Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2004, 12:57 PM   #21
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What people don't realize either is when you use a 500-600mm prime, you normally have another body with a shorter lens close by!

From a practical stand point... You are pretty much "limited" by what comes into the FOV, unless you start swapping lenses (and miss the shot). That's why I'm not too much into stalking! :lol: :lol: :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 1:02 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

How would you consider the Sigma 50-500 for outdoor sports (baseball & football). Good lens for that or not?
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 1:12 PM   #23
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaltenburger
How would you consider the Sigma 50-500 for outdoor sports (baseball & football). Good lens for that or not?
Do you compose the shots as the players move about... or strictly shooting on the goal line or base? That would drive you to a zoom or a prime... As a rule of thumb you want as fast a lens as you can afford, IS may or may not stop the action for you when the sun start to set, but a shutter speed does!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 1:38 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

Ohenry,
You and I have dicussed this but not openly to share with others. If this lens has a draw back, it is the weight. I have carried this lens for a full day tour of a Zoo and it becomes a bit much. The camera lens combo with the portrait grip weighs in at just over seven pounds. Go out to the wood shed, tie a yard of clothes line arround a medium sized fire place log and wear it arround your neck for the rest of the day. Then come tell me tomorrow that weight is not a problem. I shoot all my geese in flight freehand because I've taught myself to do that, I can only do this for about an hour and a half, 200 exposures are the norm. It does take a nack I've not found written any where, it must be learned. It is in my eyes the same instinct used in wing shooting with a shotgun. The breathing control and ability to hold on target are the same as hunting skills also. Very hard to reduce to writing, much simpler to teach good tripod skillls. I believe this is why everyone normally suggests a tripod. For the most part I agree that it is far more productive than hand held however ther are times when you must have the freedom of movement that a tripod does not allow. If you were to come shooting with me and you used a tripod you would miss alot or you would screw yourself into the mud trying to mimic my moves.
Way off subject here! The large issue is that I would like a lens in the 300-500 mm zoom. The lower end of the Sigma makes no sense to me. I have a plastic Canon 50 f1.8 that does a better job and is alot more fun to use. I have a 70-200 that I can say the same thing about. But when it comes to That 500mm range I'm very glad I have this lens. I did not purchase a Long zoom I wanted a 500mm lens and this was the cheapest way to do it . The rest of the range is just along for the ride. When people tell me that it is soft on the lower end, I laugh, who cares! Does this look like a portrait lens to you? I'm just thankful it doesn't drop off on the upper end! That was all I wanted in the first place.
I could get used to a 500mm prime but I must admitt that I would miss the zoom as I use it for a range finder. It's a lot easier to fing a target at 100mm and zoom out than it is to do a limb by limb search and find the target gone when you get there. The only other thing I will say is that on long shots compressed atmosphere has a dulling effect on color. On most long shots I find it necessary to bump Saturation, contrast or both. I don't know cause I've not used one but my suspicions tell me that a Canon 500mm would require like wise.
Now this is really all I know about this issue, I hope that something in here is useful to someone, then I will have been a success today.
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 2:05 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

It's interesting. I have a nack for being able to look through optics and find what I want very quickly (if not instantly.) I can do it with a camera, binocs or a spotting scope. Don't know how I do it, but I do. I wonder if there isn't some nack with your hand-holding technicque?

Youe want for a 300-500 is not uncommon, actually. I've read the desire for a short range long focal length zoom a couple fo times. I think it's related to Nikon's logic for the 200-400 f4. It's way over priced, but it sounds like a nice lens. Sure, I wish it was longer but I never use the shorter end on my 100-400L. Loosing 100mm on the short end would never be missed, and gaining a stop would be good too. I think other than once (when I was 4 feet from a cedar waxwing) I don't really remember using it.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 2:26 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Tomsch...

Very nice shot. You get me excited about getting outside with that lens when my camera gets back from calibration.

I personally appreciate the zoom range of the 50-500 for two reasons specifically: less need to change lenses so less potential for dust invasion; as NHL said, the limited FOV doesn't exist.

Shooting basketball last week (with speedlight), I got a number of CU's from across the court that would have been impossible with another lens, and it was great to zoom back to 50mm in an instant to get that layup.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 2:35 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

NHL, they'd mainly be in motion. Quite a few night games for football. Would the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ a Sigma 2x TC be satisfatory for that situation? or... would the 50-500 be the better option?
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 4:15 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Quote:
What people don't realize either is when you use a 500-600mm prime, you normally have another body with a shorter lens close by!
Exactly

Norm, I appreciate your insight to the positive sides of the lens and Tom's pictures at the aviary are certainly well within my range of acceptable sharpness.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 6:04 PM   #29
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaltenburger
NHL, they'd mainly be in motion. Quite a few night games for football. Would the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ a Sigma 2x TC be satisfatory for that situation? or... would the 50-500 be the better option?
IMO any 70-200 f/2.8 will be more practical; However if your intention is always to shoot with a 2x TC then the 50-500 will surely be better optically... Personally I think the 70-200 f/2.8 is a must have, right size and fast enough for most applications. If you want IS then go with Canon, without IS the Sigma may be a better deal...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 6:13 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

NHL, thanks. The 70-200L IS is on the way. Just looking for another lens for sports. With the 2x TC, will that give me enough range for football? Also, what do you know about the Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L? Heard that's very good for indoor action sports.

Thanks,
Andy
aaltenburger 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 11:35 PM.