Help choosing a lens please.

[Tockman]

Hi Guys,
I'm a bit confused about zoom lenses and focal lengths.
I'm presently using a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 (12x optical zoom, 36-432. 35mm equiv) would 432 be the total zoom? I'm hoping to buy a Canon EOS 350D soon, but which lens? I need more reach, ideally to capture small birds, full frame if poss,at approx 15 feet.
Would a 400mm be enough, I believe you need to multiply by 1.6 when using a DSLR making (640mm) is that right? or should I go for something like a 170x500mm, does a 500 focus down to 12/15 feet?

Any info much appreciated.
Thanks, Alan.

[kennygee]

Your assumptions are correct, a 400mm lens would give 400X1.6 = 640mm in comparison to the Lumix 432mm.

The min focus distance of the 170-500mm is 3m.

[IanF]

I was using FZ20+1.7x teleconverter and have now moved to a Canon 20D+100-400IS f4,5-f5,6. It has the versatility for hand holding and for flight shots and the IS is a big help as it was on the FZ20.

The extra reach of this set up is marked over what the FZ20 can do.

Filling the frame with a small bird at 15-16' is still an issue even at 400mm however the 8MP sensor is a lot higher quality than the FZ20 allowing more cropping without loss of detail. The 1.6x crop factor is a boon as well.

I'd say 500mm is still a better option for bird photography. Lens quality is still an issue though as to whether you get sharp photos.

[Tockman]

Thank you for your replies, it's a big help, think I'll go for the Sigma 170-500. I do like the sound of the Canon 100-400 with IS. but it is more than twice the price! I'd really like to try them both, but my local camera shop doesn't have them in stock, will try elswhere before making final decision.
Thanks again, Alan.

[QuantumTiger]

I've not used one myself, but there are two things that you might need to know about the Sigma. Firstly it is not an HSM lens and is reputedly not that fast at focussing. Secondly with the 350D you will only be able to auto focus at f/5.6 (ie the short end). May not be an issue for you depending on your style.

[Neil]

The Sigma 170-500mm is not really suitable for flight shots or photography in poor light (too slow). As it doesn't have Image Stabilising it should be used on a tripod when you get over 300mm. It's an ok lens out to 10 meters for small birds and 30 meters for larger birds in good light. With the 1.6x factor in the Canon you shouldn't need more than 400mm.Neil.

[Bill Atwood]

At distances as short as 15' you should check that the lenses you are considering have a minimum focusing distance less than that.

The Canon 300/4 IS has a minimum focus distance of 5' feet or so and should work good with a 1.4x converter.

[paul goode]

I've not used one myself, but there are two things that you might need to know about the Sigma. Firstly it is not an HSM lens and is reputedly not that fast at focussing. Secondly with the 350D you will only be able to auto focus at f/5.6 (ie the short end). May not be an issue for you depending on your style.


Assuming the 170-500 works the same as the 50-500 it will autofocus at the long end because the lens somehow tells the camera that it is still f5.6. I don't know how it works but it does. 2 of my friends are using this lens on a 350d and are more than happy with it, taking into account the cost compared to say the 100-400IS. Both have had photos published in Birdwatch and Birdwatching.
If the budget stretches far enough then a Canon prime or the 100-400IS will be better. I was photographing Brambling alongside someone using the 300f4 with a 1.4x on a 10d and looking at the shots on his camera they appeared to be sharper than mine. I suppose it's simply a case of how much you are prepared to spend.

Regards

Paul

[SeanKP]

Assuming the 170-500 works the same as the 50-500 it will autofocus at the long end because the lens somehow tells the camera that it is still f5.6. I don't know how it works but it does. 2 of my friends are using this lens on a 350d and are more than happy with it, taking into account the cost compared to say the 100-400IS. Both have had photos published in Birdwatch and Birdwatching.

Regards

Paul

I can confirm that the 170-500 can auto-focus on the 350D at the 500mm end. Focus speed isn't brilliant but it isn't bad either.

