What is after 100-400mm?

Agree with you. Once I decide to buy a serious big gun, I wouldn't care about $1000 difference at all. If I am so serious about it, I will make sure to do it right. I don't believe 300mm f2.8 + 2XTC +1.4TC is good.

The better way to look at it is the optical quality of 300mm+2x TC is comparable to 500mm +2X TC.

Again, people's acceptance on image quality is different. I don't mind that some people think 840mm f8 is good.

Kai

athelon said:

drip said:

In order to get this 160mm gain the reach, here's what you pay for:
1) $1.5k more for the lens and extra money for a good tripod ($500?).
2) 3.5 lb more for the lens plus the weight of the tripod (10 lb?).
3) Mobility. When you spot an eagle on the other side of the
forrest, you, with a tripod and heavier lens, are not going to run
faster than me to get there before it flies away.
In my book, no way is the 160mm worth that much. Others' viewpoint
may vary. Just don't flame me on this.

Click to expand...

If you want to develop as a bird photographer, some moment you will
change to longer lens. I don't know any 'name' bird photographer in
Europe or America who hasn't a long lens like 500 or 600/4. I may
be wrong on that and stay corrected.

For my own history, I went through digiscoping through 300/4 to
500/4. I took thousands of bird pictures with mediocre
(digiscoping) or too short (300/4 and TC) optics. When I'm going
now shooting, will it be Norway, India or my near forest, I know
that I have all possibilites to take really good pictures and it is
not necessary to return for the sake of bad equipment used.

It is not about wealthiness, my only other lens is now 28/2.8 ,
but commitment and loving subject that keeps me going. A few extra
pounds on my back or a few thousands extra $$ spent are not
counting that much when I can see my results getting substantially
better all the time. So if you are really interested in wildlife
bird photography, go for it. That is my suggestion.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui

athelon said:

If you want to develop as a bird photographer, some moment you will
change to longer lens. I don't know any 'name' bird photographer in
Europe or America who hasn't a long lens like 500 or 600/4. I may
be wrong on that and stay corrected.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the dividing line. For me, it's just a hobby. Money aside, not everybody has hours or days waiting for birds. Got to draw the line somewhere. Some go to the right, some go to the left. It's a personal choice.

athelon said:

For my own history, I went through digiscoping through 300/4 to
500/4. I took thousands of bird pictures with mediocre
(digiscoping) or too short (300/4 and TC) optics. When I'm going
now shooting, will it be Norway, India or my near forest, I know
that I have all possibilites to take really good pictures and it is
not necessary to return for the sake of bad equipment used.

Click to expand...

Again, how is it possible for me to travel around shooting birds? I'm just happy to get a few good shots of the Northern Cardinals.

athelon said:

It is not about wealthiness, my only other lens is now 28/2.8 ,
but commitment and loving subject that keeps me going. A few extra
pounds on my back or a few thousands extra $$ spent are not
counting that much when I can see my results getting substantially
better all the time.

Click to expand...

Now, "substantially better" is again the key word. I don't see 500/4 is substantially better than 300/2.8. Not the same story when you compare 300/4 vs 500/4 though.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

three of them so far in the past year or so and every time they got snapped up before I got all my info in the system to place my order.

Greg

--

drip said:

Now, "substantially better" is again the key word. I don't see
500/4 is substantially better than 300/2.8. Not the same story when
you compare 300/4 vs 500/4 though.

Click to expand...

If you can get close to the bird 300/2.8 IS is actually better than any lens I know. But that is a big if in nature photography. In most of times you need all available focal length and aperture to get the really good bird pictures. And then 500/4 is substantially better.

For quick action shots of approachable birds 300/2.8 is just right, but for other 90% of more common situations longer lens will deliver better. 100mm extra fl without loss of aperture (300/2.8 + 2xTC vs. 500/4 + 1.4xTC) is Huge in practical bird shooting. Especially considering that with 2xTC the picture quality is suffering a little.

To get out the best juices of 300/2.8 I would be glad to use it for ultra fast situations without teleconverters at all. For example:

http://www.iwpawards.co.uk/

That man Markus Varesvuo is doing the damage with 300/2.8 for action shots and 500/4 for ordinary bird work. The results are pretty good in my opinion...

