Next lens

[glider64]

My sigma 170-500 is my lens i use for wild life , is there a natural progression to this for sharper images? even under cropping; perhaps a 300mm or 400mm canon ? your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, Harvey

[briansquibb]

Re: Next lens

The 400 f/2.8 is very, very sharp - just on the heavy side

[DrJon]

Re: Next lens

It depends on the camera you have and what kind of Wildlife (Elephants at the Zoo being easier than nervous Wrens). Oh, and your budget, of course. There's always that. If it's full frame and you have the budget the 500 f4 seems to be the most favoured. (Almost nobody does though, me included.) The smaller pixels of the 18MP 1.6x cameras give you a bit of extra "magnification", so something less would be okay.

I'd have thought the lenses to start looking at are the Canon 100-400 or the 300 f4 (with perhaps the idea of adding a 1.4x extender either at the same time or later). I won't suggest the Canon 400mm f5.6 as there is no IS. The 100-400 has been out for a while so used ones will be available, although the QC on the early ones seems to have been variable.

A few comparisons (mouse-over the chart to see the right-hand lens, sorry but it's the closest Sigma I could find):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

If it was me, and I had a 15/18MP camera, I'd start by looking at the 300mm and a 1.4x. The 100-400 has the huge advantage of zoom, but the prime is just flat out sharper, and wildlife benefits from that. (But if you do have the money it's worth seeing if you can live with the weight of a, perhaps second-hand, 500 f4. I think they are pretty heavy. There are people here who carry them all day. I actually shoot full-frame so went with a 300 f2.8 and both extenders.)

Plus do note this is my opinion, I make no claim to know the one true answer.

John

[glider64]

Re: Next lens

My Camera is the 1000d and i`ve not set a budget yet

[Neilly]

Re: Next lens

[QUOTE=DrJon;66233

I'd have thought the lenses to start looking at are the Canon 100-400 or the 300 f4 (with perhaps the idea of adding a 1.4x extender either at the same time or later). I won't suggest the Canon 400mm f5.6 as there is no IS. The 100-400 has been out for a while so used ones will be available, although the QC on the early ones seems to have been variable.



If it was me, and I had a 15/18MP camera, I'd start by looking at the 300mm and a 1.4x. The 100-400 has the huge advantage of zoom, but the prime is just flat out sharper, and wildlife benefits from that. (But if you do have the money it's worth seeing if you can live with the weight of a, perhaps second-hand, 500 f4. I think they are pretty heavy. There are people here who carry them all day. I actually shoot full-frame so went with a 300 f2.8 and both extenders.)


[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more with what John says - I have similar kit. Although I don't shoot full frame. I don't know how the Sigma 175-500mm lens performs, but if its on a par with the 50-500mm it isn't particularly good, in my view, compared with the Canon 100-400mm L lens, which is a far superior lens. On my 300mm f2.8 I use both the x1.4 & x2. TC The x1.4 performs very well, although I don't use the x2TC for fast action as it slows the AF down slightly - even on a 1D iv. I don't use the x2 much for air shows, however, its fine for something like motor racing where the subjects is slightly slower.

Just my 2pence worth

TTFN,
Neil

[briansquibb]

Re: Next lens

I will stick with the 400 2.8IS and no 1.4

I found that the IQ from the 300f4 was not as good(less contrast) as the 70-300L so I sold the 300f4. I also have the 70-200f2.8 if I need more light.

I am not sure how many ff shooters will be using the 500f4 - more like 7D or 1D3/4 I would guess. I do plan to use the 5DII and the 400 f2.8 for urban landscapes/ street/ portraits just as an experiment as I haven't seen any images of this yet - at least I know they will be sharp I have used the 70-300L on the 5DII for this and it proved good although the f5.6 stopped the background blur.

[glider64]

Re: Next lens

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply, can I assume from the replies my camera isn't up to the job with the relevant higher quality lens's

[briansquibb]

Re: Next lens

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply, can I assume from the replies my camera isn't up to the job with the relevant higher quality lens's

If you put higher quality lens on the 1000D you will get a higher quality picture. Then if you upgrade the body the lens will still be good enough for the new body.

[DrJon]

Re: Next lens

I really wouldn't personally recommend the 70-300L for Wildlife (just my opinion), it's just too slow at the long end (which also isn't that long) so won't take the extenders (plus even if you did get a third party one to work it would be dark and no autofocus). The main memory I have from the 70-300L I tried was just how much I had to turn the ISO up to get a non-blurry shot, if I'm only getting f5.6 I want more than 300mm in return, especially for over a grand. Also it wasn't as sharp as the primes, including the 300 f4, it was close in the centre, less so away from it (although still pretty good - plus for wildlife you may well not care).
I don't think I'm imagining it: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=2
(I won't bother with my usual "take reviews with a pinch of salt", well, except I am doing it now, but it's just here to show I'm not completely delusional, although after the amount of Schnapps and such-like I just had on a work trip to Copenhagen all bets might be off on that one. Plus can they please move all the low mist away from the city, it does not help with photography - only my first day was sunny.)

BTW the 400 f2.8 costs a fortune and the old one weighs a ton. (I suspect the new one does to.) If you win the lottery and buy one I'd get a porter as well, to carry it. I'm happy to take Colin's word that the best length/cost/weight lens for more distant wildlife is the 500 f4, although I think the current one is too heavy for me and I'm not touching any of the allegedly quite a bit lighter new big white lenses in case I get afflicted by the "wants". (Really, I am actually avoiding holding them. I did see one of the 200-400s last month and that looked neat, although it's not out for a while, but the price...)

