Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Wildlife Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 23, 2006, 10:44 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,696
Default

Thanks, Bobby... any thoughts on the Sigma 80-400 f4-5.6 EX APO OS? i hear they're getting scarce, but it seems that would be a pretty good lens, comparable to the 100-400L, but about $400 cheaper...
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 11:21 AM   #12
Member
 
carpist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 45
Default

I am using the Sigma 100-300 F4 with 1.4X teleconverter for 90% of my pictures. The other 10% with the 2X tele. Both are in conjunction with a monopod most of the time. The pain is the autofocus is not available when the lens is doubled. I'll be moving to the 120-300 F2.8 in the spring. Examples of pictures with the above lens combinations are at the link. Even 420mm is too short most of the time. Perhaps a 25 megapixel camera would solve the crop issue??
I emailed Sigma about VR on their lenses and they said it is in the works but maybe not real soon.

http://webpages.charter.net/carpist/...orida%20birds/
carpist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 11:22 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 384
Default

The Bigma goes from f4.0 to f 6.3. It is not a speed demon. You can handhold if you have the light and/or are not zoomed to 500mm. I use a flash much of the time for small birds. I've included an address of a review. Woody



http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/...fm?test_id=389
woodysworld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 12:06 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
Thanks, Bobby... any thoughts on the Sigma 80-400 f4-5.6 EX APO OS? i hear they're getting scarce, but it seems that would be a pretty good lens, comparable to the 100-400L, but about $400 cheaper...
AF is dog on that thing from what I have heard. I rather have 50-500.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 1:29 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,696
Default

one more question, guys, and then i'll go away and think about all this for a while...

how does the Sigma 100-300 compare to the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6IS HSM? the Canon offers a little more range at a lower price... but the Sigma is an "EX" lens, which i guess is their answer to Canon "L" glass...
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 2:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

Take your time, squirl....this is a decision I will be making at some point and no doubt others will too. I'm sure your choices will be give us some insight. I read the blurb about the 20D coming down in price and a 30D just out. But like someone said, the glass is probably going to give you more bang for your buck as in 350XT vs 20D so I urge you to think on that too. The reach (cost) of a long zoom is one of the primary reasons I have not jumped to DSLR myself. I realize from what I shoot and what I see posted there is the nice detail in the dslr's but with care I can still get some nice ones yet with the FZ 30. I do love what I see when someone posts a homerun with a long zoom DSLR. Enjoy yourself, take your time. A lot of us are curious to see what you decide. Best regards,

KennethD
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 3:34 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,696
Default

thanks, Ken... i'm in no hurry to make a choice, for the amount of money involved, i'd rather take more time and get it right! i'm still getting a lot of good shots with my FZ20, and will certainlyuse it for some purposes even after i get a DSLR, but i'm also starting to bump into some of its limitations as well, and that's prompted me to look at something a little more capable.

i guess the biggest question i have with lensesis in regard to the relative image quality differences between, say, Canon "L" lenses and the Sigma "EX" series, and between either of those and the "intermediate" class lenses.it's all so subjective, one person may think image quality from a Canon "L" lens is the cat's meow, and someone else may not even see the difference. i'm not even considering the "consumer" lenses - the ones in the $150-$250 range - because i know those just won't get it done,but are the "pro" grade lenses that cost $1200+apiecereally that much sharper and clearer than the "serious amateur" glass that runs $500-$750? or is it just that people "see" differences because they've been convinced by the "experts" and the price tags that those "L" or "EX" lenses are superior? i suspect there are some differences thatmight bevisible to a professional, but for most of the rest of us, are those differences really significant, or even noticeable? and if they are, is the difference worth the cost?

a couple of folks have suggested the350XT, and i may look into that as well. whati'm trying to do is to make a purchase now thati won't regret later,that will give me the image quality i need with the flexibility and features i want. i'm not sure how the 350XT compares with the 10/20/30D models, but i've heard nothing but good about the 20D, and figure i might as well get the best i can afford,that will serve my needs for several years,right from the get-go. as i mentioned before, i'djust hate to drop $600 on a single lens, and then find out that it's not good enough for what i want... but then, how would i even know, unless i spent the $1200 on the next grade up to do a comparison?


squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 4:53 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

For the body main thing is how does it feel in your hand. It could be the best cam but if it doesn't feel right, I wouldn't buy it. In that regard I personally like 10D/20D than the rebel line. The main difference between rebel and pricier 20D/30D is that 20D/30D have 5 fps, better build quality, center cross sensor at f2.8 (not biggy if your lens is slower than f2.8, and 2 dials to change things rather than going into menus like on the 350XT.

Regarding canon's L glass, they provide a solid build quality. All teles and super-teles are built like a tank. The image quality is much better (IMHO). Someone who is an expert in PS probably can get the same "omph" from the consumer glass but I rather spend my time taking pictures. The L glass also hold its value much better. The optics are much better.

Here is a shot of my 10D and 100-400L.




bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 5:06 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,696
Default

thanks for the info. is that 100-400L a push/pull zoom?
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 6:25 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
killdeer0007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,328
Default

Something to consider - the camera will probably become obsolete before the good Canon L lenses. I spent what I had on a couple of L lenses and the 1.4 extender to use on the Rebel XT. In a year or so I'll probably move up to the 20D and I still have a couple of good lenses. Heck, I may keep the Rebel and get the Canon 300 F2.8.

I'm new to the dslr world and can't comment on other bodies but I can say that I'm not disappointed with the Rebel.



Some links to shots taken with the 300F4 with the 1.4 extender.

http://www.ic23.com/gallery/rssm.jpg
http://www.ic23.com/gallery/mcsm1.jpg
http://www.ic23.com/gallery/6.jpg

//jim


Last edited by killdeer0007; Sep 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM.
killdeer0007 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:09 AM.