Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I went into a few camera shops today and said how I'd like a lens for wildlife photography that didn't break the bank. They recommended the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF OS, i googled it when i got home and read so many different opinions, some say FANTASTIC, others say RUBBISH, any views?
I have never used that lens Bertie but most of the user reviews I've seen have been favorable. Most users rate it higher than the Nikon 80-400. The value for the price seems to be outstanding.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Great photos...
Here is my contribution. I have two lenses for my wildlife photos: the nikon 80-200 f2.8 D and the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED. They are both great lenses sharp and can be used without tripod although sometimes my shoots are not very sharp...It must be my shaking hands .
I was thinking to get the TC-14E II to use with the 300mm and after watching your amazing photos it seems to work pretty well with this lens. I will probably rent it myself to test it and eventually buy it. Has anyone used the Sigma??
Snowy Egret - Nikon D300s with Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED 1/2000s f8 ISO 800.
Anyone using the Canon 100-400 IS USM L ?? its possibly my next purchase so any comments positive or negative would be appreciated
Up to about 6 months ago, I was shooting with 10D, 24-105L, and a 100-400L. The idea was to cover a wide focal range with as little equipment possible. At first I was quite excited about the shots I was getting, but that soon faded when I realized that it was difficult to find the sweet spot and that the images were not as sharp as I expected when zoomed in and cropped. So I thought, well maybe I just don't have enough resolution with the 10D, so 6 months ago I picked up a new 7D, and after months of shooting, testing, etc., I've come to the conclusion that the 100-400 just can't seep to produce that "pin" sharpness all us bird or wildlife photographers strive for. And when you think about it, what is the point of having a "sweet spot" on a zoom if there is only a very narrow focal distance that produces excellent results, and the rest is only "good"?? Out of the thousands of images I have taken all over the world, I do have a handful of some excellent shots, however, very few that blow me out of the water. Consequently, I have decided to pickup a 70-200L as I have heard and seen nothing but amazing results from that lens. However, I now haven't decided whether the f4 of f2.8 is the way to go. the 2.8 is twice as heavy to carry on a long hike, and is the extra f stop (I know it's 4x the light) worth carrying the extra weight. If someone can shed some light (http://www.dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif) on that, I would really appreciate it.
Up to about 6 months ago, I was shooting with 10D, 24-105L, and a 100-400L. The idea was to cover a wide focal range with as little equipment possible. At first I was quite excited about the shots I was getting, but that soon faded when I realized that it was difficult to find the sweet spot and that the images were not as sharp as I expected when zoomed in and cropped. So I thought, well maybe I just don't have enough resolution with the 10D, so 6 months ago I picked up a new 7D, and after months of shooting, testing, etc., I've come to the conclusion that the 100-400 just can't seep to produce that "pin" sharpness all us bird or wildlife photographers strive for. And when you think about it, what is the point of having a "sweet spot" on a zoom if there is only a very narrow focal distance that produces excellent results, and the rest is only "good"?? Out of the thousands of images I have taken all over the world, I do have a handful of some excellent shots, however, very few that blow me out of the water. Consequently, I have decided to pickup a 70-200L as I have heard and seen nothing but amazing results from that lens. However, I now haven't decided whether the f4 of f2.8 is the way to go. the 2.8 is twice as heavy to carry on a long hike, and is the extra f stop (I know it's 4x the light) worth carrying the extra weight. If someone can shed some light (http://www.dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif) on that, I would really appreciate it.
Great photos...
Here is my contribution. I have two lenses for my wildlife photos: the nikon 80-200 f2.8 D and the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED. They are both great lenses sharp and can be used without tripod although sometimes my shoots are not very sharp...It must be my shaking hands .
I was thinking to get the TC-14E II to use with the 300mm and after watching your amazing photos it seems to work pretty well with this lens. I will probably rent it myself to test it and eventually buy it. Has anyone used the Sigma??
