Originally Posted by thortate Hi there, these are great images and you know your gear well too, thanks for the detailed reviews, I'm interested in which of these lenses can deliver the best results

For best "results".

The pretty big white lenses. They get all the chicks.

Originally Posted by Harryb The 300 2.8 should just about be the perfect lens for you.

Just got back. With the 1.4x or 2x TC, it was. And fast enough. You need to be out of the parks before sundown anyway.

But a recommendation for anyone not taking 2 bodies on Safari... get a Zoom if you can; or buy another body for the wide-angle. There were too many instances for me to count where I was too close to the animals and could only get a part of the head, or no horns, or part of the animal but no legs, in the frame. I'd gladly sell/swap the 300mm f/2.8 Sigma prime for a 100-300mm f/2.8 zoom but alas it's not availble for the Pentax mount... -- slight loss in sharpness be damned ... I'm "unsharp @ any speed" as I've read here in someone's sig, anyway <lol>.

Originally Posted by m8o I'd gladly sell/swap the 300mm f/2.8 Sigma prime <lol>.

M80...

I was wondering how you liked the 300mm other than the issues with being a fixed focal length and comping on the fly. Was this tack sharp wide open? How about auto focus accuracy and speed. Did it seem fast enough for fast action wildlife shooting? Have you ever used Canon's 300mm f/2.8 "L" ?? I was wondering how this Sigma compared to the Canon. It's about $1600 less than the Canon variety. The Canon does have IS, but for the extra money..I can live with the lack of stabilization and the ability to buy another nice lens.

Anyone else used this Sigma 300mm and the Canon. Would love to hear your opinions on these two lenses. I can't stand a slow focusing lens. The tokina 300mm I had just didn't cut it for flight shots. Focused way too slow. Sold it and am looking for a cheap alternative to the Canon 300mm f/2.8.

Cheers

I'm sorry to say I'm a complete 'newb' to -real- cameras (non-point'n'shoot) so can't draw any relations to Canon's.

The lens is very capable of excellent sharpness at f/2.8 as is evidenced by me when I stood outside my day-room the last day of the, trip and took pictures of the multitudes of humming bird-like birds (they just didn't hover when feeding on the flowers) at a distance of a few feet while it was heavily overcast and misting even. I wish I had my HyperDrive here @ work as I'd convert some RAWs to JPG and post'm. If anything, it showed the limitations of the AF system of the K10D in its difficulty in achieving excellent sharpness on -every- shot; some are outstanding, some not.

If I have any serious criticism to say, it is that it doesn't have a focus limiter. Focus is fast -- and I have the non-HSM, Canon/Nikon versions are HSM which is supposed to be much better and quieter. However if focus isn't achieved within a few iterations, it will hunt to the far extent of the range and back. Even then, time to do a full cycle out and back for the non-HSM version is just a fraction of a second; though an appreciable fraction of a second (i.e. 100's of milliseconds).

My technique in holding the camera+ 5+ lb. lens on a flying bird using spot focus leaves -much- to be desired, so I have to say -I- was the governor on any ability to AF birds in flight (I realize now I should have switched to matrix focus). I'd say again though, not having the focus limiter could produce periods of frustration, where if you are on continuous focus (needed for birds in flight?) and you loose the bird for a moment, the lens is likely to run from where it is to infinity or min focus and back. That is only supposition however; keep in mind I've only been at this 2 months!

~

edit: Ah, i forgot! A past -- non-wildlife -- sequence of shots I made as a 'test' of Bokeh over f/2.8, f/8 and f/13:
http://public.fotki.com/m8o/memorabl...300mm-f28-dof/
10megapix originals linked @ the bottom of each image
I will say I found my more recent shots wide open of the birds on the trees to be much sharper then that example. I believe camera shake is evident on that f/2.8 shot. I was more concerned with the bokeh produced then sharpness on those pix. I should redo it w/ exposure time of 1/300 or more...

~

Thanks for the info. The HSM version is tempting. Seems to get decent reviews. I've just not been thrilled with any 3rd party lenses I've purchased. That darn 300mm f/2.8 from Canon is almost $4K. Damn.

Originally Posted by m8o I'm sorry to say I'm a complete 'newb' to -real- cameras (non-point'n'shoot) so can't draw any relations to Canon's. The lens is very capable of excellent sharpness at f/2.8 as is evidenced by me when I stood outside my day-room the last day of the, trip and took pictures of the multitudes of humming bird-like birds (they just didn't hover when feeding on the flowers) at a distance of a few feet while it was heavily overcast and misting even. I wish I had my HyperDrive here @ work as I'd convert some RAWs to JPG and post'm. If anything, it showed the limitations of the AF system of the K10D in its difficulty in achieving excellent sharpness on -every- shot; some are outstanding, some not. If I have any serious criticism to say, it is that it doesn't have a focus limiter. Focus is fast -- and I have the non-HSM, Canon/Nikon versions are HSM which is supposed to be much better and quieter. However if focus isn't achieved within a few iterations, it will hunt to the far extent of the range and back. Even then, time to do a full cycle out and back for the non-HSM version is just a fraction of a second; though an appreciable fraction of a second (i.e. 100's of milliseconds). My technique in holding the camera+ 5+ lb. lens on a flying bird using spot focus leaves -much- to be desired, so I have to say -I- was the governor on any ability to AF birds in flight (I realize now I should have switched to matrix focus). I'd say again though, not having the focus limiter could produce periods of frustration, where if you are on continuous focus (needed for birds in flight?) and you loose the bird for a moment, the lens is likely to run from where it is to infinity or min focus and back. That is only supposition however; keep in mind I've only been at this 2 months! edit: Ah, i forgot! Some past -- non-wildlife -- shot I have taken, some of which are wide open. a) a 'example' of Bokeh and sharpnedd over f/2.8, f/8 and f/13: http://public.fotki.com/m8o/memorabl...300mm-f28-dof/

