Warplane Photography

Andy77

Andy77

Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
I have a sigma 150-500mm os mounted on a canon 400d, is this lens ok for this kind of photography or would i be better to sell and upgrade to a canon 100-400 is?:shrug:
 
Not sure the autofocus is a fast as the canon, and it definately isnt as sharp, but i know a few flyboys that use it and are very happy.
Dean:)
 
Should be ok Andy. I've seen a lot of guys use the Bigma (50-500mm) and get decent shots.
Only one way to find out... ;)

Get out there and become addicted to warplanes! :D
 
I have a 100-400mm and adore it, but there is one thing that the Bigma has that I would find useful, and thats 100mm extra reach.

When I have been out at airbases, I have seen a mixture of Canons and Sigmas (obviously I'm referring to the Canon users here, there is quite a few using Nikons) I guess it is all down to personal preference.

But as Kevshore said, go out and get hooked :D
 
hi, i appreciate this thread is about capturing warplanes...but i'm looking for a lens to use to shoot greyhounds, track and coursing, and had this glass in mind...or would i be better off with a different one? ... (one fast moving object to another i suppose,but needing fast telephoto capability ???)

thanks
 
I can honestly say the 100-400mm is definately your best bet. I had the Bigma and thought it a horrendously bad lens. I took a whole days shooting at Kemble and came away with nothing. That was in brilliant weather too!! I now use the 100-400 for airshows and it is an amazing difference in quality. Thats just my experience though
Regards neil
 
The Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 is another very good contender.
 
The problem with most of these budget zooms like the bigma or the host of other xxx-400mm zoom manufactured by sigma or tamron, they will severely let you down in mid to poor light conditions, especially when tracking aircraft in the Loop.

They are fine when the weather and light conditions are good, but they start to miss lots of shots when the light conditions start to fall off. Personally I would choose the canon 100-400 or nikon 80-400 over any of these lenses when it comes to the affordable end of the market, even if you are paying abit more.

hyakuhei recommended the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 which is a good lens, fast autofocus, heavy'sh (2.5kg's), but does have its problems, especially with build quality, personally better for motorsport than aircraft, but just about ticks the boxes in the affordable stacks.

Peter
 
Sorry to hijack, but would the 150-500 be any good for birds/wildlife, or is the small aperture too bad for this? It is just this lens is a surprisingly cheap (1/3rd) compared to the sigma 120-300 /2.8
(I already have the canon 70-300 IS /4-5.6, I think I am starting to struggle with reach, AF accuracy and low light/small aperture! in the 250-300 range)
 
IMO the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS lens is the best single lens for this type of photogaphy.

However, I use a combination of the 400mm f/5.6L and 70-200mm f/4L (sometimes with 1.4x TC) on a 30D and 40D for this type of photography.
 
coldpenguin said:
Sorry to hijack, but would the 150-500 be any good for birds/wildlife, or is the small aperture too bad for this? It is just this lens is a surprisingly cheap (1/3rd) compared to the sigma 120-300 /2.8
(I already have the canon 70-300 IS /4-5.6, I think I am starting to struggle with reach, AF accuracy and low light/small aperture! in the 250-300 range)
Click to expand...

It really depends on your budget and the images you want to take, I'm not a great fan of these budget zooms from sigma, but in the right conditions (good light) they will produce some good results.

As you have found 300mm isn't enough range for wildlife, another alternative, depending on your budget is something like the canon 400mm f5.6 or an alternative canon 300mm f4 and add a 1.4x TC, both are in the similar price bracket (£900), both these lenses will be far better than the 150-500 you mentioned.

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top