I bought the 170-500 as a travel lens and have been pleasantly surprised with the results. The attached shot of a green violet-ear was taken with the lens as were all of the Costa Rican shots from my gallery. I've been using it predominantly on a tripod although the great frigatebird and the brown booby shots were both taken hand-held and I think go some way to disproving that it is unsuitable for flight shots. Also check out Psilo's excellent gallery. She has been achieving some fabulous results hand-holding the 170-500 in relatively poor light.

Warehouse Express were flogging off the non-DG version of the lens for £399 not so long ago. If they are still available this is marvellous value in my opinion.

Sean

[QuantumTiger]

I can confirm that the 170-500 can auto-focus on the 350D at the 500mm end. Focus speed isn't brilliant but it isn't bad either.
Oops! (Blush). Apologies for misinformation! But that is really useful to know...

[psilo]

Well I use the 170-500mm and find it excellent for all round bird photography. True in poor light at only f6.3 the focus isnt as sharp as I would like but for the price I cant complain. In good light it can match any lens for sharpness. I have photographed many birds in flight and with practice (as with any flight shots) it produces stunningly sharp photos. The 400mmL is an excellent lens for sharpness and is faster but obviously doesnt quite have the reach but will perform better in poor light. Like sean says it will autofocus no problem at 500mm and thenew dg lens produces great quality photos with no aberation. My only complaint is that with it being non usm it is a bit noisier than some lens but not alarmingly so and it certainly doesnt scare the birds! Check out my website below, especially in the land bird section for photos with this lens. I think for the price the 170-500mm is an excellent lens.
Alan you only live up the road from me. If you want to try out my lens you are more than welcome just give me a shout. :)

[Tockman]

Thanks for your advice everyone.

Just been looking at Keith Reeders excellent pics, using a Sigma 80-400 OS.
Even more confused now!!

Thanks again, Alan.

[psilo]

Alan I have used the canon 100-400mm is, the canon 400L f5.6 and the sigma 170-500mm apo dg several times. The first one is a lens I do not like at all. I find it clumpy and now where near as sharp as the prime or the sigma lens. I also think paying extra for the IS is a waste of money when both the other two lenses produce sharper pics all round. The 400f.56L is fast but being a fixed lens does not have the flexibility of the other two zooms. I have watched people use this lens and yes sometimes the fixed lens is a disadvantage. Having said that I would still buy this over the 100-400 is. For the price and for the results my money would still go on the sigma 170-500. It may be slower in poor light but then again it can still produce sharp results down to 1/60, and if the light is that poor then I am coming to the conclusion that hte photo probably isnt worth taking anyway. Given medium to good light and the sigma can produce as good a result as any of the former lenses and it has the 500mm reach! ;)

[SeanKP]

I had both the 80-400 and the 170-500. I couldn't justify keeping both so one had to go. I kept the 170-500. That wasn't because the 80-400 is a bad lens but because it requires more work to get decent results. Keith is now getting awesome results from the 80-400 but I think he'd be the first to admit that it's been a struggle for him. For some reason it seems to be less forgiving than the 170-500.

With regard to the OS, it does have limited use for bird photography in my view. With good technique it is possible to hand-hold the 80-400 at ridiculously slow speeds but, unless you are taking a picture of a completely stationary bird you will end up with motion blur. Even a tiny breeze rippling the feathers very slightly will cause your picture to lose sharpness.

[baillieswells]

With regard to the OS, it does have limited use for bird photography in my view. With good technique it is possible to hand-hold the 80-400 at ridiculously slow speeds but, unless you are taking a picture of a completely stationary bird you will end up with motion blur. Even a tiny breeze rippling the feathers very slightly will cause your picture to lose sharpness.

The comment about breeze is a very important one. I have seen this when photographing plants and shrubs, even landscapes with trees in the foreground, a wind can be an awful problem. At slow shutter speeds, and particularly using IS one can easily forget this. As SeanKP so rightly says 'Even a tiny breeze rippling the feathers very slightly will cause your picture to lose sharpness'.

