Which zoom for wildlife and aviation?

pete s

pete s

Messages
813
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a decent zoom that will allow me to indulge in a bit of wildlife/bird photography and also tick the right boxes for aviation/airshows.

I found that my 70-200 F4 L and 1.4 extender (both now sold), although very good, just didn't have the reach. So I'm after something fairly versatile but that doesn't cost the earth. I do like my images to be nice and sharp.

My current everyday zoom is Canon's 15-85, so something that sits nicely above that (70-?, or 100-?)

My budget will not stretch to L glass, so what might fit the bill at a more modest cost?
 
For maximum length at minimum cost, look at the Sigma x - 500 zooms. At the moment, the choice seems to be between the 50-500 f/4-6.3 EX-DG and the 150-500 f/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM but they've recently announced an OS version of the 50-500 as well - not sure when it'll hit the shelves or how much it'll cost when it does though. You might also find a 2nd hand 170-500f/5-6.3. In my experience, the 150-500 is sharper than the 170-500 as well as having OS. Not used a 50-500 so can't comment on that one.
 
I purchased a Sigma 170-500mm off TP last year and I have found it to be first class for the money. You can get them for anywhere between £300 and £400.
It may not be as pin sharp as its competitors but for the money!!!!
Only down side is the lens will creep to full zoom if carrying on a strap so suggest you carry it in a shoulder bag.

Hawk
 
Nod said:
For maximum length at minimum cost, look at the Sigma x - 500 zooms. At the moment, the choice seems to be between the 50-500 f/4-6.3 EX-DG and the 150-500 f/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM but they've recently announced an OS version of the 50-500 as well - not sure when it'll hit the shelves or how much it'll cost when it does though. You might also find a 2nd hand 170-500f/5-6.3. In my experience, the 150-500 is sharper than the 170-500 as well as having OS. Not used a 50-500 so can't comment on that one.
Click to expand...

Personally, although they have the reach, and would probably be adquate for wildlife, for aviation, forget it. Those lenses are too slow, you would need very good light to get the best from them, and they're pretty soft at 500mm, so you would have to stop down to f8, so light conditions become even more important, autofocus is also slow.

A rough budget would be an advantage

But lenses that I would choose over those above would be

Canon 300mm f4 prime (with / without 1.4x TC conditions dependant) Does take a 1.4x TC reasonable well, as long as you understand the limitations of its use (£1000)
Canon 400mm f5.6 (£1000)
Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£1000-1200)

Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£600)
Sigma 100-300mm f4 (jessops actually are advertising this at £600, not sure if any in stock, but lens usually £1100) Does take a 1.4x TC reasonable well, as long as you understand the limitations of its use.

Budget £600 - 1100

Also have a look at the 2nd hand market, ffordes, mifsuds, mbp, camtech, park camera's, LC, digitaldepot....etc all have used equipment sections, where you might be able to pick up a good quality lens for a reasonable price, as well as the TP for sale Forums
 
Pete, I would agree that the 170-500 suffers a little as you say but the newer 150-500 is a lot better, both optically and in AF speed. OK, it can be a little slow picking up an aircraft against a town and beach but once it has it, it tracks just fine (on both a D70 and a D700). Yes, if money's no object, there are better lenses but as my first line says, "For maximum length at minimum cost".
 
+1 for the 150-500

I use for Aviation, on the 7D it comes into its own, fast AF and the crop giving 240-800 excellent for Airshows / Airports etc.
 
Depends what aviation photography you do. Went to several airshows last year, Kemble, Shoreham, Biggin Hill, Fairford etc, where even a f4 prime gave up the ghost because the conditions weren't in our favour, aircraft were just lacking in detail, or grey blob.

I also do a lot of lowfly aviation photography in wales and the lakes, and using anything like a f6.3 lens, even f5.6, would be limited or a complete waste of time using, unless the light conditions were perfect, the autofocus is just too slow to capture fast moving subjects if you want to keep the shutter speeds usuable, ISO levels low to reduce noise and sharp clear images when the light conditions ain't perfect.

Thats why I use primes, but if cost are a major factor, then the sigma 120-400mm has had some good reviews, personally the 100-300mm f4 is better, and if jessops website is to be believed, is going for £599, bargain, very good lens, fast autofocus, sharp and works well with a 1.4x TC.
 
I accept that what I will on a budget (would rather not spend more than £700) is going to be a compromise.

I have done some reading on the Sigma 120-400 and although it has 100mm less than the other options it does seem to have fairly good reviews and is a little smaller/lighter than the 50-500.