Originally Posted by Bird Man Photographer M80... I was wondering how you liked the 300mm other than the issues with being a fixed focal length and comping on the fly. Was this tack sharp wide open? How about auto focus accuracy and speed. Did it seem fast enough for fast action wildlife shooting? Have you ever used Canon's 300mm f/2.8 "L" ?? I was wondering how this Sigma compared to the Canon. It's about $1600 less than the Canon variety. The Canon does have IS, but for the extra money..I can live with the lack of stabilization and the ability to buy another nice lens. Anyone else used this Sigma 300mm and the Canon. Would love to hear your opinions on these two lenses. I can't stand a slow focusing lens. The tokina 300mm I had just didn't cut it for flight shots. Focused way too slow. Sold it and am looking for a cheap alternative to the Canon 300mm f/2.8. The cheap alternative to the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L is the Canon 300f4 isn't it? Cheers

Mike ( as you know) I own and use several Canon super teles including the 300f2.8 IS L.

I also have used my wife's Sigma 120-300f2.8 as well. It is a nice lens, and optically pretty good. I think the image is a "little" warmer with the SIgma lens, but it is definitely not as fast at AF and suffers in comparison with its lack of IS. I hav enot used the Sigma 300 f2.8 so I cannot comment on it versus the 300 f2.8 IS L. I have heard folks who say the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is as good as the Sigma 300 f2.8 fixed, but I have no basis for that comparison.

I feel the same about my Tamron 200-500. Nice, adequte, useable, lightweight, ( I frequently prefer the weight of the little Tammy ) but it is not the optical equal of the 300 f2.8 IS, or the 400 f4 DO, or the 500 f4 IS.

I give the Sigma 300-800 very high marks - if it had IS it would compare very favorablely with Canon's glass. JMO

Thanks Jim. Appreciate the input. You and I both kow I want the CANON 300mm f/2.8. They need to have a 50% off sale this Christmas season.

For me, the 300f2.8 IS is a lot better sports lens, than wildlife lens. I think 400mm is just beginning to allow me to reach wildlife like I prefer. Even though the Sigma 120-300 is not long or fast focusing enough, the zoom is very nice. I like the Tammy 200-500 for its versatility.

But if I had to choose ONLY one lens for birds, it would not be a 300 or 400, but the 500f4 IS L. That and a Nikon 200-400VR would cover an awful lot of ground. Canon really needs to bring out a new 200-450 IS lens badly.

I know that you can get a lot closer than I, because you have always been able to walk right up to the birds - I think you have a cloaking device of some sort

I guess if I lived in Indianer ....where the birds are unfriendly...I'd think about a 500000mm also.

Personally...that 300mm f/2.8 would be ideal for my shooting situation, here in FL. As you are aware...I use a 200mm regularly NOW.

Originally Posted by Bird Man Photographer M8o... I was wondering how you liked the [Sigma] 300mm ...

Finally processed that day. Only about 3500 images of all the wildlife viewing to go... <argh!> Photos taken on a cloudy, misty, lightly drizzly day, handheld, wide open, with that lens. First three subjects were near minimum focus limit (ya, close) so focus was razor thin; keep that in mind as only part of the bird is in the DOF zone. Tiny taste; Loads all here:
http://public.fotki.com/m8o/outdoor_...--srngti-kili/
(hi-rez orignals can be had there; a lot of noise treatment via Lightroom, hardly touched color/brightness/contrast. )







DOF was a lot deeper here, but shot was taken at about EV10 or EV11 with the bird at the edge of the tree canopy on the drizzly day.

Thanks for postin' the pics.

Originally Posted by BigAl ...rhino @ 363mm...[snip]

Al, (if you check in on this thread) where was that where you saw the ever elusive rhino in the wild? My trip to Tanzania was un-safisfying in that regard... :(

Originally Posted by m8o Al, (if you check in on this thread) where was that where you saw the ever elusive rhino in the wild? My trip to Tanzania was un-safisfying in that regard... :(

The rhino population in South Africa is doing quite well. You can see them in most game reserves with suitable habitat. The one I showed in this thread was taken in a reserve less than 10km from where I live.

http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/gallery/988497#45676353
Pilanesberg Game Reserve
Kruger National Park
(all taken with a Bigma).