[paul goode]

Alan I have used the canon 100-400mm is, the canon 400L f5.6 and the sigma 170-500mm apo dg several times. The first one is a lens I do not like at all. I find it clumpy and now where near as sharp as the prime or the sigma lens. I also think paying extra for the IS is a waste of money when both the other two lenses produce sharper pics all round. The 400f.56L is fast but being a fixed lens does not have the flexibility of the other two zooms. I have watched people use this lens and yes sometimes the fixed lens is a disadvantage. Having said that I would still buy this over the 100-400 is. For the price and for the results my money would still go on the sigma 170-500. It may be slower in poor light but then again it can still produce sharp results down to 1/60, and if the light is that poor then I am coming to the conclusion that hte photo probably isnt worth taking anyway. Given medium to good light and the sigma can produce as good a result as any of the former lenses and it has the 500mm reach! ;)

I must admit my comment on the 100-400IS being better was based on drooling over Nigel Blake's shots with it. I remember from a thread which was lost in the crash that the lens does seem to generate very strong opinions in both ways. Some people never seem to get on with it at all and yet others get great results. I just wish I'd got the money to be able to consider one!

Regards

Paul

[Neil]

I must admit my comment on the 100-400IS being better was based on drooling over Nigel Blake's shots with it. I remember from a thread which was lost in the crash that the lens does seem to generate very strong opinions in both ways. Some people never seem to get on with it at all and yet others get great results. I just wish I'd got the money to be able to consider one!

Regards

Paul

With the Canon body using the Sigma 170-500 zoom the real range is 272 - 800 mm which for most people would be difficult to hand hold even with image stabilising. I used it a lot when I could rest it on fences/rocks/trees or lying on the ground propping up on my elbows. I bought it when I really wanted the Nikon 80-400/VR zoom but there were budget constraints. Six months later I bought the Nikon which is a better quality lens,sharper and easier to hand hold due to it's Image Stabilsing. But it still had trouble picking up fast moving birds in trees (eg warblers ) and could'nt track Peregrines and ducks in flight. Use ducks as your benchmark for flight shots as they are tough but worth it. For the fast birds I had to move up to a 300/2.8 lens plus 1.4x tele which is about 3x faster than the other two lenses and very good in low light. If budget is constraining and your happy to use a tripod most of the time you will get good photos with the Sigma as the people in this thread have been getting.Neil.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi all,

firstly, let's be honest - I've done nothing special with the Sigma OS lens yet!

;)

I remain absolutely persuaded though, that OS/IS/VR has real value for bird photography.

It can never, ever be a bad thing to have a stable platform - it just can't be - otherwise a lot of folk out there have wasted good money on carbon fibre tripods and Wimberley heads...

If technology can improve stability, then - to me - it makes no sense to say that it's an irrelevance.

However, it's also clear that stabilisation is only part of the solution and of course fast shutter speeds are essential to deal with subject movement - I don't think anyone has ever said that in-camera or in-lens stabilisation deals with that: again, that'd be like saying a Gitzo tripod is a solution for the same problem.

I really don't understand the "downer" some people have on stabilisation. Yes, with good handholding technique, good light and and fast shutter speeds you probably don't always need it, but how can having the option possibly be a bad thing, if the lens delivers in every other respect?

The Sigma OS lens is very sharp, and its colour and and contrast rendition is fantastic - far better than my Sigma 135-400mm, which is essentially the same lens as the 170-500mm, but with different internal geometry to provide the extra 100mm (the lens elements are a bit further apart) and with a larger objective.

My point is that if it is generally agreed that a stable platform is an essential - whether it comes from stabilisation, a tripod, a beanbag, or just good technique - then anything which improves stability must be worthwhile.

Lens stabilisation doesn't remove the need for fast shutter speeds and so on, but I've already satisfied myself 110% that it can make all the difference in a variety of situations.

I live in a windy part of the world (an exposed part of the north east coast), and before I got the OS lens I was very conscious of just how much I was being buffeted about by the wind - buffeting which couldn't not affect my pictures - so for me a stabilised lens was an obvious way to address the issue, and I continue to believe that.

But I still need light and a fast shutter (both of which have been painfully lacking this Winter), and a stabilised lens is no help there.

I also agree with Sean's observation that - for some reason - the lens is very "unforgiving". Many of the difficulties I've had getting decent pictures out of the damn' thing have been down to failings on my part, like the depressingly high number of images where the point of focus wasn't where it should have been...