The 1000D will make fine pictures with these lenses. The main limitation will be (I think) in focusing on moving objects. Plus good lenses are useful for ever, bodies are always improving. If you do get a better body then all the glass just plugs in.

I can't recommend anything much cheaper, as you really want to be able to get to 400mm for wildlife. It's all about getting close without getting close (as the subject has usually departed by then).

John

[briansquibb]

Re: Next lens

BTW the 400 f2.8 costs a fortune and the old one weighs a ton. If you win the lottery and buy one I'd get a porter too to carry it.

I have no problem using it all day and shooting handheld when is attached to my 7D. Secondhand they are about the price of a new 1D4 which means well within range of a lot of people on this forum judging by the number of 1d4's being used.

I carry it (with the 7D attached) along with the other 7D + 70-200f2.8 hanging from a Black Rapid RS2.

All I can say about the 70-300L is that it has taken a lot of very good pictures for me, including birds in flight - the AF is very quick and the contrast and seperation are very good for such a lightweight lens. It is significantly lighter than the 70-200F2.8 II which suits people of a lighter build.

[DrJon]

Re: Next lens

BTW I have no problem somewhat disagreeing with Brian over the 70-300 L, as I certainly only claim it's my opinion and I'm happy for people to take his on-board as well. It suits him and not me (plus I already have a huge number of ways to get to 300mm: 300 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 II + 1.4x, 70-300 DO, 100-300 on GF1, 14-140 on GF1 - note GF1 is 2x crop - and probably something else if I thought longer).

My views on the most desirable qualities of lenses are mostly concerned with stuff you can't fix later, hence (in order of preference):

(1) Sharpness. I like it over the whole frame and not having to stop down to get it (meaning I want pretty sharp wide open as otherwise why am I paying for the aperture, hence me not owning the 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8 mk I), although I do expect improvements with stopping down. Soft corners don't actually matter a lot of the time in photography, but as I seem to keep doing shots where they do I find it desirable.

(2) Speed (i.e. wide aperture), there is no substitute for having a fast shutter speed, also if you want a shallow depth-of-field to isolate the subject. All the more so at this coming time of year where the big light-bulb in the sky is usually set to dim. Hence I just bought a 85/1.2, a bit on an impulse, but I have wanted one for a long long time (ever since I saw a Minolta 85/1.4 on a Dynax 9, and that's a while back).

(3) Low Chromatic Aberrations, including lateral ones. I just hate lots of false colour along edges (hence my dislike of my 17-85, actually the 85/1.2 isn't brilliant for this, but there are compensations, well I hope so anyway).

(4) Fast and accurate auto-focus. Which is why it took me so long to bite the bullet and buy the 85, which isn't fast at all (for AF, it rules in the other sense of the word "fast").

(5) Bokeh - i.e. how smooth the out-of-focus background looks.

(6) Low distortion - i.e. keeping straight lines straight. (Although I prefer my Canon 14mm II over the much sharper Nikon 14-24 for this, so the order 1-6 is a bit variable depending on focal length.) DXO raw processing (which I'm a big fan of) can fix this right up, but again I'd rather start with something good.

(7) Not too heavy.

(8) Good contrast, not entirely sure where this should go, plus it tends to come bundled, to a degree, with some of the above.

(9) Well-built.

(10) Good handling.

(11) A lot of good-looking glass. But that's just me?

I'm less fussed about stuff like colour rendering, as that doesn't matter at all with digital cameras (IMHO). The list is here to help explain my views, if your list is much different then listen to me less! I was going to squeeze in "sensibly priced", which lost out to "value for money", but I hope that's a given for most people.

Finally I do specifically try to suggest lenses to consider that are within people's price-ranges, or not too far out of them if it's not sensible to stay within them, hence I may vary a bit depending on my perception of the person asking the question. (E.g. if they have a very low budget the 18-55 IS and 55-200 are really good lenses for the money and should make them happy.) Also people sometimes just want something in particular, and most of the people here are spending their own money on something for their own use, so I'm all aboard buying something you're dreaming of, as lenses, like cars, these days are mostly pretty good.

John

[DrJon]

Re: Next lens

P.S. Brian, 1Dmk4 = £3K6, 400 f2.8 = £6k7, 400 f2.8 mk II = £8K9.
I'm not sure I'd pay £3k6 for a £6k7 lens secondhand, seems a little low. Couldn't see one under 5K used on E-Bay?
Then again they are pretty tough, so a beat-up one from someone reputable might get quite a bit cheaper? Did you have a particular seller in mind?

[briansquibb]

Re: Next lens

I got mine from MPB for just over £4k - only marks on it were on the bottom of the tripod leg.

I find their pricing very strange in that there are some real bargains and some used items that are very near new price. But then I got an as new 7D for £900 ... yet now they are up to £989 which is nearly the new price again.

That said most of my lens have come from them except the 70-200 f2.8 L II which are not really available used at the moment.

Some of their stuff is so as new I suspect they are ex demos from other stores

[DrJon]

Re: Next lens

Cool, although I'm not getting one, too expensive and too heavy for me.

[glider64]

Re: Next lens

To be honest i`d probably set a maximum price of £400... to £500 , i have seen some canon 70-300l lenss for less but they are F4-5.6 would i be correct in thinking they won`t help if the light`s not brilliant? I won`t have £1000`s to spend but by the same token don`t want to spend if i`m not really going to gain much more than my sigma 170-500.