DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Non Nikon/Canon lenses for birding?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 77, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/24/2005 08:27:38 AM · #1
I have friend who is looking at lens options for birding, but he can't spring for Nikon or Canon glass. So he's trying to prioritize what to put on his list.

For the birder on a budget. (And let me emphasize the BUDGET part ;)), what is more important- quiet lenses (along the USM line) or some sort of image stabilizing technology?

If you have any specific suggestions (that are NOT L Glass) I'd be interested in hearing them too. :)

My friend and I (an I'm sure other photographers out there) thank you. :)

Clara
 03/24/2005 08:49:21 AM · #2
I would also like to hear if anyone has anything to say about what they prfer to use. I just started taking bird pictures and have been looking into the Sigmas, such as the 50-500 and the 80-400. The problem is, the 50-500 has HSM but no OS, and the 80-400 has OS but no HSM. I don't know which one would be better for shooting.
 03/24/2005 08:54:45 AM · #3
Originally posted by blemt:

For the birder on a budget. (And let me emphasize the BUDGET part ;)),


Could you emphasize what that budget would be?
 03/24/2005 08:58:25 AM · #4
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by blemt:

For the birder on a budget. (And let me emphasize the BUDGET part ;)),


Could you emphasize what that budget would be?


Prolly around $1000 or less. I've suggested looking on eBay, but the friend in question is a bit hinky about buying on ebay.

Again, the bigger question is- if you have to prioritize which is more critical? Image stabilization or ultra quiet.

Clara

(edited to add the original question)

Message edited by author 2005-03-24 09:07:04.
 03/24/2005 09:09:42 AM · #5
Originally posted by blemt:
Again, the bigger question is- if you have to prioritize which is more critical? Image stabilization or ultra quiet.



Quiet. Definatly quiet. Image stabilization is of no importance to me whatsoever. That's what God made tripods for.
 03/24/2005 09:17:42 AM · #6
Originally posted by blemt:
Prolly around $1000 or less. I've suggested looking on eBay, but the friend in question is a bit hinky about buying on ebay.


Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM for $1,099
 03/24/2005 09:30:08 AM · #7
Originally posted by nsbca7:
[quote=blemt] Again, the bigger question is- if you have to prioritize which is more critical? Image stabilization or ultra quiet.



Actually, I would rather have IS than "quiet". Birds don't mind the little noise. I have the Nikkor 80-400mm VR and with the VR I don't need to lug a tripod around.
 03/24/2005 09:30:09 AM · #8
One more question. What is more important to your friend, speed, sharpness or reach? At $1000 there will definatly have to be compromises on at least two of these.

Maybe it's just me, but sharpness would be my priority, followed closely by speed.
 03/24/2005 09:35:08 AM · #9
Do you know what type of birding your friend plans to do?

For example, I really do not do that much shooting of birds in flight, and almost always use a tripod, so IS is not that important to me. That may change in the future though, so I am glad that I do have IS on the lens I have.

The type of bird factors in as well. If you are shooting unapproachable birds, then long lenses are more or less a necessity. I shoot a lot of songbirds that are very approachable, and I use concealment techniques to get even closer; I have been shooting songbirds from as close as 5-6 feet lately and a 100-400 is sometimes overkill.

I personally think blinds and concealment techniques are probably more important than longer lenses in shooting a great deal of birds - there is only so long a lens you can get after all, and at some point you need to get closer without scaring off your subject.

Of all things in bird photography, I don't think there is anything more important than patience; except maybe a love for the subject.
 03/24/2005 09:40:55 AM · #10
Originally posted by richterrell:
I personally think blinds and concealment techniques are probably more important than longer lenses in shooting a great deal of birds - there is only so long a lens you can get after all, and at some point you need to get closer without scaring off your subject.

Of all things in bird photography, I don't think there is anything more important than patience; except maybe a love for the subject.


I was thinking it while you were typing it. Hate to bust the bubble though. It has been my experience that most people don't want to hear that. They want a lens that will solve the problems for them so they don't have to be patient, quiet and inovative. These are virtues in birding that must be honed and can never be bought.
 03/24/2005 09:54:44 AM · #11
I've got it, get a vivitar lens (100-400?) and a vivitar teleconverter to get up to 800mm spend the rest of the money on enough beer so that you can believe that the final images are the best you've ever seen ;)
 03/24/2005 10:15:21 AM · #12
I was out shooting last week and ran into a fellow who said he was a professional photographer. He was using a Canon digital rebel and a Sigma 170-500mm lens. I asked him why he had chosen that lens instead of some of the other L options and got an interesting answer.