But then, it's quite common for newly-acquired high quality equipment to throw your own failings into stark relief, and I'm prepared to live with that.

It's also hugely important to point out that you need to be getting decent photo opportunities in the first place.

I don't have any nature reserves, feeding stations or otherwise easy, "arms' length" opportunities available to me, and so at the moment I'm pushing my kit to its absolute limit (and beyond) just to get something worth keeping: "great" pictures just don't come from that situation.

No goldcrest falling at my feet or perching on my lens hood on at the moment!

;)

None of this is meant to suggest that if you're getting on without an OS lens you should get one anyway - you only have to look at Psilo's gallery, or see Sean's hand-held shots to see what can be done with the Sigma 170-500mm in the right hands.

I have a passable handheld shooting technique and I'm confident that with a bit of practice I could manage with the lens that Psilo and Sean use.

I mention this because I could easily sell the Sigma OS lens and get enough to buy a Sigma 170-500mm, but I haven't because I remain in no doubt whatsoever that for me, stabilisation is A Good Thing.

As they say over the pond, YMMV...

[psilo]

Keith you make some good points there. Stabilisation is very important and we all have our own techniques for getting it. If the IS lens works for you then that is great I am all for that though I personally dont think they are worth the extra money.
I use the 500mm but never use a tripod. I have tried on several occassions and am so hamfisted with it that I end up missing everything. I do sometimes use fences, trees etc to lean on but most of the time i prefer to handhold. I think it is also very important how you hold your camera to get extra stability. I have been out with several people who have trouble with focusing and when I have watched them hold their camera it is hardly surprising!

[tracker]

Make a shortlist of the lenses you are interested in Alan (and of course a budget if you can), then spend some time browsing some of the mentioned galleries/websites to see what these lenses are capable of. Very important, is your own technique, in how you use the equipment you decide on. Most of the lenses discussed can produce excellent results, so you need to be prepared to work at harnessing the potential of the one you choose. If possible, try out some lenses on the camera you want to purchase, at a camera store, etc, and get the feel of them. Will you always be using the lens on a tripod? Will weight be an issue? How about the light where you intend to shoot? In time, you may wish to invest in a good teleconverter, so the quality of the lens (ie its glass) will be an important consideration.

I wish you well in your decision. Have fun :t:

Tom

[psilo]

Alan now you have seen the lens that i use here are 2 of the photos that i took in your garden. It is a pity the weather is not good but i think it is just as important to see what this lens can do in poor conditions too.
As you know these sparrows were photographed as it was raining quite heavily.
ISO 1600 f6.3 1/200. (handheld)
Whilst noone would sensibly take photos in these conditions it is useful to see what it can produce.

[Tockman]

Alan now you have seen the lens that i use here are 2 of the photos that i took in your garden. It is a pity the weather is not good but i think it is just as important to see what this lens can do in poor conditions too.
As you know these sparrows were photographed as it was raining quite heavily.
ISO 1600 f6.3 1/200. (handheld)
Whilst noone would sensibly take photos in these conditions it is useful to see what it can produce.


Hello again Annette,
Thanks for the demo. O.K. you've convinced me,the Sigma170-500mmDG. is an excellent lens! that was a pretty severe test today, almost like night time, and the sparrow pics still came out sharp, just hope I can hand hold as steady as you can!! will order tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Alan.

[psilo]

Alan
You are very welcome, was good to meet you.
As you saw the conditions were severe and I was handholding but it still produces sharp results! If you hold it like I was doing you shouldnt have a problem.
Glad to hear you are ordering one. I dont think you will be disappointed.
Annette


Hello again Annette,
Thanks for the demo. O.K. you've convinced me,the Sigma170-500mmDG. is an excellent lens! that was a pretty severe test today, almost like night time, and the sparrow pics still came out sharp, just hope I can hand hold as steady as you can!! will order tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Alan.

[MagicMatt]

Hi. Excuse me popping my head into this thread, but I've only just got my Digital SLR and I want a nice telephoto for birding (when I get the chance) and hopefully other wildlife too (probably bunnies knowing me).

