Need help on Telephoto Zooms here!!!

[nickmak]

Does anybody know anything about the following lenses:

1) Sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 Aspherical RF APO Lens
2) Tamron SP AF 200-500mm f5-6.3 Di Lens
3) Tamron AF200-400mm F/5.6 LD (IF)

Are any of these out in s'pore and how much and also please advise on the quality and experiences with the lenses... Thanx!!! :gbounce:

 

[mpenza]

why not consider the various favourites, e.g. Sigma 50-500, Canon 100-400 IS

 

[nickmak]

why not consider the various favourites, e.g. Sigma 50-500, Canon 100-400 IS

i dunno if i should consider those because:

1) Sigma 50-500 - Good but really dunno about it and I have two lenses covering till the 200mm range...
2) Canon 100-400IS - Push-pull cannot get used to it... nearly broke the lens when pulling out the lens... i prefer the good old twist...

I'm considering the above lenses cuz as i said above, i have covered the range till 200mm and need a lens from 200mm onwards... dun like too much overlap... i need those for a trip to Africa during July...

 

[roygoh]

If your exisiting lenses covering up to 200mm are good and fast ones, would you consider getting a teleconvertor instead? That will lighten your load considerably for travelling.

 

[nickmak]

If your exisiting lenses covering up to 200mm are good and fast ones, would you consider getting a teleconvertor instead? That will lighten your load considerably for travelling.

sorry, forgot to tell u... i use zooms... no money to get individual primes.... heard a teleconvertor will do no good at all for zooms... no choice... hehe...

 

[justarius]

sorry, forgot to tell u... i use zooms... no money to get individual primes.... heard a teleconvertor will do no good at all for zooms... no choice... hehe...

Depends on the quality of your zoom. Pro zooms (constant f2.8) normally do very well with teleconvertors. For example, most reports of the Nikon 70-200mm VR with the TC-20E stacks up very well against the 80-400mm VR.

 

[nickmak]

Depends on the quality of your zoom. Pro zooms (constant f2.8) normally do very well with teleconvertors. For example, most reports of the Nikon 70-200mm VR with the TC-20E stacks up very well against the 80-400mm VR.

i use the canon 70-200mm f4L as my main telephoto zoom... will this be good still?

 

[justarius]

i use the canon 70-200mm f4L as my main telephoto zoom... will this be good still?

Sorry, you have to ask Canon users who have tried this combination before (I'm a Nikon user), but gut feeling that it should be fine with a 1.4X convertor as effective aperture is 5.6 which is still good for AF. A 2X convertor reduces the aperture to F8, where autofocus might fail from lack of contrast. Picture quality wise, I can't really comment.

 

[nickmak]

Sorry, you have to ask Canon users who have tried this combination before (I'm a Nikon user), but gut feeling that it should be fine with a 1.4X convertor as effective aperture is 5.6 which is still good for AF. A 2X convertor reduces the aperture to F8, where autofocus might fail from lack of contrast. Picture quality wise, I can't really comment.

ok thx for the advice... the thing is that i went through other forums and they said that teleconvertor does not much good on pic quality... i dun wanna go to africa this july and realise that the quality of pics are not good... would be waste of money...

 

[blurblock]

Take a look at http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Converters/PLS_3132crx.aspx for comment on Teleconvertors, not all of them are created equal, some do not affect picture quality, much.

 

[nickmak]

Take a look at http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Converters/PLS_3132crx.aspx for comment on Teleconvertors, not all of them are created equal, some do not affect picture quality, much.

Sure... thanx for the advice...

 

[mpenza]

A 70-200 F4L with 1.4x or 2x may not have enough reach. if i were to go africa, I would consider getting the sigma 50-500 and leave it on my camera most of the time. wouldn't want to be changing lens often in disty environment. this costs ~$1.5k though if I'm not wrong.

Alternatively, consider the sigma 120-300 f2.8 and use a tele. This is more expensive and would easily put you back by $2-3k.

Other choices would be a Canon prime lens (e.g. 300mm f4L IS) or Canon 100-400 IS.... second hand ones are less than $2k.

 

[nickmak]

A 70-200 F4L with 1.4x or 2x may not have enough reach. if i were to go africa, I would consider getting the sigma 50-500 and leave it on my camera most of the time. wouldn't want to be changing lens often in disty environment. this costs ~$1.5k though if I'm not wrong.

Alternatively, consider the sigma 120-300 f2.8 and use a tele. This is more expensive and would easily put you back by $2-3k.

Other choices would be a Canon prime lens (e.g. 300mm f4L IS) or Canon 100-400 IS.... second hand ones are less than $2k.

the 50-500 costs 1.5k only???? Is it worth it? I have been on the other thread about the 50-500mm but is it really worth it???

 

[mpenza]

it's a lens with good image quality but it's a bit slow on the long size of the zoom. shouldn't be a problem during daylight I suppose.

