Which sigma lense do you recommend for low light conditions? (1 Viewer)

[rangitata]

I live and do most of my photography in a Alpine Rainforest. I have been getting very fustrated with the results because i am using a slow f6.7 300mm lens.
Which of these would hopefully give better results? Others would be considered.

1)Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 (good alround size but would need TC for extra reach)
2)Sigma 100-300mm f4 (1.4 TC would be needed, speed would be ok)
3)Sigma 50-500mm Bigma or the Tamron 200-500mm (extra reach but same speed)

Heres the clincher it must fit a Pentax AF mount (1.5* conversion factor)

Thanks for any help.

 

[SMC2002]

Sounds like tough shooting conditions. Here's my take on your list.

1) With a 1.4X TC attached you will have an FOV of 420mms @ F4. With a 2X TC your AF will probably slow dramtically and you will lose image quality to get a 600mm FOV @ F5.6. Shorter than the rest (with a 1.4X TC), but faster too. Of the 3 options you list, this one get my vote. Sounds like you need a fast lens a bit more than you need a longer lens.


2) Somewhat better than what you have now, but still F5.6 with a 1.4 TC attached and a 630mm FOV

3) Not much of an improvement in the light gathering department, but they will get you a bit more reach. Neither is actually 500mms at the long end. I think they are like 465mms and 484mms, respectively. Still, that's around 700mms on your camera. I believe both are F6.3 at full tele also. I know the Bigma is quite a bit sharper stopped down to f9 or so.

A much more expensive option would be the 120-300 F2.8. A very sharp 630mm FOV @ F4 with a 1.4X TC attached.

Again, tough conditions and I wish you luck overcoming them


Steve

 

[postcardcv]

Here's my thoughts on the options...

1. 70-200 f2.8 - this is a cracking lens, AF is very fast and it performs well in low light, works well with tc's, but obviously lacks reach.
2. 100-300 f4 - good lens capable of very sharp images if stopped down. The AF is very fast in good light but it does hunt a bit in low light, works well with the Sigma 1.4x tc (though not as well with the Kenko).
3. Bigma/Tamron - both big lenses with good reach, but the slowness (f6.3) will be a big issue in low light.

4. another option would be either the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 or the 300 f2.8 - both will AF with a 2x tc giving you lots of reach. f2.8 at 300mm will be good in low light, I understand that both lenses are reasonably sharp wide open... but they cost more and are heavier.

 

[mmdnje]

Hi. What do you think of the sigma 80-400 or the 135-400 lenses for birding photography. Both can be used with pentax cameras (and soon sansung cameras). Thanks in advance. Jose.

 

[postcardcv]

Hi. What do you think of the sigma 80-400 or the 135-400 lenses for birding photography. Both can be used with pentax cameras (and soon sansung cameras). Thanks in advance. Jose.

They're a both decent lenses and work well for bird photography, however they're probably not the best in low light. The 135-400 is not very fast focusing even in good light and is much slower in low light. I've not used the 80-400 OS, but have heard that it is fast focusing and obviously OS will help when shooting at slow shutter speeds (low light). I'd prefer a wider apperture to keep shutter speeds as high as possible, also a lens that's sharp wide open is a huge advantage.

 

[Tannin]

A tough assignment!

Your perfect lens would be something like the Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS or 500mm f/4 IS or the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 AS - none of them available in Pentax mount, and any one of the three around about the same price as a brand new 4 cylinder car.

The work you are doing seems to me to be crying out for three things:

* a) Fast glass - f/2.8 or at least f/4
* b) Image stabilisation
* c) High ISOs

Pentax don't seem to have joined the IS trend yet, and the third-party makers are dragging their feet on this too: very few lenses from Sigma et al have IS. Is it possible Pentax will do something Minolta-fashion with the new bodies due out shortly?

Nor are the current Pentax cameras regarded as good for high ISO work, but this too may change shortly. Canon have long been the kings of high ISO but the latest Nikon isn't all that far behind, and it's a reasonable bet that the next Pentax release will make a lot of progress beyond the elderly *ist lineup.

Pentax do however, make a lens that looks as though it could be just what you need, so long as you can manage without IS: the 300mm f/2.8. Long enough to give you a rough chance of getting a bird to fill the frame, and wonderfully fast. Alas, I imagine it is quite expensive. Worth investigating though.

300mm is really too short for bird work, but few of us can afford a 400mm f/2.8, and fewer still can happily face the thought of lugging something that heavy around all day. You have some tough choices ahead of you!

One last thought: teleconverters are better than a last resort, but not much better. Almost all the time, in poor light, you will get better picture quality by leaving the TC in your bag and shooting with just the bare lens. Even in good light, you are sacrificing quality: my 1.4 converter, for example, has 5 extra bits of glass to add on to the lens itself, the 2X converter 7 elements. Every extra bit of glass costs you image quality. Some won't agree with me, but I think it is madness to buy a lens planning to on using a converter with it as routine. Buy a lens that's long enough to do the job in the first place. Yes, it will cost you more money, but better to spend $3000 than waste $2000. And f/6.7 just won't cut the mustard in the sort of light you are talking about. F/5.6 strikes me as a bare minimum, and f/4 much more usable.

Yes, one extra stop makes a very real difference! The moment I see my shutter speeds dropping below 1/1000th of a second, I either swap lenses (if I'm using the 100-400 f/5.6) or take the TC off (if I'm using the big f/4). It really does make the difference between good shots and yet more blurry throwaway frames.

The long and the short of it: I think you have to plan on spending a bit more than you are hoping for. Good luck with your quest and let us know how you go!

 

[rangitata]

Thanks for the answers.

Since most of the birds i photograph are at close range i am leaning towards the 70-200mm f2.8. The birds around my area are very tame and very close approach is usually possible, visibility in the rainforest could be measured in centimetres so the long reach whilst nice isn't my main focus. Quality and speed are what i am after.

Looks like a trip to the camera store is in order. Any thoughts on where i could get the best deals local/international?

Whats the deal with the lenses you can get through the Hong Kong online stores? are they genuine sigma products? and what do they mean by grey/parallel imports?

Thanks again

 

[Corax67]

For what it's worth you can certainly add my recommendation to the list for the 70-200 f2.8 as it is a stunner.

Was using mine last week to photograph a karate competition in my local leisure centre (the things you do for your children) without flash - with the ISO set at 800 the available artificial light was more than ample for shooting, crisp results ansd surprisingly little noise at this ISO (on a 20D).

For birding with a 1.4 or 2x converter it is a lovely item to have in your camera bag.

 

[macshark]

Sigma 700-200 f/2.8 is definitely a good lens. Most people find the IQ comparable to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L. The minimum focus distance for the newer EX DG Macro version has been reduced to 100cm, though this model is not shipping yet. The minimum focus distance for the current EX DG version is 180cm.

If you think you will end up using this lens with a 1.4x TC most of the time, the Sigma 100-300 EX DG may be a better option.