Would it be possible for you to get somebody to photograph your stance, as it sounds like you've perfected the way of holding the lenses to keep them steady, and I've always had that problem. I'd rather spend the money on a better performing lens and a teleconverter than image stailisation, if the technique really makes a difference.

[Clive Timmons]

Glad you popped your head in MagicMatt "I THINK" Annette is refering to overall balance so makes sense to put one foot forward one foot back shoulderwitdh apart-ish everyones center of gravity is different you can adjust angles with turn of hips supporting or cupping your lens underneath it at it outermost part from the camera body and rolling your finger on the shutter button instead of snatching at it and pause before taking the camera away then practice practice until its habitual bad habits are harder to shake than forming good ones good luck with your photography

[tracker]

Ohhh, I was wanting to see a pic of the Psilo Stance!!! Sheeesh guys, another cupla days and we may have seen the magic ;) :P It would take a brave BF'er to post such a pic :-C :-O lol

Matt, the key really is practice; find what is comfortable for you; and remember to take advantage of natural 'tripods' such as fences, trees, posts, a car window and beanbags to steady you up. A good point by Clive is considering how you depress the shutter button; a nice rolling motion is important.

Have fun :t:

Tom

[SMC2002]

Alan,
I agree that the 170-500mm Sigma may not be your best bet. It isn't bad, but you do get what you pay for. I'd agree that 400mm on a 1.6X camera is a minimum. The 100-400mm Canon L IS is a sweet lens. But, if you are always using it from 350-400mms you might as well opt for a prime. The Canon 400mm F5.6L is a very nice lens. It works great with a 1.4X teleconverter (especially the cheap Tamron) to give you an almost 900mm FOV, with a 350D, and also works well with extension tubes to get you inside of it's minimum focus distance of 3.5m if you can get that close to small birds.

If you would rather have a zoom, I'd suggest the 50-500mm Sigma (AKA Bigma). A nice 80mm to almost 800mm zoom range, when used on a 350D. It's minimum focusing distance is <3m. Unfortunately, this lens doesn't work anywhere near as well with a teleconverter as the Canon 400mm. It's max aperture is actually F6.3 at full tele. Even using a TC that doesn't report a change in aperture, it still focuses too slow for birds in flight. It works OK for sitting ducks though.

Just my opinion, but the 400mm F5.6 is one of Canon's premier birding lenses. It is also there most inexpensive. The Bigma is OK, especially considering it's 10X zoom. It is heavy and it is a bit softer from 400mms to full tele. I've have taken thousands of bird shots with the Bigma and once you get used to it, it can give you very nice results. I've only recently been shooting with the 400mm F5.6L and it is everything I wrote it was.

I am new here, so I'm not sure if it's OK to post links to a couple of my pics. Oh well, if I am breaking the rules, I apologize. Since I am new, and no one knows me from Adam, I think it may be helpful if I provide samples to back up my words.

Bigma pheasant full-sized crop 500mms (almost 800mms), F9, 1/1250, ISO400
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/52873298-O.jpg

Cropped and resized Male Northern Harrier shot with the Canon 400mm + Tamron 1.4X TC - 896mms FOV, F5.6 (F8), 1/1250, ISO800
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/52861667-O.jpg

Again, I hope I haven't violated any rules. I am just trying to help :-)

Steve

[Keith Reeder]

I agree that the 170-500mm Sigma may not be your best bet. It isn't bad, but you do get what you pay for.

Hmmm...

With respect Steve, that's a cliche that often just does not hold true.

Have a look here (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5984) and then tell me where the Sigma 170-500mm is lacking in the right hands...

(Please don't think I'm flaming you, Steve - it's just that phrase always provokes a reaction from me..! ;))

[SMC2002]

Hmmm...

With respect Steve, that's a cliche that often just does not hold true.

Have a look here (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5984) and then tell me where the Sigma 170-500mm is lacking in the right hands...

(Please don't think I'm flaming you, Steve - it's just that phrase always provokes a reaction from me..! ;))


Keith,
Nice pics ^5 I wasn't intimating that the 170-500mm Sigma can't get you great results. As with just about any lens, if you master it you can squeeze every ounce of performance out of it. I was stuck with the kit lens only for a month and after a couple of weeks using it (and 2000 shots..lol) I was able to get some pretty decent bird shots at 55mm...lol

I have never used this lens. I was thinking about it prior to picking up my Bigma and I recieved input, from members in other forums, that I would be happier with the Sigma 100-300mm or 50-500mm.