Snowy Egret - Nikon D300s with Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED 1/2000s f8 ISO 800.
I've used a sigma TC and was much happier when I switched to a Nikon.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
WOW, WOW, WOW!!! amazing stuff, dang I can't wait to get the right equipment for my camera....someday yes someday! I have a Nikon D70 with 2 lenses one is a Nikkor 18-70mm the other is a Quantaray 70-300mm. maybe it's just me cuz I'm new at this but I don't care for either lense. Does anyone have any suggestions what my next lense should be first? wow I scrolled through the pictures over and over in this thread and WOW y'all are amazing and exciting and I hope one day to take pictures like that!
Your next lens would depend on how much you want to spend on it and how what type of captures do you want to get (landscape,wildlife, flowers, etc).
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I went into a few camera shops today and said how I'd like a lens for wildlife photography that didn't break the bank. They recommended the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF OS, i googled it when i got home and read so many different opinions, some say FANTASTIC, others say RUBBISH, any views?
Thanks
Bertie
bertiegregoryphotography.com
I'd love to have a ten grand lens but I don't have the ten grand. What I do have is a one grand lens that I got new under $700 several years ago. It's the 170-500 Sigma and it takes photo's I'm not ashamed of.
Taken w/D70 & 170-500 a week or so ago, Hand held.
Taken about 5 yrs ago, same set up, used tripod.
I have found that the best lens for shooting wildlife is the longest I can afford. The question is not can a guy shooting a Nikon 500 f4 shoot a better photo than that with his lens but weather he can do better with your lens. You can't compare tools unless the same mechanic use's both.
Thanks all for the responses, I think I will go with the 100-400 just for the versatility. My camera shooting is too all over the shop to be tied down to one focal length and buying lots of lenses is a little on the not going to happen front!
I faced the same choice about a month ago and made the other decision, I bought a 400 5.6. I'm now selling it and have ordered a 100-400. So I'm sure you made the right decision.
Dude, that's a sweet shot with three birds with the dragon flies. Do you see that often or was that just a piece of luck?
That was when the young were just about to leave the nest, so their demand for food was highest. The next weekend the young were out learning how to fly gracefully. Lots of dragonflies were being captured. There were otheer things being brought in too, but snail shells???
Great Capture of the turkey, LCD. Those are hard to get, especially sharp images.
Just got the 100-400L myself, yesterday and am heading out tomorrow for some test
images. I just jumped the Sony ship and so far love my 7D and 40D, but am looking
forward to using some quality glass.
Next purchase after paying off the new (to me) 400L zoom is the 24-105L. I shoot
a lot of wildlife here in the Rockies, but get in some landscape as well.
Thanks for the posted images, at least I know what the lens is capable of.
Hi again all, many thanks for the advice on lenses, here's what i've managed to get. All nikon d300 with sigma 150-500. Many more at bertiegregoryphotography.com, comments welcome.
Why is that Harry? I have both right now, but am sitting on the fence about use of the Canon for Tele. So, what is your experience?
The reason I am fence sitting is, the 5DMk2 seems to resolve so much better when cropped.
thanks,
I just found the IQ to be better and the AF to be faster with the Nikon than the Sigma. I was shooting with a Nikon body and the Sigma 70-200 lens at the time.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I just found the IQ to be better and the AF to be faster with the Nikon than the Sigma. I was shooting with a Nikon body and the Sigma 70-200 lens at the time.
Not seen many thumbs up from the Sony guys (I cant be the only one)
Sony 70-400G - I have used this glass for everything from distance to 'macro look' and everything in between and love it, it has great colours fast AF and is on my a900 90% of the time. Few sample shots for you:
1/320, f/7.1, iso200, 300mm
1/25, f/7.1, iso200, 400mm handheld through glass
1/400, f/7.1, iso200, 400mm
1/250, f/5.6, iso200, 330mm
1/500, f/5.6, iso1000, 400mm no flash, handheld (excuse the blur at the bottom - edge of the fruit dish it was sat in)
Canon 400mm 5.6L
My favorite lens for wildlife is the Canon 400mm 5.6L. It's easy to handle because the weight and is not as heavy as the IS version. Same for the price of this lens...