Interesting, you asking me a question, since I wanted to know where you took those bird shots, as they are definately African birds

Gald you check this thread and thanx for the reply.

At risk of being OT [readers, please pardon] ... I was in Northern Tanzania for 10 days; got back 1 week ago; about 2 - 3 more weeks I figure until I complete going through all the RAWs and am done processing the 'keepers'. I started a thread on Pentaxforums I'm going to mirror here soon.

They were shot at the KIA Airport Lodge's grounds actually. We were given a day room there on our way out. I was laying down. My wife told me about all the birdies out there as she went out to her mother's cabin. It was drizzly and grey, but I figured I'd give it a try. 300mm Sigma f/2.8, no TC. I felt llike Dr. Doolittle after a little while with the multitude of birds practically landing on my arms. It was fabulous being in a place with birds acclimated to having people close, with lots of flowers they like to feed on; serendipity!

One of the people on our Safari had been in a South African private game reserve many years back and told us about that type of place; less restrictions on where the vehicle can drive and night time game viewing as well. Pretty fantastic that's 10 minutes away. Great capture and fantastic gallery! Thanx for the link.

-steve

Originally Posted by Harryb Hi y'all, We got lots of pictures going up all the time but very little discussion about the lenses we use to get those pics. I thought it might be interesting to share our experiences about the glass we shoot with. <snipped> That's my story. Lets hear some others.

I just picked up the Nikkor 80-200mm and LOVE it. Need more power for the wild wildlife, though (meaning when I'm not shooting the critters in my backyard). Am planning to get the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E II before our trip to the U.P. in a couple of weeks. Pushing it with the D70, I know, but I'll take the power over the speed for now since there is such a huge variety of subjects to go after in places like Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Anything I should be aware of with that combo?

PJ.

Originally Posted by Bird Man Photographer M80... ...Was this tack sharp wide open? How about auto focus accuracy and speed.

I have an example to show you -- while not wide open, 2/3 stop down from wide open @ f/3.5 -- that I think is exemplative of the best this lens is capable of. This is -with- the Sigma 1.4x TC, and the Polarizing filter ... both of which you know reduce EV through the lens.

Full Image @ reduced rez:



Full rez 100% crop:


We were about 50 feet from the Dik-Dik. The reflection in the eye from left to right is an Acacia tree, the Land Rover we were in, Sun (w/a bush under it), a Tree of Life w/o leaves (it's Winter there). When I did some pixel peeping of the image and saw our Land Rover in its eye, given that that reflection in the convex surface has total size of 18 pixels wide but still very recognizable, I knew my questioning of whether I had the tools necessary to acheive the sharpness equal to the world-class photos I see on this board and many others, is a resounding yes... ;) (...I'm not too proud to say "just not the skills!") If we were closer, I probably would have been able to make out myself in the reflection. (You can see these and many more following the Tanzania link in my sig.)

Regarding the 2nd question, I had a lot of frustration trying to achieve that level of sharpness with every picture. This image is probably in the top 5% or 1% in sharpness out of near 4000 shot. I will say It was cloud covered until about 1pm every day, and I was using the 1.4x TC and polarizing filter (didn't realize the latter) the first 2 days, and move to using the 2x converter the remaining 7 days of wildlife viewing. And I personally question whether the K10D is as good at AF as other top sub-fullframe cameras from the top two mfgs.

This would be my only lens if I had to make a choice. The IS is very good and I have hand held many very low light shots of elk at ISO 1600 with good results. I realize that primes are probably better, but at least in my case, I find that being nimble and able to respond quickly to wildlife situations is more important than anything else. The wildlife I shoot seldom pose for more than a few moments. I have a Bushhawk stock that I often use with this lens.

At first I thought this lens was kind of clumsy and eccentric, but I am now very fond of its responsiveness and the results I get. This is my walk around lens for long hikes along the blufflines here in NW Arkansas and it has served me well. I also carry a the canon 1.4 teleconverter for longer shots.

Originally Posted by comptonphotographer This would be my only lens if I had to make a choice.

Me too, and I have the 400 F5.6 as well. The 100-400 is much more versatile, more compact to carry, and gives almost exactly the same quality as the 400 prime as long as you're not wide open. Although, even wide open it's still very good. It also takes killer panoramas at 100mm if you haven't discovered that yet.

And BTW, welcome to dgrin! Nice gallery you have. You like to shoot the same kind of critters I do, but you seem to have better access to them. I hope you stick around.

Cheers,
-joel

No one seems to like my new lens enough to post their results. I haven't had opportunity to use it for wildlife yet. Bought a Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED with the VRII (supposedly good for a four-stop improvement in hand-holdability).

So far I've used it for shooting motorcycles on twisties, so it's hard for me to judge its sharpness. I'm still getting used to handling it. If anybody's on here who has the lens, what can I expect?

Great thread and lots of good info in here guys

Not too many using Nikon here by the sounds of things. I am ineterested to know about that or other similar Nikon lenses too.