The Bigma worked well for me, but I got tired of the softness between 400mm and full tele and having to shoot at F8+ if I wanted real good subject sharpness. Shooting at F8+ usually meant ISO800 and it's associated noise and loss of color/contrast. That's why I picked up the 400mm F5.6L.

I know what you mean about feeling a bit angry when someone disses a lens you've gotten good results from. Most folks on Canon forums, dis most 3rd party lenses and I don't want to be a lens snob like them....LOL So if I came off like that, I apologize :-)

Looks like the OP has multiple lens options avialable to him, including the 170-500mm

Steve

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Steve,

I can lay no claim to success with the Sigma myself - never owned one - but there's no faulting Psilo's use of the thing.

Funnily enough, before I saw some of the pictures on this forum that people have taken with the 170-500mm (many of which are hand-held, incidentally - most of Psilo's are), I was of the same opinion as you: all the reading I'd done suggested it was so-so at best.

It just goes to show..!

You didn't come across as lens snob though - just as someone who knows what works for you, and that's all that matters, really.

[postcardcv]

I do agree that you do get what you pay for - however this isn't an incremental improvement. I'm sure most of us would be delighted to be using a Canon 500 f4 IS (or Nikon equivilent...) and the quality of these lenses and the images they deliver cannot be faulted.

But, to coin a phrase I recently saw used by one of our American members, when it comes to 'bang for your buck' (I guess we could use 'punch for your pound') the Sigma 170-500 is near unbeatable. Especially as the non-DG version has recently been selling for ~£400, at that price point I doubt there's a better value long lens on the market.

[senatore]

Alan,
I agree that the 170-500mm Sigma may not be your best bet. It isn't bad, but you do get what you pay for. I'd agree that 400mm on a 1.6X camera is a minimum. The 100-400mm Canon L IS is a sweet lens. But, if you are always using it from 350-400mms you might as well opt for a prime. The Canon 400mm F5.6L is a very nice lens. It works great with a 1.4X teleconverter (especially the cheap Tamron) to give you an almost 900mm FOV, with a 350D, and also works well with extension tubes to get you inside of it's minimum focus distance of 3.5m if you can get that close to small birds.

If you would rather have a zoom, I'd suggest the 50-500mm Sigma (AKA Bigma). A nice 80mm to almost 800mm zoom range, when used on a 350D. It's minimum focusing distance is <3m. Unfortunately, this lens doesn't work anywhere near as well with a teleconverter as the Canon 400mm. It's max aperture is actually F6.3 at full tele. Even using a TC that doesn't report a change in aperture, it still focuses too slow for birds in flight. It works OK for sitting ducks though.

Just my opinion, but the 400mm F5.6 is one of Canon's premier birding lenses. It is also there most inexpensive. The Bigma is OK, especially considering it's 10X zoom. It is heavy and it is a bit softer from 400mms to full tele. I've have taken thousands of bird shots with the Bigma and once you get used to it, it can give you very nice results. I've only recently been shooting with the 400mm F5.6L and it is everything I wrote it was.

I am new here, so I'm not sure if it's OK to post links to a couple of my pics. Oh well, if I am breaking the rules, I apologize. Since I am new, and no one knows me from Adam, I think it may be helpful if I provide samples to back up my words.

Bigma pheasant full-sized crop 500mms (almost 800mms), F9, 1/1250, ISO400
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/52873298-O.jpg

Cropped and resized Male Northern Harrier shot with the Canon 400mm + Tamron 1.4X TC - 896mms FOV, F5.6 (F8), 1/1250, ISO800
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/52861667-O.jpg

Again, I hope I haven't violated any rules. I am just trying to help :-)

Steve
Hi Steve,
The pic of the pheasant was great but I am going to need a bigger PC Monitor.