Tripod is welcome but during a summer day with enough light not neccesarry.
Example photos:
1. Wild fox at Oostvaardersplassen.
2. Friendship Lions, Ouwehands Dierenpark in Rhenen.
3. Kingfisher bird on a stick, Oostvaardersplassen in The Netherlands.
zoom or prime for wildlife?
So many great shots here from so many different pieces of equipment. Lemme ask for a tally here... zoom or prime lens' for wildlife? I am considering a 200-500mm 5.6 or a 300mm 2.8 (both manual lens). Any insight? I have used my 70-200mm 2.8 alone and with a 1.4 t.c. but feel i need a bit more reach and i don't care for the final product with the teleconverter. Lemme know, looking forward to hearing ur thoughts/suggestions.
You didn't mention the brand, but all the 300 F2.8 lenses I know of are stunning, and would blow away any zoom lens at that focal length. That being said, 300mm is pretty short for most wildlife, especially birds. Although it would work for shooting in zoos, or say buffalo at Yellowstone that will let you get pretty close. Otherwise, you will be fooling around with TC's a lot, and then negating the point of that fast glass. But it is one way to go.
As for the 200-500, there are only two I know of. The Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 which is so inexpensive that I doubt it's any good, or the Sigma 200-500 F2.8 which would be fanastic, but a bit pricey at $25K, and hard to hand hold. http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm
So maybe you could give a bit more information about exactly which lenses you're looking at, and what kind of wildlife interests you most.
You didn't mention the brand, but all the 300 F2.8 lenses I know of are stunning, and would blow away any zoom lens at that focal length. That being said, 300mm is pretty short for most wildlife, especially birds. Although it would work for shooting in zoos, or say buffalo at Yellowstone that will let you get pretty close. Otherwise, you will be fooling around with TC's a lot, and then negating the point of that fast glass. But it is one way to go.
As for the 200-500, there are only two I know of. The Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 which is so inexpensive that I doubt it's any good, or the Sigma 200-500 F2.8 which would be fanastic, but a bit pricey at $25K, and hard to hand hold. http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm
So maybe you could give a bit more information about exactly which lenses you're looking at, and what kind of wildlife interests you most.
Ha! Whats' manual.?. My bad! It's some older Tamron Adaptall glass. Not in the market for $25k either. The 300mm is 2.8 and the 200-500mm is 5.6 all the way thru. How much more would a 1.4x and a 2x slow things down ya think? I have heard decent reviews on both.
Anyone using the Canon 100-400 IS USM L ?? its possibly my next purchase so any comments positive or negative would be appreciated
I bought this lens before I went to Africa. I can see I need a lot more practice with it. I have trouble with exposure. Granted, I have not been in to photography very long, and have a lot to learn. I really like it, and can see there is great potential. Attached are some of my better shots this month. I also did quite a bit of research and this is the best quality lens for my budget. The next step up was also a leap in price. With more time, I think I would be able to recomend this lens with confidence.
There was no opportunities for a tripod with this big boy wanting to charge us.
Comments
Remember that the 80-200 will not work with the newer TCs. It will work with the older TCs taht aren't AF.
Up to 200mm the 80-200 will give you slightly better IQ.
Here are the reviews by Thom Hogan
80-200 http://bythom.com/nikkor-80-200-lens.htm
80-400 http://bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
So the 80-200 can't autofocus with TCs?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
are the newer VR 80-200 able to?
yes
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I went into a few camera shops today and said how I'd like a lens for wildlife photography that didn't break the bank. They recommended the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF OS, i googled it when i got home and read so many different opinions, some say FANTASTIC, others say RUBBISH, any views?
