

• It does not hold focus while zooming at all. Not even close. You must refocus after adjusting the zoom.

• f/5.6 is definitely not f/1.2, so pictures like in “Impossible Photography: No Light, No Tripod, No Hope. D700 and a 50mm f/1.2” and “Pushing Lowlight-Photography Limits: The Atta Terrace Hotel at Night” are less likely with The Bigma.

• The tripod-mount foot has just one screw hole (unlike the Nikkor 70-200VR, which has two), so it could spin in place if not tightened down with considerable force. The bottom of the foot is made of a slightly rubbery material that seems to bite well, so I've not actually experienced any inadvertent twisting (as of this writing, I've used the foot just once, with a monopod), but it's a concern.

• The optical-stabilization feature causes the view through the viewfinder to “swim” quite a bit at times, much (much!) more than it does with any of the few other VR lenses I've used. It's normally not a problem, but sometimes makes framing very difficult.

• A few times it (or my Nikon D700) have gotten very confused with each other, and the viewfinder reported that it was at the impossible f/95, and at the same time, autofocus and VR stopped working. Flipping the camera off and on would solve the problem.

  Update May 2010: sometimes this problems happens a lot and gets very intrusive, sometimes manifesting itself in an apparent shutdown of len's CPU (causing the camera to consider it a non-CPU lens and default to camera settings about non-CPU lenses, which in my case causes it to comically be f/2 even at 1000mm. I've contacted Sigma about it and sent my lens in for them to check out. )-:

(I update the list above as I notice things; last update May 7, 2010)

Other than that last issue, these are all relatively minor issues. My overall rating is 「ブラボーシグマ、ブラボー」(“Bravo, Sigma. Bravo.”)

Continued here with more samples...

This is a continuation of yesterday's post about Sigma's updated “Bigma” 50-500mm Super-tele Zoom, mostly to show more samples. Clicking through on the thumbnails brings up full-resolution versions.

I horribly missed focus on this one, as I have on many of these. The depth of focus is pretty thin at 500mm, so I was sometimes trying “C” continuous) focus mode on moving subjects, something that I have little experience or confidence with, so I accept all blame for the missed-focus shots.

Missed the focus on the one above as well, by just a bit. Adding a smidgen of extra sharpening in Lightroom does wonders to the mushiness you see at full resolution, but like all the photos on this post and most on the previous, I present it here with all the detail-related Lightroom develop settings are at their defaults.

The shots above rounded out those from yesterday. (I've got more already from today, but I'll save those for Part III.)

Once I got the shots loaded into Lightroom, I ran my Data-Plot focal-length-plot plugin on the results, and was not surprised to find that I took half the shots at the extreme long end of the zoom:

Actually, I was a bit surprised that it wasn't even more. Having that much reach was a new and novel experience, so of course I wanted to play with that aspect of it.

Continued here...

As I mentioned yesterday, I got a new camera. What I neglected to mention is that it also came with a big mass of industrial beauty called the “Sigma Bigma”, the Sigma 50mm-500mm F4.5-6.3 OS HSM zoom lens. (The “OS” stands for optical stabilization, one of the new features Sigma added in this recent update to their original “Sigma Bigma” lens.)

Let me say up front that I had very low expectations for this lens, beyond the versatility and convenience of a 10× superzoom that goes to 500mm.

• First of all, it's a 10× superzoom.

  Its max zoom, 500mm, is ten times more than its widest, 50mm. Superzooms like this can be really convenient which is why I got it in the first place, but are generally at best “okay” all around, but not “great” at anything. I used to have Nikon's Nikkor 18-200mm 11× superzoom, and it was a wonderful all-day all-around packing-light travel lens. But it was slow (that is, didn't let in a lot of light, thereby requiring long, slow, blur-inducing shutter speeds), and had a lot of distortion.

  I brought it on a camping trip a couple of years ago and it was really convenient, but seeing its compromises manifested in “bendy” horizons in ocean shots is painful. I used it on a trip to Disneyland last year, making it twice in three years that I used it. Clearly, its compromises were more than I was normally willing to deal with.

• Second, it's a Sigma.

  Sorry if I sound snobbish, but I'm a realist: Sigma has not earned a reputation as a top-tier lens company. I personally have experience with only one of their lenses (Sigma 30mm f/1.4), and it matched the sense I had of them: their stuff can be great, but their quality control can be iffy, so you have to watch out to be sure to get a good unit.

  What can be great about Sigma is their value, along the lines of “90% of the quality at 30% of the price”.

  I've been getting the sense that Sigma is improving in the high-end range, but still didn't have much in the way of expectations for this lens. My feeling, I guess, is that they're the top of the 2nd-tier lenses.

• I'd seem some horrible reviews of its predecessor.

  Sigma has had a 50-500mm superzoom out for a while, and I saw some reviews where side-by-side shots were shown from the Sigma and some other lens, and the Sigma's was so bad as to be not worth even using. Really really really bad.

  But that particular review was just some unqualified guy like me, and it was for a different, older lens. This new version was just announced in February, and had a completely new optical design, so maybe there was hope.

So, why did I give it a try?

• It's a zoom out to 500mm.

  The longest reach I have now is my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR (which, despite being a Nikon, also had quality issues). I used to have a 1.7× teleconverter that could turn its maximum reach to 320mm, but I seem to have lost it )-:.

• It's a 10× superzoom.

  So convenient, and this version has “OS” (optical stabilization).

• Did I mention it's 500mm?

  That kind of zoom has some appeal.

