Don't dismiss Sigma and other manufacturers glass. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is the same price as the 70-200 F4 L. With a 2x adaptor you have a 120-400 for a reasonable price.
For surf shots or motorsports consider the 50-500 "bigma". go to Fred Miranda
and read through the review section and do a search in the forums, particularly the sports and wildlife sections.
Afaik the kit lens with the D70 is a very good lens with a good range 18-70 f3.5. Buy a Bigma or a 70-200 + converter and you have 18-400 / 500 covered for a (in the dslr world) reasonable amount of money.
Just my 2c worth.
Shay.
Ps. I have the canon kit lens , 18-55 + sigma 70-200 & 2x converter.
Your hitting the 'glass' nerve now shay.
Surfing photography would be something i have considered out of my reach shay. You have to photograph your enviroment & we have a lot of surf here.
What is the trade off for using the 2x converter ? There must be some quality loss i expect.
Would the bigma at f4-6.3 do an adequit job on a distant surfer in direct morning sun ? I know thats an open type question but im so lost with this "what will work in what light" biz
I've used a 1.4 and 2x converter on a 300 f4 lens. I'm told I lose a stop with the 1.4, and it had a big impact on the autofocus. I couldn't use it for an American Football game under cloudy conditions - the autofocus was just too slow. Image quality was OK. I read that the 1.4 works much better on a faster lens, like the 300 2.8. $$$$$$$
I was extremely disappointed with the 2x on the same 300 f4. Very soft images, and again, autofocus was terrible, even on a sunny day. Again, it may be different on a faster lens. This is just my experience.
I've used a 1.4 and 2x converter on a 300 f4 lens. I'm told I lose a stop with the 1.4, and it had a big impact on the autofocus. I couldn't use it for an American Football game under cloudy conditions - the autofocus was just too slow. Image quality was OK. I read that the 1.4 works much better on a faster lens, like the 300 2.8. $$$$$$$
I was extremely disappointed with the 2x on the same 300 f4. Very soft images, and again, autofocus was terrible, even on a sunny day. Again, it may be different on a faster lens. This is just my experience.
Surfing photography would be something i have considered out of my reach shay. You have to photograph your enviroment & we have a lot of surf here.
What is the trade off for using the 2x converter ? There must be some quality loss i expect.
Would the bigma at f4-6.3 do an adequit job on a distant surfer in direct morning sun ? I know thats an open type question but im so lost with this "what will work in what light" biz
First off the price benefit is clear to go with non-OEM brands like sigma, but the optical quality and construction quality are not as good. Are they good enough? Look around read some reviews. Is the sigma f2.8 with a 2x converter a good idea. IMHO not very often. If you want a 400mm f5.6 lens then Canon makes one and it is not that expensive. For me things that matter in this equation include having IS on the Canon 70-200 2.8L. Is IS worth it, well here is a handheld shot that I took using the IS on the 100-400L mounted on an old 2MP (yes 2mp) dslr without even anything to lean on. (yes a tripod would have been better: not the point)
Aside from IS there is the issue of Sigma's reverse engineering. You have to admire the work that they do but it is not perfect and sometimes Sigma lenses just do not work when going to a new Canon camera and have to be rechipped. Another area where the Canon glass and partcularly the 'L' glass blows away Sigma is in the speed and accuracy of the AF. If you are going to be doing action photography that might be a biggie.
Sigma makes fine lenses at a very good price but for me the cumulative issues rule them out. For you it might be different. As for extenders... I just bought a 1.4x extender and it is OK, not wonderful, but not terrible. The 1.4x only kills 1 f-stop and preserves AF with all my lenses. I am not likely to buy a 2x and am not enamored with the 2 f-stop loss, the crippling of AF for some lens combos and the additional degradation in contrast.
Read through this FredMiranda thread from start to finish to get both the rational and irrational takes.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Sigma makes fine lenses at a very good price but for me the cumulative issues rule them out. For you it might be different. As for extenders... I just bought a 1.4x extender and it is OK not wonderful but not terrible. The 1.4x only kills 1 f-stop and preserves AF with all my lenese. I am not likely to buy a 2x and am not enamored with the 2 f-stop loss, the crippling of AF for some lens combos and the additional degradation in contrast.
