Which lens (1 Viewer)

Dougie 110 · Mar 8, 2005

Hi I am a new member,I am looking to buy as suitable for bird watching, I think I have narrowed it down to a 70-200 f2.8 with a x2 converter, or 50-500 mm or 80-400mm sigma lens, which one would be the most suitable, bearing in mind it will be used with a D70, and in Ireland were light levels aren't the highest.
Any help,
Brian

Kevin Bates · Mar 8, 2005

Brian

I use a Sigma 50-500 and Canon 100-400 IS on my Canon 20D's. My preference is the Sigma, that extra 100mm at the telephoto end is very useful and if you look in my gallery you will see many shots with this lens at 500mm.

cheers

Kevin

Dougie 110 said:
Hi I am a new member,I am looking to buy as suitable for bird watching, I think I have narrowed it down to a 70-200 f2.8 with a x2 converter, or 50-500 mm or 80-400mm sigma lens, which one would be the most suitable, bearing in mind it will be used with a D70, and in Ireland were light levels aren't the highest.
Any help,
Brian

Dougie 110 · Mar 8, 2005

Thanks

Kevin Bates said:
Brian

I use a Sigma 50-500 and Canon 100-400 IS on my Canon 20D's. My preference is the Sigma, that extra 100mm at the telephoto end is very useful and if you look in my gallery you will see many shots with this lens at 500mm.

cheers

Kevin

Kevin some really brilliant shots, I was a bit concerned about the Sigma's quallity, but it's looking good.
many thank
Brian

Youngbirder18 · Mar 9, 2005

Hi Brian,

I have a D70 and Sigma 50-500 and if I’m completely honest I don’t like it. It’s not really sharp enough. If the bird is close at 500mm, you can PhotoShop it and get a reasonable image. If the birds a way away the pics are not sharp. I now have a Sigma 500mm F4.5, which is an amazing lens and sooooo sharp. Some people have go results with this lens, but if you a perfectionist with your photography you my regret your purchased.

I have been hearing good things about the Sigma 80-400, although reviews are quite hard to come by as it’s still quite new.

Hope this is helpful

Marc Read

rezMole · Mar 9, 2005

Personally, i'd go for the Tamron 200-500, 50-500 is just too big a range (bound to suffer, quality wise).

In fact, i did go for the Tamron in the end (same price as the Sigma 50-500)

Kevin Bates · Mar 9, 2005

Check out Airliners.net for 50-500 Sigma and you will see some amazing shots, The Tamron came second to the Sigma in a recent magazine test, sigma have now launched the digital version of the 50-500 which should be even better.

I won't knock the tamron since I havn't used one but the Sigma gives Canon 100-400 L IS lens which costs £1500 srp a run for its money and you can get the sigma for £599

As you will see from my gallery you don't have to be close to the bird to get a sharp image.

This is what a 100% crop will give you

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/40446/sort/1/cat/500/page/4

blankobverse · Mar 9, 2005

I agree with kevin, I recently purchased the Sigma 50-500 from Hong Kong for £556 and am very happy with the results so far.

These two pics were taken at 500mm.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/19019

Neil

Kevin Bates · Mar 9, 2005

blankobverse said:
I agree with kevin, I recently purchased the Sigma 50-500 from Hong Kong for £556 and am very happy with the results so far.

These two pics were taken at 500mm.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/19019

Neil

Very nice Neil, as important as sharpness which the Sigma has, it also has good contrast.

madmike · Mar 9, 2005

What lens?

Hi there,
It partly depends on how much you want to spend!
Using a tele converter is really not a good idea if you can avoid it.
I've just bought a Sigma 170-500mm lens that in fact goes to F5.6 although the info says it's a 6.3 lens. The quality is pretty good but the lens is quite heavy and difficult to use in poor light. The 80-400 would be fine, and bear in mind that with the D70 it would in fact be 600mm!
You would be best to use a long lens with a tri-pod or mono-pod, and
if you could afford it, a prime lens such as a 400mm would be better, but they are not cheap.
Also, in general, a Nikon lens would work better on the D70.
I have to say I think there is much more to good birding photography than just a long lens!!
I hope this helps, but I'm SURE someone will disagree with me!!!

Good luck,

madmike

johnmoonie · Mar 9, 2005

Very interesting comments from all.

There are so many views and points. Perhaps Madmike's point of more to bird photography than a long lens should be emphasised more. Understanding the birds, their movements and how to get close is very important. Camera technique is also very important. Nobody has mentioned what and where you will be photographing -for example passerines you are probably looking at handheld whereas waders and ducks longer distance and tripod essential. The weight of the big zooms and prime lens may be a problem if you are carrying equipment for any distance.

The beauty of digital photography is that you can learn quickly and experiment by taking lots of photos without expense of film.

Good luck

Dougie 110 · Mar 9, 2005

Helpful info, many thanks

Hi guys
once again thanks very much for the info, I will have to back to the drawing board. It is great to get such a wide spread of different view, rather than read some anomous test report.
Many thanks again.
Brian

Andy Bright · Mar 9, 2005

madmike said:
I've just bought a Sigma 170-500mm lens that in fact goes to F5.6 although the info says it's a 6.3 lens.
madmike

Hi Mike, it is f6.3 at the long end, just that your camera doesn't realise it, it's probably floored that a non standard f# is used'
Still I've seen some cracking shots published in mags with this lens... much of it is down to the photographer more than the equipment.

cheers,
Andy

robski · Mar 10, 2005

Out of interest has anybody tried the

Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX APO IF HSM

Lens test websites quote this lens is better optically than the 50-500mm
and you have the option of using tele-converters with it.

