Body sorted. Lens decision...

Well I currently don't really do any type of wildlife photography other than around the garden.
BUT with a good lens, I hope to be shooting -
Birds on feeders at home, visiting wildlife parks, walking through fields/woodland in the hope of seeing something nice to shoot (could be anything nature related)
When fishing later in the year I hope to get some nice shots of the lake/surrounding area.
Sports- Unlikely.
Budget - tbh I will save for something 2ndhand untill I can afford it. But don't wish to spend more than £500~ on something only used for as a hobby.
 
Ben: said:
A Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 dg os hsm?
Click to expand...

No thats the later expensive one

Mine is the 50-500 F4.5-6.3 DG OSM. No stabaliser so you can pick 2nd hand up for under/around £500.

Invest in a monopod and you have your stablisation.

See if you can find Steve Key gallery on Facebook (thats my son) He only uses two lenses mainly the Bigma.
 
I have a 70-200 F4 & the Sigma 150-500 OS & generally take wildlife shots, especially birds at the moment.

I can say that if you want to handhold the long Sigma lenses, in typical UK weather, you really need OS. I take mine to my workshop, just in case something interesting comes along, & although I also carry a tri/monopod, most of the time I handhold.

I've recently befriended a Robin & can get very close to it, so I thought I'd use the 70-200 instead. However, even at f4 iso800 I just couldn't get the shutter speed high enough for sharp shot.

With the Sigma I could shoot f8, more that fill the frame & get a result not possible without stabilisation.

I did previously use the Canon for all my wildlife photos, I just had to get a lot closer, not always possible, & crop a lot harder, losing quality, & when the light levels were low I went home! OS effectively extends my shooting opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Ok I think that helps narrow the field a little:

Canon 100-400 out of price range
Canon 70-200 f4 IS and 2.8 out of price range

So this leaves you with either new or 2nd hand depending on model:

Canon 70-200 F4
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm
Sigma 100-300 f4 ex dg hsm
Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 dg hsm

If you are not going to be doing sports or dark indoor stuff F4 will probably be ok. So maybe a canon 70-200 f4 and x1.4 tc could work well and would be just in your budget.

I would still look at the sigmas too both the 100-300 and 50-500 have a big followings and can produce nice sharp images.

http://www.tobiashjorth.com/sigma-100-300mm-f4-ex-hsm-review/

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
 
The new Tamron 70-300 VC lens has been getting very good reviews and is apparently beter than either the Canon or Nikon lenses in that range
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/962577

You might find a maximum of 200mm is a bit short even for birds on feeders, also don't forget TC's add a least one stop to any lens and your camera will not AF using one if it pushes it above f5.6.
 
Last edited:
Les Key said:
No thats the later expensive one

Mine is the 50-500 F4.5-6.3 DG OSM. No stabaliser so you can pick 2nd hand up for under/around £500.

Invest in a monopod and you have your stablisation.

See if you can find Steve Key gallery on Facebook (thats my son) He only uses two lenses mainly the Bigma.
Click to expand...

So you don't have an issue with stablisation even at long length?
(using a mono or tripod)

Seen one on ebay which is currently £325 - 12hours to go.
Bit concerned about spending any money on a 300mm+ without IS/OS

tris101 said:
Ok I think that helps narrow the field a little:

Canon 100-400 out of price range
Canon 70-200 f4 IS and 2.8 out of price range

So this leaves you with either new or 2nd hand depending on model:

Canon 70-200 F4
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm
Sigma 100-300 f4 ex dg hsm
Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 dg hsm

If you are not going to be doing sports or dark indoor stuff F4 will probably be ok. So maybe a canon 70-200 f4 and x1.4 tc could work well and would be just in your budget.

I would still look at the sigmas too both the 100-300 and 50-500 have a big followings and can produce nice sharp images.

http://www.tobiashjorth.com/sigma-100-300mm-f4-ex-hsm-review/

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
Click to expand...

As above, none of these are IS/OS and concerned about using one at long length.
How necessary it is that a long lens has IS? :\

If I was to go for the Canon 70-200mm I'd definately get the F4L IS USM version. But I feel 200mm is too short.

Bringing me back to the Sigma 50-500mm. Just need views on how 'needed' OS is for this length.
 
With a £500 max budget I'm not sure you will find one with IS, so you would either need to save more, go without IS or look at a lesser model.

The 70-200 would become 98-280 with a x1.4 tc fitted, plus the crop factor of the body is x1.6 on top of that.

IS is relatively new don’t get me wrong its nice to have but you can manage without it. It was not that long ago there was no IS and people still managed to take great photos.

I would get your body 1st that take a trip in to Norwich and try some of these lenses at a shop, take some test shots and see what you think.
 
Ben: said:
As above, none of these are IS/OS and concerned about using one at long length.
How necessary it is that a long lens has IS? :\
Click to expand...

If you are mainly going to use a tripod you would switch IS off and if this is case, an IS lens won't be a major concern for you.
However, hand held, forget the extra stop you can gain with IS.
Hand held, in a low light situation this can make all the difference of not having to raise the ISO level and increase the exposure.
 