He said that for birds (we were shooting birds in a rookery both perched and flying) you really don’t need a large aperture lens because you usually want to stop down to get enough DOF. He also stated that zooms were better because you frequently can’t set up your shot like you can with many other types of photography since you typically don’t know where the birds will be coming from or going to.

He did show me a couple of his shots on the LCD of his camera and they looked good at least at that level (big difference from seeing a print). He told me that most of his pictures are sold to advertisers but that he also had photos published in TX Parks and Wildlife as well as Ranger Rick.

A couple of other things that I found interesting about this photographer were that he did not use a tripod and he didn’t ever really use burst mode while he was shooting. There were a couple of other pro photographers at the same spot and they had massive telephoto primes on elaborate tripod systems and were firing off pictures like machine guns. One lady was using an EOS 1D mk2 with a 500mm f/4 IS lens and she really reminded me of those old world war 2 videos of the people on the ships trying to shoot down attacking aircraft.

Anyway, I haven’t ever used the Sigma 170-500 myself but this guy seemed to be pretty happy with it. Also mentioned were some tests done by Pop photography magazine which compared the Sigma 50-500 to a Canon 500mm f/4 that came to the conclusion that the 50-500 was just as good. This photographer said he had compared the 50-500 side by side with the 170-500 and the 170-500 was actually better. (seemed a bit hard to swallow but who knows)

It might be an inexpensive option that wouldn’t be a waste of time and money.

Tom
03/24/2005 10:18:16 AM · #13
I do a fair amount of bird in flight shooting and my impression so far is that I actually get better results when I turn the IS off (AF seems faster this way). I actually only use IS on static subjects and will suggest that it isn't a substitute for a good tripod though it works in a pinch. The lens I use is the EF 100-400 IS.

I also strongly agree with you about blinds. I have been able to do very well shooting small perching birds around a feeder from a blind with a 70-200mm f/4.

Tom

Originally posted by richterrell:
Do you know what type of birding your friend plans to do?

For example, I really do not do that much shooting of birds in flight, and almost always use a tripod, so IS is not that important to me. That may change in the future though, so I am glad that I do have IS on the lens I have.

The type of bird factors in as well. If you are shooting unapproachable birds, then long lenses are more or less a necessity. I shoot a lot of songbirds that are very approachable, and I use concealment techniques to get even closer; I have been shooting songbirds from as close as 5-6 feet lately and a 100-400 is sometimes overkill.

I personally think blinds and concealment techniques are probably more important than longer lenses in shooting a great deal of birds - there is only so long a lens you can get after all, and at some point you need to get closer without scaring off your subject.

Of all things in bird photography, I don't think there is anything more important than patience; except maybe a love for the subject.


Message edited by author 2005-03-24 10:20:15.
 03/24/2005 10:29:42 AM · #14
Originally posted by ovenbird:
Also mentioned were some tests done by Pop photography magazine which compared the Sigma 50-500 to a Canon 500mm f/4 that came to the conclusion that the 50-500 was just as good.


Did you make a note of how many Sigma adds were in the same issue of Pop that that evaluation was in? Allways look for a motive. Money is usually a strong one. I owned a Nikon version of the 50-500 EX and I will tell you with all sincerity that the lens is nowhere close to being as sharp or contrasty as Canon L glass.
 03/24/2005 10:46:20 AM · #15
This is certainly what I would expect to be the case though I have seen some pretty impressive output from the 50-500 over at //www.dpreview.com which makes me not dismiss it without a second thought.

Tom

Originally posted by nsbca7:


Did you make a note of how many Sigma adds were in the same issue of Pop that that evaluation was in? Allways look for a motive. Money is usually a strong one. I owned a Nikon version of the 50-500 EX and I will tell you with all sincerity that the lens is nowhere close to being as sharp or contrasty as Canon L glass.
03/24/2005 10:53:24 AM · #16
Tell him to go work a part time job until he can afford a good quality lens. He might not be happy with the photos if he settles for less.
 03/24/2005 10:58:29 AM · #17
Originally posted by ovenbird:
This is certainly what I would expect to be the case though I have seen some pretty impressive output from the 50-500 over at //www.dpreview.com which makes me not dismiss it without a second thought.