I can’t say that I know what percentage of BB’s shots are zoo shots but I can tell you that 100% of my shots are of wild animals (not in captivity) and that I have not been to a zoo in years. What I have found is that I am getting many more keepers with longer and faster lenses. The longer/faster lenses have made much more difference than the camera. A while back I had a 1D body and my only long lens was the 100-400. I could get really great bird in flight shots but as far as small birds were concerned I wasn’t getting the kind of pictures I wanted most of the time. I later got a 50-500 and started getting more keepers but not that many more. I later got a 400mm f/4 DO and 1.4x TC and started getting lots more keepers. I have also gone out with a 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4 and 400mm f/2.8 w/TC’s and the number of keepers has drastically increased. The shots I have taken with the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 were taken using only a digital rebel body and I am still getting tons more keepers than I was with my 1D and 100-400. For birds in flight I have found the rebel to be very frustrating though. The problem there is with the stupid Ai-focus that you are forced to use in Av mode. With the 10D I am having lots more luck with the BIF pics. Anyway, the point of all this rambling is that in my personal experience long fast lenses make a BIG difference in wildlife pictures. Better bodies also make a difference but in my experience the difference isn’t as big as having the better lenses unless it is mainly action/BIF shots that you want. For action shots the 1D is the king as far as I am concerned and the 8fps makes a big difference. I am on a couple of waiting lists for the 1D2 and will probably get that before I get a 600mm lens which will probably be my next major purchase after the new body. More than anything I am buying the 1D2 for the 8FPS and increased resolution over the 1D.

Greg

--

That waxwing in flight is just so cool.

Kai

http://www.pbase.com/kaihui

Greg,

Since you have all the goodies, by any chnace you have used 180mm macro? How do you like it? I have a 100mm macro, but want one that gives me longer working distance. Spring is right in the corner, I have to pay attention to bugs. (I will still do birds though).

Kai

PeaceFrog said:

I can’t say that I know what percentage of BB’s shots
are zoo shots but I can tell you that 100% of my shots are of wild
animals (not in captivity) and that I have not been to a zoo in
years. What I have found is that I am getting many more keepers
with longer and faster lenses. The longer/faster lenses have made
much more difference than the camera. A while back I had a 1D body
and my only long lens was the 100-400. I could get really great
bird in flight shots but as far as small birds were concerned I
wasn’t getting the kind of pictures I wanted most of the
time. I later got a 50-500 and started getting more keepers but
not that many more. I later got a 400mm f/4 DO and 1.4x TC and
started getting lots more keepers. I have also gone out with a
500mm f/4, 600mm f/4 and 400mm f/2.8 w/TC’s and the number of
keepers has drastically increased. The shots I have taken with the
400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 were taken using only a digital rebel
body and I am still getting tons more keepers than I was with my 1D
and 100-400. For birds in flight I have found the rebel to be very
frustrating though. The problem there is with the stupid Ai-focus
that you are forced to use in Av mode. With the 10D I am having
lots more luck with the BIF pics. Anyway, the point of all this
rambling is that in my personal experience long fast lenses make a
BIG difference in wildlife pictures. Better bodies also make a
difference but in my experience the difference isn’t as big
as having the better lenses unless it is mainly action/BIF shots
that you want. For action shots the 1D is the king as far as I am
concerned and the 8fps makes a big difference. I am on a couple of
waiting lists for the 1D2 and will probably get that before I get a
600mm lens which will probably be my next major purchase after the
new body. More than anything I am buying the 1D2 for the 8FPS and
increased resolution over the 1D.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui

Yes, I have the EF 180mm f/3.5L macro and I have also had a couple of the Sigma version. I must say that I find the EF 180mm to be simply amazing and IMO it is the best macro lens I have ever laid my hands on (the Sigma is pretty ok also). It is not, however, my most used macro lens. The EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is. This is mainly because it is also super sharp as well as being very small and compact. It works great with the Kenko extension tubes and is always with me just in case I see something that I need a macro lens for. The EF 100mm macro is my least used macro lens and spends most of its time at my girlfriend’s house getting used by her. The 180 and the MP-E are both lenses that I only take with me when I am going somewhere specifically to take macro pictures mainly because of the weight and bulk of the lenses, flash bracket and flashes that I pretty much always use with them. They both give awesome results but aren’t as convenient for me as the 50 macro. I have heard that the new Tamron 180mm macro is even sharper than the Canon but I haven’t tried it yet. I will have to say that if the Tamron can deliver the picture quality that I am seeing from the Canon then it is probably one of the greatest values around. Optically I really think that the Canon 180mm macro can’t be beat so people saying that the Tamron is better really blows my mind. I’ve been so satisfied with the Canon that I haven’t bothered to even try it.