Read through this FredMiranda thread from start to finish to get both the rational and irrational takes.[/QUOTE]
I agree that if you want the best of the best glass you go with Nikon 2.8 glass or Canon 'L' glass. They are sweet lenses and can't be beat. Having said that one also has to take a reality check. I just bought the Nikon 300mm/f4 lens. I really wanted the Nikon 300mm/2,8 lens. The problem was that the 2.8 lens cost $3995 and the 4.0 lens cost $1160. Also the 2.8 weighs 5.7 lbs as opposed to the 4.0 which weighs 3.1 lbs.
I wanted to get the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR lens but it cost $1600 so I got the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and the 1.4 and 2.0 tcs on e-bay for $700.
Both my Sigma 70-200 and my Nikon 300mm/f4 are fine lenses. Sharp and with good contrast as some of the pics I've posted show. Are there better lenses out there, of course. The problem is that when I buy a lens I have to deal with some economic realities.
Harry
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!"
while L-glass is cool
My next purchase for tele will definitely be the Bigma! I've seen a lot of stunning pics of birds lately... and the 20D is capable of very useable ISO 1600 photos. I think it will be very good for action (I've used the 20D + 70-200 F/4 and 1.4 TC @ ISO 100 for some action, if I had bumped the ISO I would have had some killer shots!)
So, while I currently have only Canon gear, my next purchase will be a Sigma, but that will take a lot of months, because I've gotta save some for my Yosemite trip
I've used a 1.4 and 2x converter on a 300 f4 lens. I'm told I lose a stop with the 1.4, and it had a big impact on the autofocus. I couldn't use it for an American Football game under cloudy conditions - the autofocus was just too slow. Image quality was OK. I read that the 1.4 works much better on a faster lens, like the 300 2.8. $$$$$$$
I was extremely disappointed with the 2x on the same 300 f4. Very soft images, and again, autofocus was terrible, even on a sunny day. Again, it may be different on a faster lens. This is just my experience.
Waxy - The 2x Teleconverter costs you 2 f stops of light - That drops your 300 F4 to a 3oo f8. Most Canon SLRs do not autofocus with lenses slower than F5.6 The 1 series cameras 1D, 1DMkll, 1Ds, 1Ds Mkll will autofocus with the center AF point I believe at f8 for horizontal lines - not sure about the ability at f8 with vertical lines. That is why you had trouble under cloudy conditions. And that is why some shooters prefer the F2.8 lenses to the F4.
300mm F2.8 with a 2x becomes and f5.6 and will still autofocus but more slowly.
if i can't get it with my 70-200L f/2.8 i.s., well then, it's not meant to be... at least for this boy.
when i go to one of andy biggs' safaris i will definitely buy or rent a 600mm L or some such big beast.
Carting around a big lens is a pain Not just because it's heavy but
because, at least at the public places, you get a lot of questions that
detract from shooting time. On the down side, I was thinking of how it
would be perceived in the scope of Rutt's recent incident.
But the coolest thing did happen yesterday. I wanted to find out whether
the behavior of egret was "normal". Not only is it normal but they don't see
it all to often and the pix were a big help to them with regard to identifying
what the bird ate (only because the salt marsh mice are endangered).
ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Surfing photography would be something i have considered out of my reach shay. You have to photograph your enviroment & we have a lot of surf here.
What is the trade off for using the 2x converter ? There must be some quality loss i expect.
Would the bigma at f4-6.3 do an adequit job on a distant surfer in direct morning sun ? I know thats an open type question but im so lost with this "what will work in what light" biz
I don't have a Bigma but I have seen some great surf shots taken with it.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ has an excellent sports section. Search it for views on the Bigma. One of the reviews of the bigma on FM was by a professional photographer who covers the uspga. He had to buy a bigma to replace a lens which he had left at home. The lens allowed him to cover the tournament. It wasn't as good as his 500L or 600L but it didn't cost $3,000+.
the sigma 1/4x and 2x converters don't work properly with the bigma. They don't autofocus with this lens. The 70-200 and the 120-300 are the only lens that will autofocus with the extenders afaik. The 2x converter with my 70-200 gives me 5.6 at 400. The autofocus works and it was a lot cheaper than a 70-200 lens + a 100-400 lens. I don't know anything about shooting surf shots unfortunately but most of the good shots I have seen have the surfer close to shore as the wave is breaking.
Imho the big advantage the D70 has over the rebel is the kit lens that is included. From what I have read the Nikon 18-70 is an excellent lens and is far superior to the 18-55 lens that Canon ship with the rebel.
You can cover most general photos from landscape to portraits with this lens. You can save your money and put it towards a big zoom lens if you want to shoot surf or motorsports. You enjoy sunny weather in oz, the "slow" f4 lens won't be a handicap.
I'm not sponsored by Sigma but I don't feel that a $3,000 lens is necessary to take great shots. If money is no object buy the best but if, like most people, you are on a budget do read the reviews on these forums and consider them. If you hate the lens you will be able to sell it without too much of a loss and it won't have cost you (relatively) that much in the first place or ideally you could rent the lens and try it out before you buy it.
This is great stuff...im reading everyones posts..thankyou all very much.
This auto focus you all mention...how can a telephoto lens auto focus over that distance ? Shay if i was to aim aim that Sigma 50-500 at a distant surfer in strong sun ...it sees it & will auto focus ?
I understand how my little olympus does it (red light shoots out) but cant see how a large tele can do it on a smallish subject & not want to lock on to the background.
Gus
The camera determines the distance to focus to (meaning: the object it should focus on) and does so using contrast. the more contrast there is, the easier it is for the AF to work.
So, are you getting somewhere towards deciding yet?
The camera determines the distance to focus to (meaning: the object it should focus on) and does so using contrast. the more contrast there is, the easier it is for the AF to work.
So, are you getting somewhere towards deciding yet?
Thanks Michiel...i had been wondering that for quite some time.
deciding ...huh...no way. But man im having fun researching it all on the net.
Comments
Surfing photography would be something i have considered out of my reach shay. You have to photograph your enviroment & we have a lot of surf here.
What is the trade off for using the 2x converter ? There must be some quality loss i expect.
Would the bigma at f4-6.3 do an adequit job on a distant surfer in direct morning sun ? I know thats an open type question but im so lost with this "what will work in what light" biz
"Pro surfer at Snapper Rocks"
Photographer: David Magahy
Canon EOS 1D
500 f/4 Lens + 2x Extender
1/400 sec @ f/11 ISO 200 +1/3 exposure
I was extremely disappointed with the 2x on the same 300 f4. Very soft images, and again, autofocus was terrible, even on a sunny day. Again, it may be different on a faster lens. This is just my experience.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Aside from IS there is the issue of Sigma's reverse engineering. You have to admire the work that they do but it is not perfect and sometimes Sigma lenses just do not work when going to a new Canon camera and have to be rechipped. Another area where the Canon glass and partcularly the 'L' glass blows away Sigma is in the speed and accuracy of the AF. If you are going to be doing action photography that might be a biggie.
Sigma makes fine lenses at a very good price but for me the cumulative issues rule them out. For you it might be different. As for extenders... I just bought a 1.4x extender and it is OK, not wonderful, but not terrible. The 1.4x only kills 1 f-stop and preserves AF with all my lenses. I am not likely to buy a 2x and am not enamored with the 2 f-stop loss, the crippling of AF for some lens combos and the additional degradation in contrast.
Read through this FredMiranda thread from start to finish to get both the rational and irrational takes.
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Read through this FredMiranda thread from start to finish to get both the rational and irrational takes.[/QUOTE]
I agree that if you want the best of the best glass you go with Nikon 2.8 glass or Canon 'L' glass. They are sweet lenses and can't be beat. Having said that one also has to take a reality check. I just bought the Nikon 300mm/f4 lens. I really wanted the Nikon 300mm/2,8 lens. The problem was that the 2.8 lens cost $3995 and the 4.0 lens cost $1160. Also the 2.8 weighs 5.7 lbs as opposed to the 4.0 which weighs 3.1 lbs.
I wanted to get the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR lens but it cost $1600 so I got the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and the 1.4 and 2.0 tcs on e-bay for $700.
Both my Sigma 70-200 and my Nikon 300mm/f4 are fine lenses. Sharp and with good contrast as some of the pics I've posted show. Are there better lenses out there, of course. The problem is that when I buy a lens I have to deal with some economic realities.
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!"
My next purchase for tele will definitely be the Bigma! I've seen a lot of stunning pics of birds lately... and the 20D is capable of very useable ISO 1600 photos. I think it will be very good for action (I've used the 20D + 70-200 F/4 and 1.4 TC @ ISO 100 for some action, if I had bumped the ISO I would have had some killer shots!)
So, while I currently have only Canon gear, my next purchase will be a Sigma, but that will take a lot of months, because I've gotta save some for my Yosemite trip
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
Waxy - The 2x Teleconverter costs you 2 f stops of light - That drops your 300 F4 to a 3oo f8. Most Canon SLRs do not autofocus with lenses slower than F5.6 The 1 series cameras 1D, 1DMkll, 1Ds, 1Ds Mkll will autofocus with the center AF point I believe at f8 for horizontal lines - not sure about the ability at f8 with vertical lines. That is why you had trouble under cloudy conditions. And that is why some shooters prefer the F2.8 lenses to the F4.
300mm F2.8 with a 2x becomes and f5.6 and will still autofocus but more slowly.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
when i go to one of andy biggs' safaris i will definitely buy or rent a 600mm L or some such big beast.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
because, at least at the public places, you get a lot of questions that
detract from shooting time. On the down side, I was thinking of how it
would be perceived in the scope of Rutt's recent incident.
But the coolest thing did happen yesterday. I wanted to find out whether
the behavior of egret was "normal". Not only is it normal but they don't see
it all to often and the pix were a big help to them with regard to identifying
what the bird ate (only because the salt marsh mice are endangered).
ian
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ has an excellent sports section. Search it for views on the Bigma. One of the reviews of the bigma on FM was by a professional photographer who covers the uspga. He had to buy a bigma to replace a lens which he had left at home. The lens allowed him to cover the tournament. It wasn't as good as his 500L or 600L but it didn't cost $3,000+.
the sigma 1/4x and 2x converters don't work properly with the bigma. They don't autofocus with this lens. The 70-200 and the 120-300 are the only lens that will autofocus with the extenders afaik. The 2x converter with my 70-200 gives me 5.6 at 400. The autofocus works and it was a lot cheaper than a 70-200 lens + a 100-400 lens. I don't know anything about shooting surf shots unfortunately but most of the good shots I have seen have the surfer close to shore as the wave is breaking.
Imho the big advantage the D70 has over the rebel is the kit lens that is included. From what I have read the Nikon 18-70 is an excellent lens and is far superior to the 18-55 lens that Canon ship with the rebel.
You can cover most general photos from landscape to portraits with this lens. You can save your money and put it towards a big zoom lens if you want to shoot surf or motorsports. You enjoy sunny weather in oz, the "slow" f4 lens won't be a handicap.
I'm not sponsored by Sigma but I don't feel that a $3,000 lens is necessary to take great shots. If money is no object buy the best but if, like most people, you are on a budget do read the reviews on these forums and consider them. If you hate the lens you will be able to sell it without too much of a loss and it won't have cost you (relatively) that much in the first place or ideally you could rent the lens and try it out before you buy it.
Again just my 2c worth.
This auto focus you all mention...how can a telephoto lens auto focus over that distance ? Shay if i was to aim aim that Sigma 50-500 at a distant surfer in strong sun ...it sees it & will auto focus ?
I understand how my little olympus does it (red light shoots out) but cant see how a large tele can do it on a smallish subject & not want to lock on to the background.
The camera determines the distance to focus to (meaning: the object it should focus on) and does so using contrast. the more contrast there is, the easier it is for the AF to work.
So, are you getting somewhere towards deciding yet?
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
Ian
deciding ...huh...no way. But man im having fun researching it all on the net.
Another site with lens reviews.
Very much apresheea...appriseat...its good