Am I thinking smart??

luckydog

G'day guys and girls,

For a while now I have been building myself up to getting the Bigma 50-500 lens for shooting wildlife when I get my new camera, the 350D in <4 months. In the meantime I was looking at what else to get and have since decided to get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
My question is should I just get the f2.8 and maybe a 2x TC? I know the TC will take it to about 5.6 but that is similar to the Bigma anyway apart from 100mm. I think this is the was to go but thought I'd ask incase someone knows of any bad side effects with doing this.

gus

From what ive read on the net & seen in samples that lens is good value for its cost.

Maybe look at the 1.4 TC...

limbik

Humungus wrote:

From what ive read on the net & seen in samples that lens is good value for its cost.

Maybe look at the 1.4 TC...

I was not too happy with the 2x TC on that lens... I'd go for the 1.4x if I were you, only f4 and much less of an impact on the image.

gus

Just a thought

As i said i can only go on 25487541254 hours of reading on the net & that im am L glass snob but if this was me i would also possibly look at the Canon 70-200 f/4.

It has a hell of a reputation for its performance & for good 2nd hand units on D/grin & FM it is well priced..


Gus

ian408

luckydog wrote:

G'day guys and girls,

For a while now I have been building myself up to getting the Bigma 50-500 lens for shooting wildlife when I get my new camera, the 350D in <4 months. In the meantime I was looking at what else to get and have since decided to get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
My question is should I just get the f2.8 and maybe a 2x TC? I know the TC will take it to about 5.6 but that is similar to the Bigma anyway apart from 100mm. I think this is the was to go but thought I'd ask incase someone knows of any bad side effects with doing this.

Steve C. shoots with one all the time. I'd say he's done pretty well by it.

Steve?

Ian

luckydog

Gus, I did consider the 70-200 F4L but thought that if I throw a TC on it it would be a waste, hence my thinking of 2.8 which will give F4 with the 1.4x. The canon F4 is cheaper at $1033 aus (early consideration factor) the 2.8 is just under $1500 but do you go the 2.8 or a white lens with a red line????

DavidTO

luckydog wrote:

Gus, I did consider the 70-200 F4L but thought that if I throw a TC on it it would be a waste, hence my thinking of 2.8 which will give F4 with the 1.4x. The canon F4 is cheaper at $1033 aus (early consideration factor) the 2.8 is just under $1500 but do you go the 2.8 or a white lens with a red line????

Odd--the 2.8 is nearly twice the f4 here in the states...makes for a more compelling argument for the f4. The IS is even more in the 2.8.

gus

Not wanting to influence your choice here LD but i see the 70-200 L f/4 go on boards for $500 USD ($660 0z) all the time. A bit of postage/insurance & thats $720 odd.






.....can you tell i want one ?

DavidTO

Humungus wrote:

Not wanting to influence your choice here LD but i see the 70-200 f/4 go on boards for $500 USD ($660 0z) all the time. A bit of postage/insurance & thats $720 odd.

Yup, yup, that's what I bought mine for (from Lynnesite, before either of us were dgrinners!). $500. Such a deal.

luckydog

What is Steve C shooting? the 50-500 or 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 f4L??

luckydog

Okay so peer group is trying to get me to go the 70-200 f4...My question is why?? Yes it's a very good lens but it means I have to buy a second lens instead of a TC for extra reach and is poor indoors.

The sigma 70-200 2.8 also appears to be nice and gives me the option of the TC with very little quality loss.

Doesn't the extra few hundred work out less than a second big end zoom without doubling up on range unless there's a 200-400mm out there
In the words of a famous but notorious Aussie Politician...Please Explain!

gus

Its up to you mate...none of us would use either lens in the same way. If you were to say its for 'indoor with good light' then sure i would choose the f2.8 but if you were to say its for sports outside then i would be very happy with f4.

I think you would be very happy with either.









...you can always use some 'white-out' on the sigma.

luckydog

My shooting style and subject matter is various. I don't have a niche as such but I do like wildlife shooting. I guess this is the tough part as I'm not buying a lens for just one purpose. I appreciate everyone's time on this (Gus get back to work) as nobody at my work gives a flying you know what about photography.

gus

luckydog wrote:

(Gus get back to work) .

My office is the drivers seat in a truck. But i only work a 9 day fortnight god bless their cotton socks.

Was going to head out shooting today but i saw a cloud & didnt want to chance it.

luckydog

Okay I'm talking to you folks and myself on this thread but I'm sorting this stuff out. Basically the difference is a no brainer...Go the L lens! Right, i'm getting the white lens and a 1.4x extender to match. Does anyone know how much quality the extender sucks out on this higher end stuff?? The 2.8 was minimum with the 1.4 but worse with the 2x, how about this F4L with 1.4x???

Thanks for putting up with my rambling

gus

Seriously mate if it does not work out...sell it & buy the other. You will loose bugger all on L lens in 0z. If i sold my 2 L's i would make a good profit.


As to loss ..but i nearly always shoot with my 135 L prime at f/5 -F/5.6 when im anywhere but a room.

Have you seen this ?

Gus

ian408

luckydog wrote:

What is Steve C shooting? the 50-500 or 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 f4L??

50-500.