Wildlife Telephoto on a budget

Jelster

Jelster

Messages
10,005
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I haven't posted on here in around 3 months ! Anyway, Merry Christmas to you all, and now down to the nitty gritty......

I've been getting quite frustrated with my wildlife (mainly birds) photography in recent months and lost the inspiration. My issues are 2 fold:

1) My focusing became quite hit and miss, but I'm aware of this and I need to work on it to get it right.

2) I need more length. My longest reach is 300mm @ f5.6, and I really need to get closer.

I've been looking at the options, and I feel I really need 500mm. I don't have a specific budget, but cost is an issue, so I've come to the conclusion that the Sigma 150-500 could be an option, but it's a bit slow at the long end, meaning that I'll be running at 800-1600 ISO.

Camera bodies are a 40D & 50D. I have a decent tripod on which to support it all.

I'm interested in any ideas that anybody else can come up with, other than the "Bigma". I need to get my confidence back but I'm struggling with the 70-300 Canon lens that I currently have.

Steve
 
You'll probably be better with a super sharp prime, good technique and a tripod. When I had one, my 400/5.6L was as sharp as my Canon 500/4 for a quarter the price.

I cannot recommend one enough...
 
I used my Sigma 150-500 on my 350D shooting mostly at 400 ISO you can get shots like these with one, so using a 40D or 50D you should have no problem

http://SPAM/c3whur/Img_5951c.jpg
 
I'm in a similar position to you, I've just sold my 70-300 (which I absolutely loved) and replacing it with a 100-400 L in the distant future!

I've been looking into the sigma x-500mm, lenses, but they all seem to suffer softness at the long end, hence leaning towards the 100-400. However, if you're more into birds, even 400mm might not be enough.

Have you considered the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8? I've never used it, but apparently it works well with teleconverters, not sure how good it would be with a x2, but 240-600 f/5.6 might be pretty useful for you! Just another option!

Chris


Edit: Sorry, I've just seen the words 'on a budget' in the thread title! Unfortunately almost anything past 300mm f/5.6 starts becoming verrrryyyyy expensive!
 
chris321 said:
I'm in a similar position to you, I've just sold my 70-300 (which I absolutely loved) and replacing it with a 100-400 L in the distant future!

I've been looking into the sigma x-500mm, lenses, but they all seem to suffer softness at the long end, hence leaning towards the 100-400. However, if you're more into birds, even 400mm might not be enough.

Have you considered the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8? I've never used it, but apparently it works well with teleconverters, not sure how good it would be with a x2, but 240-600 f/5.6 might be pretty useful for you! Just another option!

Chris


Edit: Sorry, I've just seen the words 'on a budget' in the thread title! Unfortunately almost anything past 300mm f/5.6 starts becoming verrrryyyyy expensive!
Click to expand...

the 120/300mm will only work in mf with a 2x tele con.
 
I use a Canon 400D and at 800 ISO I've had good results from my Sigma 50-500 ( I think it's a really sharp bit of glass)

This is shot wide open f6.3 at 800 ISO, click on pic for larger version.


Tommy
 
Thanks for all f your responses.

I've done a little more research and found that there may be some sharpness issues with the Sigma 150-500 at the long end, so I'm contemplating either the 4000mm f5.6 prime, or maybe the 100-400 L, which not as sharp as the prime (obviously) would be a very useful addition to the kit bag.

Wharehouse Express show a Tamron 200-500, but I had trouble finding a review, and I have, in the past, always found Tamron kit a bit too lightweight (read plasticy) to be taken seriously.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Thanks for all f your responses... I'm contemplating the 4000mm f5.6 prime......
Click to expand...

That'll be a b****r to hold ;) :D

Why not have a rent of something from lenses for hie just to give yourself a taster before you shell out. It's a cheap way to work out whether the money is going to be well spent or not...
 
People keep saying the large Sigma lenses are soft at 500mm but I have a 50-500mm and I honestly cannot see much of a problem. Yes there are sharper lenses out there but you are going to be paying a lot more money for them.

Handheld.

Focal Length: 500 mm



 
Consider a 300mm prime and a 1.4x converter. I have recently moved to this configuration and it works really well. I have super sharp 300mm F4 for when the light is dropping and with the 1.4 I still have a blisteringly good 420mm F5.6 (Using the Canon, so image stabilised as a bonus).

scottthehat said:
the 120/300mm will only work in mf with a 2x tele con.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It will autofocus just fine with a 2x converter.
I wouldn't recommend it for wildlife though.
 
Hi Jelster and welcome to the same problem that a lot of us are faced with. Here are a few examples of my bird shots which are shot with a 70-200 with usually a 1.4 T/C attached. Depending on what kind of birds you need to photograph, will obviously depend on what kit you need, those that are shy or are in not so easy to reach places will need the longer end of a bigger lens. Myself have not got to that stage yet as there are plenty for me to track down :lol: and I personally enjoy getting as close as I can to the subject.

