Reading mode: Light Dark

Want a new wildlife lens?

Go to last post
faunagraphy

faunagraphy

Senior Member
Messages
2,585
Solutions
2
Reaction score
5,728
I bought it last year, but returned it because it didn't take the 2x teleconverter very well.
 
Well that's a good savings since a new one is $26,000 LoL
 
I guess a person would have to use it on a tripod, hard to shoot this lens off hand.

Larry
 
Wrong color.
 
I had to return it. I hurt myself taking pictures handheld!



ac998819b32842d29207dad6734ae9fa.jpg
 
Why, oh why?? Now I get it if one wants to stay in a hide all day, or if you otherwise park yourself in one spot AND you're shooting with an older camera with poor high-ISO capabilities AND the light is poor, but otherwise you're far better off with a crop-sensor camera like a Nikon 1 and 70-200 f2.8 lens.

For wildlife photos, you've really got two ways of shooting: get to the subject, or pray it will come to you. One way requires a big lens like this one, and the other requires portability. Since my pockets aren't deep and I can think of better ways to get a workout, I'll stick to the bigger-is-not-better routine.
 
Parry Johnson said:
Why, oh why?? Now I get it if one wants to stay in a hide all day, or if you otherwise park yourself in one spot AND you're shooting with an older camera with poor high-ISO capabilities AND the light is poor, but otherwise you're far better off with a crop-sensor camera like a Nikon 1 and 70-200 f2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
This lens was created for bragging rights, its the worlds first 500mm f2.8 lens. It has no real practical application.
 
Parry Johnson said:
Why, oh why?? Now I get it if one wants to stay in a hide all day, or if you otherwise park yourself in one spot AND you're shooting with an older camera with poor high-ISO capabilities AND the light is poor, but otherwise you're far better off with a crop-sensor camera like a Nikon 1 and 70-200 f2.8 lens.

For wildlife photos, you've really got two ways of shooting: get to the subject, or pray it will come to you. One way requires a big lens like this one, and the other requires portability. Since my pockets aren't deep and I can think of better ways to get a workout, I'll stick to the bigger-is-not-better routine.
Click to expand...
You're saying that now ... but the next time you're wandering the streets of Damascus and suddenly, a T-90 main battle tank rumbles in and aims directly at you, you're going to wish you had the Sigma to fight back. Try fighting a tank with a 70-200 f2.8.
 
Everybody has seen the photos online of that beast shooting both anti tank rockets AND lasers. It’s the multi tool for personal and national defense.
 
Back to reality, I have been photographing birds around Australia for more than 60 years and my website has more than 5500 images as a result.

So I ask the question which is the aperture I have most used in all this time?

F/5.6.

To me that is the ideal aperture to achieve optimum depth of field, shutter speed and lowest ISO. I only resort to f/8 or 11 if I want to keep two or more subjects in focus.

Perhaps just as important is you don't have to spend a fortune.

That is why Nikon's 500 PF f/5.6 is one of the best long lenses they have ever made and so popular that they have difficulty in keeping up the supply.

To each his own. This is Australia where light levels are good most of the time.

A well exposed blur is no good to anybody, so I appreciate the need of f/2.8 to keep shutter speeds high enough in places with low light levels.
 
Last edited:
One of the funniest things ever, is to go to amazon and read the reviews. Hilaruous.
 
You beat me to it, I was just about to say, go over to Amazon and read the reviews of the lens over there haha. Seriously though I got to try this crazy lens out and the AF was terrible, I mean really bad when compared to Nikon or Canon super-tele lenses. Guess all of that glass is slow to move around. Image quality was also so-so, not as good as my Nikon 400mm f2.8E VR FL, not even close. For that price there are so many better options out there! You could get a 500PF and an 800mm f5.6E FL!
 
Personally I don’t trust the AF of a lens that requires its own battery. Besides, it’s like 16kg. That’s not a lot of glass, it’s a TON of glass to move to attain focus. I’ll stick with my 400 thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top