Last edited:
tris101 said:
If you are not going to be doing sports or dark indoor stuff F4 will probably be ok.
Click to expand...

If you mean low light indoor sports then fair enough but if we are talking about motor sports, football etc, be careful that a member who uses an f4 lens for these subjects doesn't come along and bash you over the head with their f4 super zoom :D
 
hashcake said:
However, hand held, forget the extra stop you can gain with IS.
Hand held, in a low light situation this can make all the difference of not having to raise the ISO level and increase the exposure.
Click to expand...

Huh, I thought IS gave you effectively 3-4 stops of light. Other than perhaps a sharpness and DoF advantage, the only advantage any 2.8 has over an equivalent f4 is one stop of light (either a doubling of shutter speed or halving of ISO). Given the processing these days, unless you are right on the edge of pushing everything (i.e. you need to max ISO out to get the shutter speed high enough to freeze the action), you're going to be better off most of the time with an f4 lens with IS rather than 2.8 without. It's also going to be lighter too ;)

Or am I misunderstanding what you said?
 
Last edited:
hashcake said:
If you mean low light indoor sports then fair enough but if we are talking about motor sports, football etc, be careful that a member who uses an f4 lens for these subjects doesn't come along and bash you over the head with their f4 super zoom :D
Click to expand...

:lol: yes I ment the F4 will be fine over the 2.8 in a lot of cases :coat:
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Huh, I thought IS gave you effectively 3-4 stops of light.
Click to expand...

My bad, I meant to say a 'minimum' of one stop but yes overall 3-4.


arad85 said:
Or am I misunderstanding what you said?
Click to expand...

No you haven't, you got it right.
That's the beauty of IS and anything to aid not having to max out the ISO is worth having imho.
 
Ben: said:
Budget - tbh I will save for something 2ndhand untill I can afford it. But don't wish to spend more than £500~ on something only used for as a hobby.
Click to expand...

That's what a lot say of people when they get into this hobby, I'm guilty as charged.
The trouble is, we then look at fantastic, sharp photos on this forum, we also want to take shots that are just as good oursleves.
Comparing my earlier shots that I have priinted and framed, although I still like them, the ones taken with my L lenses just **** all over them when it comes to the 'wow' factor.

I remember when I posted a photo of a guy being lifted off the ground by a kite, another member suggested that an ultra wide angle lens would have been ideal for the shot.
When I saw the Canon '10-22' was £500 back then, I nearly felll on the floor and said to myself 'there is no way I am paying that level of money for a bloody camera lens'
Once I started looking at landscape shots taken with a swa lens, that was it, I was sold, I just had to have one.
I have a level of admiration for people who spend years happy without buying pro lenses and I am also jealous because their back account is far more healthier than mine :D

Ben, if you keep an eye on the classifieds, you will find a Sigma 150-500 IS within your price range.
 
Wow lots of information! Thanks guys.
It's all down to money and what is available 2ndhand.
I think it's currently between...
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM - 1 on ebay for £400 4days left.
Sigma 100-300mm F4 EX HSM - Perfect range and fixed f4 but can't find any :\
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens - Perfect range and IS, £200 on ebay 8hours left.
I think sadly a Canon L lens is going to be too expensive for the length I'm after.

Comparing these 2 though....
Sigma 100-300mm F4 EX HSM
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
For the price, the Canon is better. It gives a wider range and IS.
EDIT: I take it back, just read the reviews and seems to Canon isn't very sharp at 300mm :(
 
Last edited:
another consideration with the Sigma 100-300 f4 it will take extenders, with a 1.4 it retains AF @5.6, Sigma 1.4 can be picked up for approx £100 giving you extra reach
 
Last edited:
hashcake said:
If you are on a tight budget then fair enough but the Canon 70-200 will **** over those when it comes to IQ.
Again, if you are not after the best IQ then it won't bother you.
Also bear in mind that the Sigma 150-500 is the only one with OS and with OS / IS you can gain an extra stop shooting hand held.

I'm sure you will be happy with your choice and perhaps you are not as heavily into wildlife like I am, I just don't want to see someone make the same pitfalls I did when it comes to going through a few lenses to reach a perfect solution as I did.
Click to expand...

Believe you me, the Canon doesnt **** all over the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX II. On a crop, the Sigma is easily as good as the Canon.
 
Made some adjustments to what I previously said.
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 NOT OS £350 on ebay - 3hours left.
Sigma 50-500mm NOT OS - £435 - 1day left (will possibly end up too expensive)
Sigma 150-500mm OS - £320 - 4days (My preferred choice due to length and OS, but maybe too expensive in 4days time :\ )
 
It does not have OS.

Not sure if it’s the MKII or not it look like a MKII to my untrained eye but you would need to ask the sell or other member on here. This lens has nothing to do with me but I thought it might intrest you.

I believe this lens has a lot of love on here and other forums it always gets good reviews. Most say the Canon is a little better but at over twice the price it should be.
 
Just rang the seller and it is the MK1 without OS.
Good condition, UV filter. £365 + postage.
Can't see that 200mm is going to be enough :(
 
Thats what TC are for.

I think you realy need to pop to a shop in Norwich and have play with a couple of diffrent lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top