Distance aprox 8ft
IMG_8120.jpg



Aprox 6ft
IMG_8167.jpg


Aprox 6ft
editb.jpg


Aprox 6ft
IMG_0636800x533.jpg


And lastly another from about 6ft away, this is the one I got the most enjoyment of tracking down and photographing :D
4-1.jpg
 
really nice photos...bet u were pleased with the kingfisher

how much zoom do you think you were using at those distances and would you have on the T/c.( Teleconverters ...an extra lens you use along with another?? is that right...what are the pros and cons of these please)

i'm in the same position and still looking at the options....I really dont want to buy a lens i'll rarely use...especially if it means a second morgage. I dont have a lens i want to upgrade from ,i want to get it right first time.
 
If you're really struggling Steve i'd thoroughly recommend using Lenses For Hire to try the lenses out before you commit to a purchase. http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/
I've used them pretty frequently for occassions when i need a specialist lens for a project but cant justify to the wife the cost of purchase.

I've used the 400mm f5.6 L for a few weeks and it was really fast. Not the best lens to be walking round with if you're near somewhere a bit rough, it's HUGE and it looks expensive which does attract attention, even in RSPB sites.

Like was already mentioned, any lens over 300mm and faster than f5.6 is gonna hurt you in the pocket.

Look on the bright side, if you win the Euromillions you could phone B&H and buy their 1200mm f5.6 L, it's only $120,000.
 
grumpybadger said:
You'll probably be better with a super sharp prime, good technique and a tripod. When I had one, my 400/5.6L was as sharp as my Canon 500/4 for a quarter the price.

I cannot recommend one enough...
Click to expand...
I'd agree, my 400/5.6L lives on one of my 40Ds, great lens for wildlife.
 
artyman said:
This was at 500mm on the Sigma 150-500 does it look soft to you?

http://SPAM/c3whur/Slimbridge/Img_9134.jpg
Click to expand...

Is that a 100% crop?
I can't really tell otherwise :shrug: It looks sharp at web resolution though.
 
You dont need 500mm to get bird shots - all my shots are done at 300mm at the longest :

4197738932_e2ce196d70.jpg


4141479598_98a61323f4.jpg


4060370019_0d99e7a09b.jpg


4060369641_8f13140a3a.jpg


Ok, so they aren't competition winners any of them, but I'm happy with my results at 300mm. In saying that I am buying the Oly 1.4x TC just in casey!!! But what I'm trying to say is that I find 300mm fine for wildlife, but I'm sure longer would get me better results, but for me not a real necessity.
 
I've used LFH a few times, in fact I hired a 300 f2.8 & 2x converter in May when I took a trip to Northumberland & the Farne Islands (must go back in June this year!).

The images taken on the 150-500 look quite sharp, so that may still be an option, although I do like the idea of a 400mm Prime...

Thanks for all the input, it's given me some ideas, so I'll see what's around and hopefully come up with a solution.

Cheers,
Steve
 
Andy makes the valid point that any lens should look sharp with an 800px web image. All I know from my own experience is that there are few zooms that are sharp enough for what I am looking for (although I do regularly print to A3).

I had a 400/5.6 and sold it (probably a mistake at the time) when I sold my 300/2.8. The reason I got rid of it was I took a 100-400 in part exchange for the 300 and didn't think I needed 2 400/5.6 options. The issue is that the 100-400 wasn't as good and that's now gone too.

If I hadn't been able to acquire the 400/4 I was really after, I wouldn't have been able to resist another 400/5.6.

@EffJay - the Oly system uses a 2x crop, which means your 300mm lens gives a full frame equivalent field of view of a 600mm lens anyway. 300mm on a Canon crop sensor gives an equivalent of 480mm so is quite a bit shorter. A 400mm lens will give 640 equivalent.

The other advantage of the 400/5.6 is that it is light (compared to many primes anyway!)

RichardtheSane makes a valid point about the 300/4L IS as an option too. A cracking lens and you then get the IS advantage too. This lens comes up quite often second hand and is another cracking option...
 
Jelster said:
I've done a little more research and found that there may be some sharpness issues with the Sigma 150-500 at the long end, so I'm contemplating either the 4000mm f5.6 prime, or maybe the 100-400 L, which not as sharp as the prime (obviously) would be a very useful addition to the kit bag.

Wharehouse Express show a Tamron 200-500, but I had trouble finding a review, and I have, in the past, always found Tamron kit a bit too lightweight (read plasticy) to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I'd avoid the big Sigma OS zooms, I know a few people who have bought them and all have been unhappy with the results and ended up trading them in. Either the Canon 400 f5.6 or the 100-400 will be very good lenses, the differences in sharpness between the two is not an issue in real world situations, both are very sharp lenses. The AF is a bit swifter in the prime and I guess it has a slight sharpness edge, but the zoom has a better close focus, IS and a nice range of focal lengths which makes it a much more versatile lens. As mentioned the 300 f4 with a 1.4x is another good option, again it has good sharpness and AF - all three options have advantages it's just a matter of which is best for you...

The Tamron 200-500 is a reasonably cheap option, but it is well behind the Canon lenses in terms of IQ and AF speed. You really do get what you pay for with lenses.

I'd also agree that judging a lenses quality based on web images won't help you much. Getting an image that looks good on the web canbe acheived much more easily than getting one that looks good as a decent sized print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top