Advise needed for Mid $$ 400-500mm

GraphyFotoz

It's time to start saving for some reach power!

What is the best reasonable priced glass to get?

What will it be for? Wildlife 95% of the time.

So far I've been checking out the following:

SIGMA 170-500mm

TOKINA 80-400mm

SIGMA 400mm AF APO TELE-MACRO

At one time I had thought about a 50-500mm BIGMA but all that weight and I have 28-105mm covered with my other glass.
I will say I have been VERY HAPPY with my Sigma lenses!
-Sigma 28-70mm f2.8-4
-Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG Macro
If I could find a Sigma "reacher" with the build quality of my 105 EX DG I'd be real happy.

** I know that I'm gonna get hammered about saving for some L Glass or the like!
FORGET IT it'll never happen....no way can I ever raise $$ for a lens over $1000

Am I proud.....not at all....a used like new or near new lens is right up my alley. (All my equipment cept my pods are 2nd hand LN NM stuff.)

Does it hafta be blazing fast? Well it'd be nice but f5.6 at 400-500mm I can live with. Anything faster just isn't gonna fit my budget!

I'm on the bottom rung of the pay scale job wise compaired to most here.
(Just bought my 1st house last year and raising 2 teens)
I only have a Canon 10D....nothing fancy.
I've done pretty good on ebay selling this and that and have funded 90% of my equipment that way. Right down to my computer!

Bottom line is I'm just looking for some down to earth advise for something better than the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM beginner lens I have at under a grand.

Manfr3d

GraphyFotoz wrote:

It's time to start saving for some reach power!

What is the best reasonable priced glass to get?

What will it be for? Wildlife 95% of the time.

So far I've been checking out the following:

SIGMA 170-500mm

TOKINA 80-400mm

SIGMA 400mm AF APO TELE-MACRO

At one time I had thought about a 50-500mm BIGMA but all that weight and I have 28-105mm covered with my other glass.
I will say I have been VERY HAPPY with my Sigma lenses!
-Sigma 28-70mm f2.8-4
-Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG Macro
If I could find a Sigma "reacher" with the build quality of my 105 EX DG I'd be real happy.

** I know that I'm gonna get hammered about saving for some L Glass or the like!
FORGET IT it'll never happen....no way can I ever raise $$ for a lens over $1000

Am I proud.....not at all....a used like new or near new lens is right up my alley. (All my equipment cept my pods are 2nd hand LN NM stuff.)

Does it hafta be blazing fast? Well it'd be nice but f5.6 at 400-500mm I can live with. Anything faster just isn't gonna fit my budget!

I'm on the bottom rung of the pay scale job wise compaired to most here.
(Just bought my 1st house last year and raising 2 teens)
I only have a Canon 10D....nothing fancy.
I've done pretty good on ebay selling this and that and have funded 90% of my equipment that way. Right down to my computer!

Bottom line is I'm just looking for some down to earth advise for something better than the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM beginner lens I have at under a grand.

Check out the Canon 70-300mm/4.0-5.6 IS USM, it
is really good value for the money. It has an UD glass
element that normaly only L glass has. And well it has
IS which can help you handholding at long focal lengths.
Price is around 500 EUR. See a review here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

gtc

off you go to keh
keh.com is a good place to look and then compare against fleabay.

GraphyFotoz

Manfr3d wrote:

Check out the Canon 70-300mm/4.0-5.6 IS USM, it
is really good value for the money. It has an UD glass
element that normaly only L glass has. And well it has
IS which can help you handholding at long focal lengths.
Price is around 500 EUR. See a review here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

From what I understand for me IS is a waste of $$$ cuz my 10D won't handle it?

GraphyFotoz

gtc wrote:

keh.com is a good place to look and then compare against fleabay.

Whichever I do the payment on my end will come from my paypal $$$ I can rack up.

pathfinder

Graphy

IS will work fine with a 10D. I shot with a 10D for about 18 months and used IS with several different lenses.

If you really wanting the best images, skip the more inexpensive zooms, and stick with primes. Canon makes a lovely 400 f5.6

When looking at 400-500mm as you commented, things get expensive fast. I would suggest used primes as your best bet.

No more than 400mm if handholding is planned.

To use 500mm, you will also need a GOOD tripod, head, and lens foot to mount the telephoto on, and this can cost as much as your budget allows. You really can't use 500mm well without a tripod and a good head, even though I try some times also.

Don't apologize for your 10D - it can take great shots; I still think it did for me

GraphyFotoz

pathfinder wrote:

Graphy

IS will work fine with a 10D. I shot with a 10D for about 18 months and used IS with several different lenses.

If you really wanting the best images, skip the more inexpensive zooms, and stick with primes. Canon makes a lovely 400 f5.6

When looking at 400-500mm as you commented, things get expensive fast. I would suggest used primes as your best bet.

No more than 400mm if handholding is planned.

To use 500mm, you will also need a GOOD tripod, head, and lens foot to mount the telephoto on, and this can cost as much as your budget allows. You really can't use 500mm well without a tripod and a good head, even though I try some times also.