• It was my birthday

  'nuff said

First Impressions

When I first got the Nikkor 70-200mm way back when, I was shocked at how big it was.... much larger than I had expected, and my arms were tired after trying to use it hand-held for just a few minutes. It was massive. But I soon got used to it, and for years haven't given its size a second thought, except when it comes to packing. I can use it handheld all day.

But that didn't even being to prepare me for the dwarf-star-producing mass of lens that this new Sigma Bigma is. Photos of it show a normal “big lens” shape that lacks context, so you don't realize that the lens barrel is as thick as a 1,000-year-old redwood, and just as heavy. “Tank turret” and “Saturn V Rocket” come immediately to mind. It is, literally, thicker than my arm. For some pictures and comparisons, see my post about just how big the Bigma is.

A Nikon D700 with the MD-10 vertical grip is even larger than Nikon's flagship D3, but it looks cute and tiny when this massive lens is attached. Or, I should say, when you attach the camera to the lens. I dare say that a smaller SLR (D40 or D60) might actually fit inside the lens hood. It would be comical.

This lens could not scream “mid life crisis” and “compensating” more than it already does, unless it were candy-apple red and came with a fold-down top.

Second Impressions

I had unboxed it late last night after posting about my new camera, and so took just a few test shots in the dark glow of my den. This included a 1/80th-second shot at 500mm without the stabilization feature turned on. I expected it to be horribly blurry due to camera shake, and I took it only for comparison to a shot with the stabilization on, but it turned out to be a stunningly usable result. I think that the lens just had too much mass to shake much in my hands.

The build quality seems excellent. I guess anything this heavy would feel solid, but it does feel solid... rock solid. I can't tell what the outside is made of, but I'd guess some kind of matte plastic. It's embedded with little microscopic flecks of something that sparkle in the light such that it gives the distinct impression of a matte metallic paint (and hence of metal). I don't suppose I'm describing it well, but it's very, very nice. Feels good. Solid. Manly.

I was also pleased to notice that it's the closest thing to a macro that I have: it's best magnification is 0.32×. A true “macro” should have a magnification of at least 1×, but many companies cheat and call 0.5× magnification a “macro” (including the borrowed Zeiss 100mm f/2 featured in my “Holy Cow, the Gardens at Kyoto's Eikando Temple are Gorgeous!” post... it's one of those 0.5× “macros”).

But I don't have any of those. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 that I used in this “Anthony Tipping Point” post is only 0.11×, and the Nikkor 70-200 used in this “Icy Water” post is just 0.16×. My all-around day-to-day lens (Nikkor 24-70) is a bit more magnifyiy at 0.27×, but you have to really get close in there to get it.

One of Anthony's Curious George friends, and the chopstick-holder puppy seen in yesterday's post

Third Impressions

So today I took a short stroll around the neighborhood to give the lens (and my poor wimpy arms) a workout.

I'm just amazed at the bokeh. I'm no connoisseur, and have simple (simpleton) artistic tastes, but wow, I'm just floored that a lens that should have so many compromises has such a great look. Check out the highlights in the lead photo of some wild flowers at the edge of a river (the context can be seen more clearly in this much lower quality photo from three years ago), or in the background chopstick-holder puppy in the Curious-George shot above.

The 500mm zoom allows you to reach way out of your zone. I'm not into “street photography”, but wow, those who are would love this.

But at the same time, we can take the flip side back to the sorta-macro situation...

Then we come to the sharpness. It's not the sharpest lens I've ever used, but it's much much MUCH better than one could hope from a 10× super-tele-zoom. I found myself wanting to nudge up the sharpening in Lightroom just a tad on all of these, but I left most of them at Lightroom's default settings to demonstrate what you get out of the camera. I did add a touch of extra sharpening to the blossoms & leaves photo just above “First Impressions”, and the next two photos...

This photo isn't much on the artistic side, but I include it because it shows that you can get not-horrible sharpness. The bit of extra sharpening I added in Lightroom makes the veins on the backlit blossoms pop just a bit extra.

On the other hand, this next shot looked fairly mushy without the same amount of extra sharpening. Maybe I just missed focus, but the added sharpness spruced it right up, I think.

But let's face it, the zoom is what I really wanted to play with. New toy and all, you know.

That last shot highlights an issue I'll have to pay extra attention to: I have a difficult enough time with a normal lens keeping the camera level, but with this mammoth lens I'll really have to, uh, keep an eye on it.

The rest of this post are just some more examples....

This next sequence of three shots really highlights the benefits of a super-duper zoom like this....

Continued here...

It was my birthday yesterday, and knowing my taste for high-end photography equipment, Fumie got a new camera for me.

It's about the size of an egg, and delivers about the same in photographic quality. I love it.

It's a Leadworks “Mini Digital Camera”, sporting a 0.3MP (640×480) sensor and an internal memory that can hold 20 shots before you have to download to its proprietary software (Windows only) using its proprietary drivers and proprietary USB cable. you can see more here, and even buy one yourself.

It has a counter on the back, and that's pretty much it. Anthony played around and quickly took 20 shots, then had to wait for me to download them. It's digital, with the convenience of film!

Finally, I can get rid of my crappy Nikon gear.

It comes with a key-chain clip, so will find itself attached to my camera bag.

Holy cow, six days without a blog post... I think that's the longest dry spell since 2005. I'm just too busy with LR3 preparations, sorry.

I'm still too busy to post properly, so going to my archives for some low-hanging fruit. This shot is from the last day of our short New Year's trip. In the thumbnail view above it's a picture of a bridge over a river, but view it full size and it becomes something much greater.

It joins a few other photos from the trip that got their own post, including “Theme For Our New Year's Trip”, “Deceptively Clear: Snow-Covered Mountains in Exquisite Detail”, and “Snowy Mountains”.

Continued here...