Thanks
Bertie
bertiegregoryphotography.com
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Here is my contribution. I have two lenses for my wildlife photos: the nikon 80-200 f2.8 D and the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED. They are both great lenses sharp and can be used without tripod although sometimes my shoots are not very sharp...It must be my shaking hands
I was thinking to get the TC-14E II to use with the 300mm and after watching your amazing photos it seems to work pretty well with this lens. I will probably rent it myself to test it and eventually buy it. Has anyone used the Sigma??
Snowy Egret - Nikon D300s with Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED 1/2000s f8 ISO 800.
www.simonebrogini.com
Red Tailed Hawk - Nikon D300s with Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8 at 200mm 1/750s f5.6 ISO 200.
www.simonebrogini.com
Up to about 6 months ago, I was shooting with 10D, 24-105L, and a 100-400L. The idea was to cover a wide focal range with as little equipment possible. At first I was quite excited about the shots I was getting, but that soon faded when I realized that it was difficult to find the sweet spot and that the images were not as sharp as I expected when zoomed in and cropped. So I thought, well maybe I just don't have enough resolution with the 10D, so 6 months ago I picked up a new 7D, and after months of shooting, testing, etc., I've come to the conclusion that the 100-400 just can't seep to produce that "pin" sharpness all us bird or wildlife photographers strive for. And when you think about it, what is the point of having a "sweet spot" on a zoom if there is only a very narrow focal distance that produces excellent results, and the rest is only "good"?? Out of the thousands of images I have taken all over the world, I do have a handful of some excellent shots, however, very few that blow me out of the water. Consequently, I have decided to pickup a 70-200L as I have heard and seen nothing but amazing results from that lens. However, I now haven't decided whether the f4 of f2.8 is the way to go. the 2.8 is twice as heavy to carry on a long hike, and is the extra f stop (I know it's 4x the light) worth carrying the extra weight. If someone can shed some light (http://www.dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif) on that, I would really appreciate it.
Dclicker
try to micro adjust it
I've used a sigma TC and was much happier when I switched to a Nikon.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
"It's awesome to be ALIVE!"
Your next lens would depend on how much you want to spend on it and how what type of captures do you want to get (landscape,wildlife, flowers, etc).
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'd love to have a ten grand lens but I don't have the ten grand. What I do have is a one grand lens that I got new under $700 several years ago. It's the 170-500 Sigma and it takes photo's I'm not ashamed of.
Taken w/D70 & 170-500 a week or so ago, Hand held.
Taken about 5 yrs ago, same set up, used tripod.
I have found that the best lens for shooting wildlife is the longest I can afford. The question is not can a guy shooting a Nikon 500 f4 shoot a better photo than that with his lens but weather he can do better with your lens. You can't compare tools unless the same mechanic use's both.
Oly E-3/35-100 f2 (and wide open at 93mm f2)
The 50-200 f2.8-3.5 (coupled with the EC-14 teleconverter) at 283mm f5.6
If you can get close and macro, 50mm f2 (here with the EC20 teleconverter)
And the 300mm f2.8 (here with the EC-20 teleconverter for 600mm f5.6)
www.spanielsport.com
I faced the same choice about a month ago and made the other decision, I bought a 400 5.6. I'm now selling it and have ordered a 100-400. So I'm sure you made the right decision.
www.jtsphotoblog.blogspot.co.uk
www.johngwynant.blogspot.co.uk
That was when the young were just about to leave the nest, so their demand for food was highest. The next weekend the young were out learning how to fly gracefully. Lots of dragonflies were being captured. There were otheer things being brought in too, but snail shells???
Greg
www.spanielsport.com
Just got the 100-400L myself, yesterday and am heading out tomorrow for some test
images. I just jumped the Sony ship and so far love my 7D and 40D, but am looking
forward to using some quality glass.