Greg

--

Thanks, Greg.

Don't you want to get your hands on Tamron 180mm macro? You seem have unlimited resource for photo gear

I have been reading reviews. It seems all praise the Tamron a great deal (but the plastic body, which I don't care much.)

Kai

PeaceFrog said:

Yes, I have the EF 180mm f/3.5L macro and I have also had a couple
of the Sigma version. I must say that I find the EF 180mm to be
simply amazing and IMO it is the best macro lens I have ever laid
my hands on (the Sigma is pretty ok also). It is not, however, my
most used macro lens. The EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is. This is
mainly because it is also super sharp as well as being very small
and compact. It works great with the Kenko extension tubes and is
always with me just in case I see something that I need a macro
lens for. The EF 100mm macro is my least used macro lens and
spends most of its time at my girlfriend’s house getting used
by her. The 180 and the MP-E are both lenses that I only take with
me when I am going somewhere specifically to take macro pictures
mainly because of the weight and bulk of the lenses, flash bracket
and flashes that I pretty much always use with them. They both
give awesome results but aren’t as convenient for me as the
50 macro. I have heard that the new Tamron 180mm macro is even
sharper than the Canon but I haven’t tried it yet. I will
have to say that if the Tamron can deliver the picture quality that
I am seeing from the Canon then it is probably one of the greatest
values around. Optically I really think that the Canon 180mm macro
can’t be beat so people saying that the Tamron is better
really blows my mind. I’ve been so satisfied with the Canon
that I haven’t bothered to even try it.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui

Well all this hoopla about the Tamron 180mm macro reminds me of the endless claims around here that the Sigma 180mm macro was just as good as the Canon. I tried several out and I just didn’t find that to be the case. The Sigma is a very good macro lens but it just isn’t as good as the Canon in my experience. To be the Canon is well worth the extra money. I have also heard from a couple of very respected sources over at fredmiranda.com that the Tamron is indeed not as good as the Canon. I haven’t seen this first hand but as I said before, I have been so thrilled with the Canon that I have little motivation to try the Tamron.

Greg

--

Hi,

I'm wondering in what "criterias"(sharpness, color, build, etc) do you find Sigma to be not as good as Canon ?

Thank you,
Peter.

PeaceFrog said:

Well all this hoopla about the Tamron 180mm macro reminds me of the
endless claims around here that the Sigma 180mm macro was just as
good as the Canon. I tried several out and I just didn’t
find that to be the case. The Sigma is a very good macro lens but
it just isn’t as good as the Canon in my experience. To be
the Canon is well worth the extra money. I have also heard from a
couple of very respected sources over at fredmiranda.com that the
Tamron is indeed not as good as the Canon. I haven’t seen
this first hand but as I said before, I have been so thrilled with
the Canon that I have little motivation to try the Tamron.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

Another "agreed" from this corner. I too lust at the 500/4 etc and I have the money I could buy one... but, I just can't see it for me. 100mm more and 1 stop just seems that the law of diminising returns has hit the limit. Plus the weight and size... which is perhaps my biggest issue. And then, 500 isn't really long enough (20% more reach). So, how about 800? Perhaps a 300-800 because there's nothing worse than being too long. But is 800 long enough for some shots? So, I intend to get an Orion Apex and test out extreme reach in a light weight package... all be it dark. Of course, the other thing, is in 5 years time, technology will have improved signal to noise ratio, making the only use of a say a 2.8/4 even lower light shooting or for DoF effects (and DoF is nearly always too small at that length!). The 100-400/5.6 will be much more desirable in the future IMHO!

Excal

Id say about 75% of my shooting is done captive, the rest wild. I like the larger mammals more than birds some captive is the easier approach since alot of the subject matter I shoot isnt even found on my continent.

Alot of people seem to have an attitude that captive shooting isnt as good as shooting in the wild but I dont feel this way.

Shooting captive subjects, in places such as a big cat perserve, allows me to take photos that simply cant be done in the wild.

I can say with 99.9% confidence that you simply will not get a good shot of a tiger in the wild, much less even see one. India has some perserves where you might see them, but thats sorta along the lines of a wild game park. Not exactly wild and not exactly captive.

basically no animal such as a tiger is going to come anywhere near humans in the wild, and even if you see one, its going to be through the brush etc.

The only real way to get a shot is a remote trigger device and then that takes weeks of checking it to see that its only trigger due to other animals such as monkeys.