Don't apologize for your 10D - it can take great shots; I still think it did for me

Thanx for the info PF!
The bit about my 10D and IS is good to know!
I musta misunderstood or am confused about some other feature?
Still kinda prefer Sigma over a Canon.
What is your take on a good Sigy?
Like I mentioned 2nd hand is the way I'll go.
So if the right one comes along that fits my budget Sigy or Canon I'm on it.

As for a GOOD tripod I have a great tripod Gittos Pro MT9170 with a Bogen 3262QR Ball head.
Even my Mono is no light weight Manfrotto 679B with 3229 head.
QR plate is the same for both so I can easily do a quick swap.

Manfr3d

pathfinder wrote:

Graphy

IS will work fine with a 10D. I shot with a 10D for about 18 months and used IS with several different lenses.

If you really wanting the best images, skip the more inexpensive zooms, and stick with primes. Canon makes a lovely 400 f5.6

When looking at 400-500mm as you commented, things get expensive fast. I would suggest used primes as your best bet.

No more than 400mm if handholding is planned.

To use 500mm, you will also need a GOOD tripod, head, and lens foot to mount the telephoto on, and this can cost as much as your budget allows. You really can't use 500mm well without a tripod and a good head, even though I try some times also.

Don't apologize for your 10D - it can take great shots; I still think it did for me

Thats also an option. Talking about the 400/5.6, for me
the 300mm/4.0 non-is comes inevitably to mind. Its ~600
on the used marked and pairs well with a 1.4x extender
(equivalent to 420mm/5.6). I havent seen the 400/5.6
offered 2nd hand often, and if it wasn't really cheap
(~800-900).

GraphyFotoz

Manfr3d wrote:

Thats also an option. Talking about the 400/5.6, for me
the 300mm/4.0 non-is comes inevitably to mind. Its ~600
on the used marked and pairs well with a 1.4x extender
(equivalent to 420mm/5.6). I havent seen the 400/5.6
offered 2nd hand often, and if it wasn't really cheap
(~800-900).

Looks like choosing a lens is as tough as choosing a body! Eshhhhhh
I need some asprin!

claudermilk

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Looks like choosing a lens is as tough as choosing a body! Eshhhhhh
I need some asprin!

Yep. At least you already know what it's for. I've read a lot of happy reports of the Bigma used for this, so it probably ought ot be on your list still.

BYW, you really want a challenge? Try looking at MF. I'm starting to research that. Body? Ok, what format do you want? 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, other? Great, now what prism? What back? Then grip: yes/no? Then you *finally* get to lenses. wxwaxhelp

pathfinder

Medium format digital can be appealing, but bring bucketloads of money.

A full frame DSLR will seem very cheap in comparison.

You could shoot MF film and then scan it, but once you begin shooting digital, processing film and then scanning it seems so yesterday, and is tedious besides. I thought I would do that with an EOS 3 in 35mm, and quickly found I would just rather shoot with a 10D, and avoid film. YMMV

Steve Cavigliano

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Thanx for the info PF!
The bit about my 10D and IS is good to know!
I musta misunderstood or am confused about some other feature?
Still kinda prefer Sigma over a Canon.
What is your take on a good Sigy?
Like I mentioned 2nd hand is the way I'll go.
So if the right one comes along that fits my budget Sigy or Canon I'm on it.

As for a GOOD tripod I have a great tripod Gittos Pro MT9170 with a Bogen 3262QR Ball head.
Even my Mono is no light weight Manfrotto 679B with 3229 head.
QR plate is the same for both so I can easily do a quick swap.

Graphy,
PF gave you the lowdown. The Canon 400mm F5.6 is schweet, if a bit expensive. The Sigmas are nice and do a decent job. They are all zooms though. So you buy the traditional zoom issues when you buy these lenses.

Issues such as:
The more zoom room, usually the tougher it is to get really nice IQ throughout the lenses zoom range.
Zooms are not as sharp wide open and benefit from being stopped down 2/3 to a full stop.
Mid-zoom is usually very nice, but the extremes usually have more issues (@full wide and max tele).

On the plus side, you don't have to move your feet as much

Steve

GraphyFotoz

Thanx for the input Guys!
After looking at all the reviews and figuring out how much $$ I can raise.....looks like my best bet is gonna be a BIGMA.
I know it's gonna be a monster to carry but for it's price/build/quality of pics for the price I believe that's where I'm at.
The Canon 400mm f4 L would be nice but I think my budget is gonna be limited to the $600-$700 range. (2nd hand):cry
The Tokina 80-400mm AT-X was sugested to me by some but I don't like the user reviews on it. Bottom line is it's a cheesy ultra budget lens.
Drain pipes and Mirrors were ruled out right off!

Anyone here have a BIGMA so I can pick your brain??

pathfinder

Graphy - If you are committed to the Bigma, at least review the Tamron SP 200-500 Di that I discussed here on dgrin earlier.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=40471&highlight=200-500

Here are a number of shots taken with it - Note the absence of sig chromatic aberration, shot at 800 or 1600 ISO with a 20D.







These are all crops of about 30% of the pixels from a 20D.

