I am a relative beginner to photography and have been taking pictures of wildlife for the last few years. My current set up is a Canon EOS 50D with a Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3. All shots have been handheld with no flash or monopod/tripod while hiking through local parks and preserves. I am on an extremely limited budget, and was thinking of the new Sigma 120-300 f2.8 with 1.4 & 2.0 teleconverters. Do you think that is an acceptable upgrade or am I going backwards?
The photos have gotten some attention locally and I have been donating photos to local groups to help them promote their parks. I've also been doing wildlife articles in the local newspaper (more free work... currently). I want to produce better photos to showcase, so any tips on equipment/techniques that can be passed along to a beginner would be much appreciated.
Hi Derrick,,, I have a D50 also,,Noisey camera, small viewfinder not the best AF, I am thinking of upgrading to a used D7 or waiting for the new D8 hopefully coming out soon,,As for the sigma thats 3000 dollars plus for a sigma? Your going to buy tc also$$.. For less than half of that you could get the profesional L series 400-5.6 ,This is one sharp lens, capable of pro qaulity even with the 1.4tc - 560mm(tape the first three pins for AF in bright light)..OR you could find a used 300 2.8 non is for about 2200$ ,with a 2x,tc thats a 600mm 5.6 with full AF and also capable of pro qaulity.(and hold its value much better than a sigma)..Just a couple of options for you to think about good luck,,
Brian, have you used a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS? Do you not value the the flexibility of a zoom lens? Is it your argument that a Canon 400mm is sharper than the Sigma at 420mm. Do you not value the extra stop of light that the Sigma can bring at 420mm? Do you not value the fact that you can have 600mm reach at f5.6. Do you not value the benefit of up to 4 stops of optical stabilisation?
The Sigma 120-300 is purportedly sharper than the bare lens version which I have, and I have obtained some very satisfactory results with a 2X teleconverter attached to my older 300 f2.8 prime. I am sure that the new Sigma zoom will produce at least equal but more likely better results than I am presently getting with my Sigma 300 f2.8. What I am less sure of is the performance of the new lens from a focusing point of view and it is not my policy to advise on lenses I have never used. A couple of days ago I sent a private message to Robert O'Toole who has previously stated on BPN that he would deliver a review following his testing the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS. Perhaps Derrick, like me, should just await the outcome of that review. What I can say is that given the results that have been sent to me of stationary objects and viewed at 100% the new Sigma lens gives one **** of a bang for your buck and is possibly the best value lens on the market today. The only reservation I have is that there is no focus distance limiter on the lense, but ****, I have managed to capture Peregrines flying at me at full throttle with my old Sigma 300 both with and without converters using cropped sensor cameras from the 20D to the 7D. Peregrines are much harder challenge than lumbering cranes or eagles to test AF perfromance on, so maybe I have answered my own question and Derrick's too!
I have used the Canon 400f5.6 (and many other lenses) and for what it is, it is pretty well faultless. It is a great flight photography lens but you are limited to one focal length with a cropped sensor camera and you will need a tripod in low light. Having said that the new Sigma is quite heavy and hand holding all day may get you a bit tired.
Before you decide to get new gear perhaps you should just see whether you may have other alternatives enabling you to get close to your subjects. I have seen some wonderful images made with the Sigma 150-500, two of which have won prestigious international wildlife photography competitions. You will be surprised what you can do with a bag hide or a throw over sheet and a few meal worms and/or seed to enable closer views of subjects.
I would not advise getting a Canon non IS 300 lens...Canon no longer stock parts for repairs!
Folk can get too obsessed with gear IMHO
Last edited by adrian dancy; 05-27-2012 at 08:41 PM.
I used a sigma 120-300mm first version, for more than a year with a 7D, 95% of the shots where taken with the sigma 1.4tc, at close range, perched birds on a hide, the lens with the 1.4 tc is sharp, stoped dons to 5.6 or 6.3, but at longer distance is not mutch sharp. The otger 5% I use it with 2x tc, and isn`t as good as the 1,4tc, but again at closer range not bat at all.
With this setup you will have two problems, wight, this lens is heavy, and with the 1,4tc, very slow aquiring focus, with 2x even worth.
I now use a 600mm f/4, but i'm thinking in buing a Canon 400mm f/5.6 for backup and BIF.
Hi Adrian.. No,,I have not used the sigma zoom, only read about its slow auto focus..Yes, I do beleive a Canon prime 400 5.6 is much much sharper than a sigma zoom + tc..Yes, the extra stop of light would be nice but you will have to stop that sigma down more than that to get any qaulity results...IS would be nice on the 400 5.6 but not a deal breaker.. And theirs very little to go wrong with a canon 300 2.8 non IS..Now the one thing we do know about Sigma is its legendary for its poor qaility control, and huge loss resale value compared to a canon lens.... Derrick, is looking for a slight increase in qaulity for not much money..And that is where the Canon 400 5.6 prime for under a grand second hand plus a canon 7D for another grand second hand comes in.. its a sharp combo by anyones standards for just a couple thousand dollars... All the best Derrick good luck,,,,
Last edited by brian simpson; 05-28-2012 at 07:18 PM.
Thank you for all of your feedback. You've all given me a lot to think about in choosing my next lens.
I probably should have noted that a majority of my photos are of small songbirds that I encounter in less than optimal lighting. The sigma 150-500 focus has been adequate and has rarely been a hindrance with plenty of OOF branches in the foreground. Shooting handheld, which probably isn't doing the sharpness of my photos any favors, is my setup of choice. Photography is often an extension of my local hikes, so I don't know if the upgraded lens would bode well handheld with IS, especially with teleconverters. I don't know anything about tripods, monopods, etc so I may need to do a little extra research on that if things get heavier (which I'm pretty sure it will at this level of photography.)
I would go with Brians reccomendation in pane #5 Derrick. A Canon 400 prime with a used 7D is the next level for you. Just to let you know, I started out with a 20D, went to a 5D, kept it sold the 20D and bought a used MK2n with less than 2000 clicks. I sold my off brand 200-500, bought a Canon 300 2.8 L prime lens, a 100-400, which I sold last year, and bought a Canon 100mm macro and a Canon 28-135 for landscapes. I used the Canon 5D with the 100-400 for birds like Loons, ducks, small songbirds etc.
It taught me patience. Upgrade when you can, buy good glass first! Brians thoughts are spot on for what you want and can afford. Be patient, save your money and practice. You will get there when you get there.
Looking fro Slight Upgrade
Reply With Quote