[psilo]

LOL Keith with you around who needs a manager ;)

I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised with the 170-500mm. I have to admit to being guilty of listening to all the canon V sigma arguments about sharpness etc. I was originally trying to buy the canon 400 f5.6 and it has been on order for months with no joy, so decided to go for the cheaper 500mm to see what it was like. I thought that if i didnt like it then i could sell it once i got my 400f5.6. but having owned both, despite the sigma being alittle slower (especially for flight shots) I find there is no real difference. Yesterday I was at slimbridge photographing bewick swans coming back off the fields for feeding and got some wonderfully sharp results, all at f10 and iso 100 ;) The slowness in flight shots can be frustrating but I find once you have mastered panning and quick focusing it isnt that difficult. My gut feeling is that people do not take enough time and trouble to really learn how to use their lenses properly and so find out what they are really capable of.

[Keith Reeder]

I just speak as I find, Annette, and the simple fact is that your results with the Sigma shoot down in flames any argument that it's an "inferior" lens.


My gut feeling is that people do not take enough time and trouble to really learn how to use their lenses properly and so find out what they are really capable of.

No doubt about it - for some people it's "instant gratification" or nothing.

But the good news is that there are more second-hand bargains out there as a result!

;)

[psilo]

No doubt about it - for some people it's "instant gratification" or nothing.

;)


I couldnt agree more. I think there is a huge difference between taking a good photo and taking a photo that really stands out. It isnt something that happens overnight and takes quite alot of commitment and learning.

[Tyger]

I think this is a great discussion, that shows opinions on all sides.
I haven't used any of the other lenses but I recently got a Canon 100-400mm, I came across a good price used that I could not reject.

I realize it's not as sharp as a prime, but I mostly only print images no bigger than 8x10, sometimes 11x14. In this case you really wouldn't see much difference. Why do people love this lens? Well for one, the versatility. It makes a great lens for the zoo and you are able to zoom from 100-400mm with ease. I find it handy for birds that are skittish so i can go from one length to another fairly quickly. IMO I love the IS. Don't get me wrong there is no replacement for good technique, but with IS I've been able to handhold shots that I normally wouldn't get without it. I mostly shoot handheld so for me it's worth it, my keepers have gone up considerably. If you are the type of person that like to hike along with limited gear, this lens can be an option.

anyway that's my take.

I think whatever you decide, all the lenses you mention are good lenses but it's up to you how you use them.

[SMC2002]

I couldnt agree more. I think there is a huge difference between taking a good photo and taking a photo that really stands out. It isnt something that happens overnight and takes quite alot of commitment and learning.

Right on Psilo, I agree 110% with your statement ^5

As I mentioned above, if people are willing to make the commitment and invest the time, they can get the best out of any lens. I also believe that there are really NO bad lenses. They are either good, or better :-)

Learning the technical aspects of getting decent exposures, stuff like freezing action, developing panning/handholding/tracking techniques, and understanding when a subject is too far away or too poorly lit, is pretty much the tip of the iceberg. That may get you to the "good" shot plateau. To get great shots on a more than accidental basis, it takes lots of time, patience, practice and commitment. This is pretty much the same recipe for anything else in life you choose to excel in :-)

Steve

[tracker]

To get great shots on a more than accidental basis, it takes lots of time, patience, practice and commitment. Steve

I fully agree! 'Point, shoot and hope techniques' will bring in decent shots; but really getting to know the full potential of any equipment, not just an outline knowledge, is what will separate the average good shot from the exceptional one. At the end of the day, only 'you' know what you want from your photography and the equipment you use.

[psilo]

Two years ago I started my journey in bird photography with the Minolta Dimage Z1, a non slr camera which at the time, before I saw what a dslr could do, I thought was the bees knees. Having found bird forum not long after i realised that there was a whole different world of bird photography out there, whilst it wasnt a good camera qualitywise it taught me many invaluable lessons. To get the very best from its limited range I had to learn about light, about how it changed and how it altered colours, exposures and what kind of light allowed for the fastest, sharpest focus. It also taught me about how to limit my range and how not to push my lens too far. When making the change over to dslr operational settings were very different but the lessons i learned from the much cheaper camera taught me some valuable basic lessons which many books do not teach.