I was thinking about Canon's 70-300, but think that I will be left wishing I had a bit more top end reach.
 
i think the 170-500mm (had 3) is a better lens optically than the 150-500mm(had 2),and also its lighter due to having aspherical elements, and the 150-500mm had non aspherical elements just lots more glass, aking it alot heavier. but the good thing about the 150-500mm is the os built in(only reason i brought one in nikon mount) and got rid of the 170-500mm.
i would wait and look at the new siggy 50-500mm dg hsm os
or buy a 170-500mm if os is not needed.
 
I would suggest the 150-500mm OS

Had the 135-400 (essentially a shorter 170-500), 120-400, 100-300 f4 and much much more and still I would choose the 150-500. OS is terrific and AF fast and accurate. Lovely lens and a bargain (can be found for just over £650 brand new)
 
pete s said:
I accept that what I will on a budget (would rather not spend more than £700) is going to be a compromise.

I have done some reading on the Sigma 120-400 and although it has 100mm less than the other options it does seem to have fairly good reviews and is a little smaller/lighter than the 50-500.

I was thinking about Canon's 70-300, but think that I will be left wishing I had a bit more top end reach.
Click to expand...

Personally look at jessops for the sigma 100-300mm f4, especially if they do have stock left and its going for £599, that lens will knock socks off any of the other sigma lenses mentioned, 2nd choice is to go for the sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6, still in budget at £599, or 3rdly have a look at what you can get on the 2nd hand market for £700 and see if you could get a canon 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 prime for that kind of money.
 
I had the Sigma 100-300 f4 and I would still suggest either the 120-400 or the 150-500 for the extra length and, most importantly, the Optical Stabilization.

The 100-300 is sharper as is but by the time you add an 1.4x TC to make it 140-420mm it is not much sharper than the aforementioned lenses and you lose OS which means that it is really only usable in good light.
 
micloi said:
I had the Sigma 100-300 f4 and I would still suggest either the 120-400 or the 150-500 for the extra length and, most importantly, the Optical Stabilization.

The 100-300 is sharper as is but by the time you add an 1.4x TC to make it 140-420mm it is not much sharper than the aforementioned lenses and you lose OS which means that it is really only usable in good light.
Click to expand...

You don't need image stabilisation for motion photography, its designed for static subjects, and I would rather have the faster lens because you still got a 100-300mm f4 lens which would still edge out the 120-400mm in poor light because its a faster lens. Especially if you can get a £1100 lens for £600 at jessops for on a canon mount at the moment...... if not then the sigma 120-400mm retailing at £600, ain't bad for the budget the OP has.
 
pete.rush said:
You don't need image stabilisation for motion photography, its designed for static subjects, and I would rather have the faster lens because you still got a 100-300mm f4 lens which would still edge out the 120-400mm out in poor light because its a faster lens. Especially if you can get a £1100 lens for £600 at jessops for on a canon mount at the moment......
Click to expand...

Not that I can find one in stock anywhere right now. They say only available for in store pick-up,but everywhere I've tried is saying 'no stock'.

Will give them a call tomorrow to see if I can find one.
 
Called Jessops this morning and apparently they have no more stock of the Sigma 100-300 F4, plus it is a discontinued line.

Oh well, at that price I'm not surprised. Will have to keep an eye out for a good secondhand one.
 
heres a pic taken ith the 170-500mm
SJB10933.jpg
 
All I could say Sigma 50-500mm is a no go. It is so soft, it requires significant contrast boost and 4x downsizing to match 24-70mm at the pixel level. I haven't tried any other ones apart from 400mm f/5.6 L - very sharp and contrasty but no IS.
 
scottthehat said:
heres a pic taken ith the 170-500mm
Click to expand...

Not knocking the lens for wildlife, probably perfectly suited, but action photography, the lens is still too slow unless you have perfect conditions.
 
well, I've just bought the 170-500! If I can get results like that pin sharp nuthatch for a fraction of the price of a Nikkor - I'm a happy bunny! :D
 
VivaVida said:
if you don`t have too much money the Canon nifty 55-250mm would be a good choice! If you have a bit more money, a sigma 50-500mm! :D
Click to expand...

Although the 55-250mm is a good lens for the price.
The OP has sold a 70-200L and a 1.4x extender and the 55-250mm cannot match that combination and the max reach is not enough for wildlife.
 
pete s said:
I'm after a decent zoom that will allow me to indulge in a bit of wildlife/bird photography and also tick the right boxes for aviation/airshows.

I found that my 70-200 F4 L and 1.4 extender (both now sold), although very good, just didn't have the reach. So I'm after something fairly versatile but that doesn't cost the earth. I do like my images to be nice and sharp.

My current everyday zoom is Canon's 15-85, so something that sits nicely above that (70-?, or 100-?)

My budget will not stretch to L glass, so what might fit the bill at a more modest cost?
Click to expand...

I would sit back, save some more money and get a used Canon 100-400L IS.
Even though I really like my 70-200L IS F4, I am considering selling it and my 1.4 extender and getting a 100-400L for wildlife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top