 

[y0ngcheng]

the 50-500 costs 1.5k only???? Is it worth it? I have been on the other thread about the 50-500mm but is it really worth it???

assumming the range you need in tt country.. 500mm... 100-400 IS i think is better den 50-500.. but if you need that extra 100mm and its so impt to u, i think it worth it hehe
juz my 2 cent

 

[Amfibius]

Unfortunately I think it's going to get quite expensive for you

All the wildlife photographers at luminous-landscape say that "life begins at 400mm". And you know what? They also reckon that you need fast glass (to shoot animals who are sitting in the shade, or when the sun is setting, etc), image stabilisation, and support. They say you can get away with a beanbag, but they also suggest you get a window mount like a Kirk mount.

Personally I would be inclined to ignore the fast glass bit and try to push the ISO. It's cheaper! At these focal lengths image stabilisation and good support is essential unless you consistently have enough light to shoot at fast shutter speeds. I would strongly consider avoiding anything without IS and getting a cheap beanbag to use as support.

Good luck with your choice and let us know how you go.

 

[nickmak]

Hi, actually i decided not to go for the 50-500mm anymore because of the reviews of the lens. It seems to be rather inconsistent as some people say its good and some people say not. I decided to go for the 300mm f4L IS USM (2nd hand of course...) and with a 1.4x convertor and 1.6x crop factor on my camera I can get a reach of 672mm which is adequate for my wildlife shots. Thanks for your help on the 50-500mm though to all of you!

Cheers! :bsmilie:

 

[Garion]

Unfortunately I think it's going to get quite expensive for you

All the wildlife photographers at luminous-landscape say that "life begins at 400mm". And you know what? They also reckon that you need fast glass (to shoot animals who are sitting in the shade, or when the sun is setting, etc), image stabilisation, and support. They say you can get away with a beanbag, but they also suggest you get a window mount like a Kirk mount.

Personally I would be inclined to ignore the fast glass bit and try to push the ISO. It's cheaper! At these focal lengths image stabilisation and good support is essential unless you consistently have enough light to shoot at fast shutter speeds. I would strongly consider avoiding anything without IS and getting a cheap beanbag to use as support.

Good luck with your choice and let us know how you go.

Well said, you are right in saying that image stabilisation and good support are equally essential for getting good pics with long telephoto lenses. Correct techniques are also important, to minimize shake/blur. If you want to photograph wildlife, length is everything, go for the longest focal length that you can afford, rather than a shorter, faster lens. 400mm is considered the bare minimum for most nature shooters.

Hi, actually i decided not to go for the 50-500mm anymore because of the reviews of the lens. It seems to be rather inconsistent as some people say its good and some people say not. I decided to go for the 300mm f4L IS USM (2nd hand of course...) and with a 1.4x convertor and 1.6x crop factor on my camera I can get a reach of 672mm which is adequate for my wildlife shots. Thanks for your help on the 50-500mm though to all of you!

50-500mm is definitely a good lens. Perhaps the bad reviews that you read are from people who do not know how to shoot using long lenses, hence they get poor results and blame it on the lens instead. This lens thrives on good support and good light. Take a look at Madcat II's shots here. These were done with the 50-500mm w/ support and flash. Not a good lens? Your choice of 300 f4 w/ 1.4x TC is a good choice, however, but you will have slightly less focal reach than the 50-500mm (420mm f5.6 w/ 1.4x), and remember, if u want to shoot wildlife, reach is everything.

 

[nickmak]

Well said, you are right in saying that image stabilisation and good support are equally essential for getting good pics with long telephoto lenses. Correct techniques are also important, to minimize shake/blur. If you want to photograph wildlife, length is everything, go for the longest focal length that you can afford, rather than a shorter, faster lens. 400mm is considered the bare minimum for most nature shooters.


50-500mm is definitely a good lens. Perhaps the bad reviews that you read are from people who do not know how to shoot using long lenses, hence they get poor results and blame it on the lens instead. This lens thrives on good support and good light. Take a look at Madcat II's shots here. These were done with the 50-500mm w/ support and flash. Not a good lens? Your choice of 300 f4 w/ 1.4x TC is a good choice, however, but you will have slightly less focal reach than the 50-500mm (420mm f5.6 w/ 1.4x), and remember, if u want to shoot wildlife, reach is everything.

Sorry to tell you this, because of my camera's 1.6x extra crop, i get 672mm effective focal length... should be adequate for wildlife right?

 

[Garion]

Sorry to tell you this, because of my camera's 1.6x extra crop, i get 672mm effective focal length... should be adequate for wildlife right?

Yes and maybe no. Depends on what type of wildlife you shooting, and how far from the animals you are going to be. For large animals, with a 1.4x TC might be just sufficient. It isn't like a zoo where the animals are really up close to you. Thats why I emphasize longer focal reach is always better.

And yes, I am well aware of the 1.6x crop factor. Just didn't want to include it for simplicity sake, and to avoid confusion.