Its also like doing a portrait shoot. Yes you can come across a pretty model doing street photography and the resutls can be good, but your certainly not going to be able to produce the same resutls you can in a studio with a model where you can control the pose, the lighting etc.

Really I guess it just depends what type of shot your going for.

I do enjoy shots in natural surrounding, but also I enjoy shots that are more portrait like such as this



Or there are the shots such as this, wild or captive ? Its anyones guess



--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

Mainly sharpness but to be honest I couldn't find a single area where I thought the Sigma was better. Dont' get me wrong, the Sigma is an excellent lens and I would have been very happy wiht it had I never used the Canon. I simply found the Canon to be better so that's what I went with.

Here are some 100% crops from the most recent copy of the Sigma that I have had if you would like to check them out. They aren't very good pictures but you can get an idea from them anyway. All shots were taken with the digital rebel and 420EX flash.

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/sigma180mmmacro

Greg

--

I agree with you that there is absolutely nothing wrong with zoo/captive animal shooting. I have never in my life seen a lion or tiger in the wild and I don’t have any trips to India or Africa planned in the near future so zoo/game preserve would be my only alternatives. Unfortunately your links don’t seem to be working but I would like the pics you posted.

Greg

--

This is my advice for those seriously interested in shooting birds / wildlife and also my own choices in big glass.

It is possible to get fantastic results even from a 200mm if you are shooting from a blind, have lots of free time and enough patience. I have a lots of great bird shots taken at 200mm when I first got addicted to birds, but 200mm reach soon gets very limiting.

If your time is somewhat valuable and you want to go "hunting" by foot, car or boat you will need all the hi-quality reach you can afford to increase the percentage of keepers. Big glass will give you more and better results in less time than anything else.

The ultimate solution available today for such "hunting" and also for birds in flight, is in my opinion the 500 4 L IS on a 10D or preferably the new 1D MKII. It takes you to hi-quality 700mm, is relatively light weight and in my opinion easily handholdable. It is absolutely superb at 500mm, very good with 1.4x at 700mm, good with 2x at 1000mm and usable at 1500 with the Kenko 3x. And as the only lens I know that has absolutely 100% performance wide open it handles extenders very good, on par with the 300 / 400 2.8. But remeber that a 2x will degrade even the best lens to the level of a china produced Samyang.

When shooting from a blind or from my car (when used as a blind) I prefer a zoom as a prime gets very restricting when you can't move or change position. For this the new Sigma 300-800 is absolutely fantastic as you can arrange the blind to cover different size birds in a relatively large area. On top of the zoom you get outstanding optical performance. Out of my 10D it gets me picture quality equal to the 500 prime from 300 to 600 and equal to the prime +1,4x up to 800. Adding a 1.4x and stopping down from f8 to f11 gives good results all the way to 1120mm, and it will beat up-rezzing even with a 2x at 1600mm f16.

For action shots and easier to approach birds / wildlife I prefer the Sigma 120-300 2.8 which I consider the best fast telezoom on the market today. Outstanding optical performance and together with a 1.4x and 2x it is also a very good starting point for anyone interested in birds wildlife. I have lots of great results from it with and without the 1.4x.

I have posted lots of results from the Sigma zooms earlier, but here is an example of how good it gets from the 500 at 500 without an extender.

Jan

BB,

Don't get me wrong. I don't have problem with shooting zoo animals. I stated in my message.

All I tried to say is that shooting wildlife is harder than shooting zoo animals, thus requires different gear. It is a whole different ball game.

Kai

Northcap,
Thanks for the advice. Sounds very good to me.

It is a very nice shot, a great lens in a very cabpable hand!

One reason I have tried to avoid Sigma is that I want to shoot birds in flight(I ma working on it, thus brighter (of faster, whatever you call) lens is definitely needed. It seems that you like to shoot behind a blind, so I'd assume you shoot still birds more often.

I think 500mm is one of the legendary lens. I guess only 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 are in the same league. But after considering the weight, focal length, I think 500mm is the most practical solution.

Kai

Jan,

BTW, I like that shot very much after I stared at it for 2 minutes. The clarity, the color, the contrast and the background are all superp. Thanks for providing such a great photo.

Will you do bald eagle sometime? That's my favorite bird. It is just so strikingly charming (elegant, handsome? what's the word?)

Kai

"practical bird"? ;-)

athelon said:

100mm extra fl without loss of aperture (300/2.8 +
2xTC vs. 500/4 + 1.4xTC) is Huge in practical bird shooting.

Click to expand...

Thanks,

Larry