I am looking for something to upgrade my canon 75-300.

I like the look of the 50-500mm but lugging that weight around for genral purpose use is not my cup of tea. The 200-500 also looks interesting, not too heavy but a bit expensive and dedicated to long telephoto work.

I am not that impressed with the results I've seen for the 100-400mm IS L for it's price. For the £1100 mark I would want the lens to be my perfect lens in all respects and I afraid this one does not come up to the mark IMHO.

I am currently of the mind to explore a good quaility fast shorter lens that I can be used for general work and pop on a teleconverter on if I need the range.

I even concidered the 200mm 2.8 L with teleconverter option until I read the flare is high with this combo. Shame it would of given a very mobil 400mm f5.6 for £650 mark and a top notch lens at 200mm.

Robert

Kevin Bates · Mar 10, 2005

robski said:
Out of interest has anybody tried the

Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX APO IF HSM

Lens tests websites quote this lens is better optically than the 50-500mm
and you have the option of using tele-converters with it.

I am looking for something to upgrade my canon 75-300.

I like the look of the 50-500mm but lugging that weight around for genral purpose use is not my cup of tea. The 200-500 also looks interesting, not too heavy but a bit expensive and dedicated to long telephoto work.

I am not that impressed with the results I've seen for the 100-400mm IS L for it's price. For the £1100 mark I would want the lens to be my perfect lens in all respects and I afraid this one does not come up to the mark IMHO.

I am currently of the mind to explore a good quaility fast shorter lens that I can be used for general work and pop on a teleconverter on if I need the range.

I even concidered the 200mm 2.8 L with teleconverter option until I read the flare is high with this combo. Shame it would of given a very mobil 400mm f5.6 for £650 mark and a top notch lens at 200mm.

Robert

I was lucky enough to be able to field test the Sigma 80-400 OS, 100-300 and 50-500 before I purchased. The 80-400 was too slow to focus but sharpness was okay. Their was no difference in the optical quality of the 100-300 and 50-500 so I went for the 50-500.

Later I purchased the Canon 100-400L IS but as I said earlier personally I have found the 50-500 better and will put up my images to prove it.

madmike · Mar 10, 2005

Sigma 170-500 Fstop

Hi Andy,
I beg to differ! It is actually 5.6 at the long end! I checked with my camera shop man who checked with Sigma and on some cameras (Canon) it does go down to 5.6. I checked this by pressing the DofF preview button on 6.7 and it goes down a stop! My lens also goes to an indicated F4.5!! It does though seem to work very well and for the price I think it's pretty good.
If I had a choice I would get a 400mm prime IS lens - but I can't justify the cost!

Cheer,

madmike

Andy Bright · Mar 10, 2005

madmike said:
Hi Andy,
I beg to differ! It is actually 5.6 at the long end! I checked with my camera shop man who checked with Sigma and on some cameras (Canon) it does go down to 5.6. I checked this by pressing the DofF preview button on 6.7 and it goes down a stop!

Cheer,

madmike

Ooops, yes you're right. I do remember reading a long time ago that there is an odd side effect of the Canon EOS mount with these Sigmas.

Just as well Sigma didn't market the EOS mount version as f5.6....they could've charged an extra £100+ for that

cheers,
Andy

madmike · Mar 10, 2005

That lens!

Hi again,
I've just checked the lens against a light meter and they agree! I also checked the exposure on the camera (info setting) and it showed the exposure was 750 @4.5 @ 800asa and that this was correct AND exactly as per the meter!
I think this only applies to Canon and Minolta, but as you say, that makes the lens VERY cheap!!
Even I'm a bit confused but mine is not to reason why!
An interesting conversation piece on a dull morning!

Have a nice day,

madmike

Adey Baker · Mar 10, 2005

Andy Bright said:
Ooops, yes you're right. I do remember reading a long time ago that there is an odd side effect of the Canon EOS mount with these Sigmas.

Just as well Sigma didn't market the EOS mount version as f5.6....they could've charged an extra £100+ for that

cheers,
Andy

Does it not 'tell' Canon camera bodies that it's F5.6 in order to keep auto-focus working? Some Canon bodies won't focus at less than F5.6 at a speed that Canon would like them to so they don't let them auto focus at all rather than have someone say 'it's slow and hunts in low light situations'

It won't affect exposures in any of the auto modes but you need to remember that it's F6.3 if you use manual exposure

Andy Bright · Mar 10, 2005

Adey Baker said:
Does it not 'tell' Canon camera bodies that it's F5.6 in order to keep auto-focus working? Some Canon bodies won't focus at less than F5.6 at a speed that Canon would like them to so they don't let them auto focus at all rather than have someone say 'it's slow and hunts in low light situations'

It won't affect exposures in any of the auto modes but you need to remember that it's F6.3 if you use manual exposure

As you can see in my first post, that was my initial reaction... but Mike's prompt reminded me that this is a phenomena with this lens and the EOS mount (not sure about Minolta). In fact there are a few oddities about 170-500, the actual focal length for one.

I know the 50-500 was tested by a U.K. photo mag when it was released as being only 450-460mm at the long end, yet I have seen claims for the 170-500 as being up to 550mm on an EOS mount

regards,
Andy

madmike · Mar 10, 2005

The last post!

As long as it does the business - I don't care!!

madmike

Which lens (1 Viewer)

Member

Guest

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Administrator

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

Member

Administrator

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread