Thanks for the advice, which would i get better pictures with? (80-200 with TC or 80-400)
Remember that the 80-200 will not work with the newer TCs. It will work with the older TCs taht aren't AF.
So the 80-200 can't autofocus with TCs?
are the newer VR 80-200 able to?
mushy wrote: »
Anyone using the Canon 100-400 IS USM L ?? its possibly my next purchase so any comments positive or negative would be appreciated
Dclicker wrote: »
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.
Simo70 wrote: »
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.
B-gregs wrote: »
Hi again Harry,
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?
mushy wrote: »
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!
InsuredDisaster wrote: »
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?
Harryb wrote: »
I've used a sigma TC and was much happier when I switched to a Nikon.
angevin1 wrote: »
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.
Harryb wrote: »
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.
vegaguy wrote: »
(both manual lens)
kdog wrote: »
What's a manual lens?
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.