GraphyFotoz

Not commited to anything yet PF!
Gotta raise the $$$ so I have plenty of time.
That is a nice lens....used a Tamron 60-300mm on my Canon A1 in the old days and loved it.

Still doing my homework!

JimM

You can find cheap 400mm f5.6's (non-Canon) on FM. I picked one up about 6 months ago (Sigma 400mm f5.6). I am not in love with it (mainly because it is older and I can't stop it down on my 20D (not sure about 10D). DOF is tough on 400mm at f5.6. I could be very interested in selling it as well, though I want you to know that all shots out of it have not been that sharp for me. Sample (one I think is sharp) (I can show you more samples if you like):


Now I think this one is very sharp, but not all were. My thought is to use my 200mm f2.8 L and put a 2x on it (and save some weight in my bag). I do like how the Sigma has a tripod mount on it though (my 200mm does not). I have really been thinking about posting it us as a trade for a Canon 2x.

pathfinder

JimM is right - the Canon 200f2.8 L is not that expensive and does not do badly with a 2x TC. Not as good as Canon's primes at 400, but still useable.

And it is an excellent 200mm lens.

The 1.4 TC works with it, but the jump from 200 to 280 is not enough for wildlife.

Osprey Whisperer

pathfinder wrote:

JimM is right - the Canon 200f2.8 L is not that expensive and does not do badly with a 2x TC. Not as good as Canon's primes at 400, but still useable.

And it is an excellent 200mm lens.

The 1.4 TC works with it, but the jump from 200 to 280 is not enough for wildlife.

Not enough for wildlife? I disagree, Jim. That's all I use at the moment. Sure a 400mm would be nice..but using the 200mm helps you be selective, creative and ingenious about your shooting. You have to find other ways to get close to the action. Try whispering sweet nothings into the birds ears. It always works for me.

Shot with the 200mm + 1.4x TC. :uhoh












The Canon 200mm f/2.8 USMII "L" is an amazing lens for the money. It's not fancy white..or weather sealed..but it's amazingly sharp with good color and contrast. It couples very well with Canon's 1.4x . If you check out my gallery link in my sig line.. almost all wildlife(bird) shots are with the 200mm and often times the 1.4x TC slapped on. You should be able to find this lens used for under $500 if you look hard. Pick up a used TC as well and you have a versatile combo for wildlife. Sure.....not the reach of the 400mm, but IMHO more versatile for many different shooting situations.

Good luck.

pathfinder

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Not enough for wildlife? I disagree, Jim. That's all I use at the moment. Sure a 400mm would be nice..but using the 200mm helps you be selective, creative and ingenious about your shooting. You have to find other ways to get close to the action. Try whispering sweet nothings into the birds ears. It always works for me.



The Canon 200mm f/2.8 USMII "L" is an amazing lens for the money. It's not fancy white..or weather sealed..but it's amazingly sharp with good color and contrast. It couples very well with Canon's 1.4x . If you check out my gallery link in my sig line.. almost all wildlife(bird) shots are with the 200mm and often times the 1.4x TC slapped on. You should be able to find this lens used for under $500 if you look hard. Pick up a used TC as well and you have a versatile combo for wildlife. Sure.....not the reach of the 400mm, but IMHO more versatile for many different shooting situations.

Good luck.

Yabbutt, Yabbutt, you know you are an exception Mike.

Shooting birds that are habituated to people wandering by ( like in Florida) , is not really the same as shooting wild birds.

I love how Harry says he never needs to shoot at ISO's higher than 100. He is shooting white birds in full tropical sunlight. Of course, ISO 100 is plenty.

Here in the midwest, back in the woods where the sun never shines, we shoot at ISO 800 or even 1600, f5.6 at 1/13th sec to capture an exposure. And 500mm NEVER seems long enough. If it was easy to handle, I could use 1000mm or even 1500mm to achieve full frame captures.

If Hoosier birds would let me capture them full frame with a 200mm lens, you can rest assured that I am smart enough to figure that out and do it. But, it is very hard to get within 50 to 75 feet of most of them before they depart. They are working here, to get ready for the wnter vacation in Florida!! They want to be ready to allow you to capture their glory.

Lovely Osprey shots, Mike!! Very nice indeed.

I like the 200f2.8 L also. A great way to introduce yourself to L glass, without a huge expence.

But most of my birds here are shot with 400-700mm and very rarely fill more than 1/2 of the frame. The only way to get closer is with a blind that does not move for days at a time.

Osprey Whisperer

Thanks Jim. I'll agree with you this time. I would enjoy a 400mm for shooting mermaids without getting caught. :uhoh I'll have to work up the so called skidish birds I shot while back in Illinois last week. Nick (gluwater) and I got fairly close to a couple GBH. I also got close to a great egret. I guess maybe I'm just not scaring them away.

pathfinder

Maybe I'm just not doing it right after all, Mike.:D

Osprey Whisperer

pathfinder wrote:

Maybe I'm just not doing it right after all, Mike.:D

Running and screaming as you approach the birds probably isn't the best technique. Like I said..try sweet talking the chicks.