Next purchase after paying off the new (to me) 400L zoom is the 24-105L. I shoot
a lot of wildlife here in the Rockies, but get in some landscape as well.
Thanks for the posted images, at least I know what the lens is capable of.
Why is that Harry? I have both right now, but am sitting on the fence about use of the Canon for Tele. So, what is your experience?
The reason I am fence sitting is, the 5DMk2 seems to resolve so much better when cropped.
thanks,
I just found the IQ to be better and the AF to be faster with the Nikon than the Sigma. I was shooting with a Nikon body and the Sigma 70-200 lens at the time.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Got it!
Sony 70-400G - I have used this glass for everything from distance to 'macro look' and everything in between and love it, it has great colours fast AF and is on my a900 90% of the time. Few sample shots for you:
1/320, f/7.1, iso200, 300mm
1/25, f/7.1, iso200, 400mm handheld through glass
1/400, f/7.1, iso200, 400mm
1/250, f/5.6, iso200, 330mm
1/500, f/5.6, iso1000, 400mm no flash, handheld (excuse the blur at the bottom - edge of the fruit dish it was sat in)
.DAVID. in the corner waving the Sony flag
Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints
My favorite lens for wildlife is the Canon 400mm 5.6L. It's easy to handle because the weight and is not as heavy as the IS version. Same for the price of this lens...
Tripod is welcome but during a summer day with enough light not neccesarry.
Example photos:
1. Wild fox at Oostvaardersplassen.
2. Friendship Lions, Ouwehands Dierenpark in Rhenen.
3. Kingfisher bird on a stick, Oostvaardersplassen in The Netherlands.
So many great shots here from so many different pieces of equipment. Lemme ask for a tally here... zoom or prime lens' for wildlife? I am considering a 200-500mm 5.6 or a 300mm 2.8 (both manual lens). Any insight? I have used my 70-200mm 2.8 alone and with a 1.4 t.c. but feel i need a bit more reach and i don't care for the final product with the teleconverter. Lemme know, looking forward to hearing ur thoughts/suggestions.
http://www.johnparliphotography.com/
http://www.johnparliphotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joliet-IL/John-Parli-Photography/235669552864
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnparliphotography-joliet_photographer/
https://twitter.com/johnparliphoto
You didn't mention the brand, but all the 300 F2.8 lenses I know of are stunning, and would blow away any zoom lens at that focal length. That being said, 300mm is pretty short for most wildlife, especially birds. Although it would work for shooting in zoos, or say buffalo at Yellowstone that will let you get pretty close. Otherwise, you will be fooling around with TC's a lot, and then negating the point of that fast glass. But it is one way to go.
As for the 200-500, there are only two I know of. The Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 which is so inexpensive that I doubt it's any good, or the Sigma 200-500 F2.8 which would be fanastic, but a bit pricey at $25K, and hard to hand hold. http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm
So maybe you could give a bit more information about exactly which lenses you're looking at, and what kind of wildlife interests you most.
Link to my Smugmug site
Ha! Whats' manual.?. My bad! It's some older Tamron Adaptall glass. Not in the market for $25k either. The 300mm is 2.8 and the 200-500mm is 5.6 all the way thru. How much more would a 1.4x and a 2x slow things down ya think? I have heard decent reviews on both.
p.s. Hawkers!?! Is that legal!?!
http://www.johnparliphotography.com/
http://www.johnparliphotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joliet-IL/John-Parli-Photography/235669552864
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnparliphotography-joliet_photographer/
https://twitter.com/johnparliphoto
I bought this lens before I went to Africa. I can see I need a lot more practice with it. I have trouble with exposure. Granted, I have not been in to photography very long, and have a lot to learn. I really like it, and can see there is great potential. Attached are some of my better shots this month. I also did quite a bit of research and this is the best quality lens for my budget. The next step up was also a leap in price. With more time, I think I would be able to recomend this lens with confidence.
There was no opportunities for a tripod with this big boy wanting to charge us.