Tom



I couldn't find anything on that lens at the link you provided.
 03/24/2005 11:10:07 AM · #18
Obviously you need to do a little work as the main page doesn’t have everything on the site. If you actually care the lens talk forums are a good place to start. Another good site is //www.fredmiranda.com. Here is a link to the user reviews of the 50-500

//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Tom
03/24/2005 11:15:42 AM · #19


Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by richterrell:
I personally think blinds and concealment techniques are probably more important than longer lenses in shooting a great deal of birds - there is only so long a lens you can get after all, and at some point you need to get closer without scaring off your subject.

Of all things in bird photography, I don't think there is anything more important than patience; except maybe a love for the subject.


I was thinking it while you were typing it. Hate to bust the bubble though. It has been my experience that most people don't want to hear that. They want a lens that will solve the problems for them so they don't have to be patient, quiet and inovative. These are virtues in birding that must be honed and can never be bought.


Bursting the bubble would be informing people that these lenses do not exist. Even a 600mm F/4 can't get past the instinct of many species to simply run away if they see you first.

Simple, very portable concealment can be had at very reasonable prices however. The one I have costs $60-$70 (shown below) weighs something like two pounds and collapses like a reflector into a small backpack. I can take it anywhere. Everyone I know who has tried using a blind of any kind and sampled the rich photos they can achieve using even basic concealment techniques gets hooked.

03/24/2005 11:22:20 AM · #20
This fellow seems to be a real proponent of the Sigma 50-500 over at //www.dpreview.com (he calls it the Bigma) and has a good number of sample pictures on his pbase site.

//www.pbase.com/drip/50_500_all

Tom

03/24/2005 11:24:25 AM · #21
That is the same blind that I use and have been very satisfied with.

Tom

Originally posted by richterrell:

Simple, very portable concealment can be had at very reasonable prices however. The one I have costs $60-$70 (shown below) weighs something like two pounds and collapses like a reflector into a small backpack. I can take it anywhere. Everyone I know who has tried using a blind of any kind and sampled the rich photos they can achieve using even basic concealment techniques gets hooked.

03/24/2005 11:35:38 AM · #22
Originally posted by ovenbird:
This fellow seems to be a real proponent of the Sigma 50-500 over at //www.dpreview.com (he calls it the Bigma) and has a good number of sample pictures on his pbase site.

//www.pbase.com/drip/50_500_all

Tom


This is exactly what I was talking about.



Not something I would call contrasty and sharp. Just because some are happy with it does not make it as sharp as a good Nikon or Canon prime or top line zoom. Even Sigma make lenses that are significantly sharper then this lens.

I'm talking from personal experience having used the lens in question and Good Nikon and Canon primes and zooms. I know the difference. I can see it planely in my images. It has been sugested before that maybe I just got a bad one, which is entirely possible, but if it is just a quality control issue, then that should be all the more reason to approach this lens with skeptisism.
 03/24/2005 11:45:07 AM · #23
Originally posted by richterrell:

Bursting the bubble would be informing people that these lenses do not exist. Even a 600mm F/4 can't get past the instinct of many species to simply run away if they see you first.

Simple, very portable concealment can be had at very reasonable prices however. The one I have costs $60-$70 (shown below) weighs something like two pounds and collapses like a reflector into a small backpack. I can take it anywhere. Everyone I know who has tried using a blind of any kind and sampled the rich photos they can achieve using even basic concealment techniques gets hooked.



I have a good portable, but if I know I will be somewhere on several occasions I set up a temporary blind out of bamboo and camo mesh. It takes about 15 minutes to set up. I often set one up and leave it for a few days so the animals learn not to fear it. Then I come back and set the camera up and get a few days of shooting in. It works so well that I often have herons and egrets land on it and perch for a while while I'm in it
 03/24/2005 11:46:15 AM · #24
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Did you make a note of how many Sigma adds were in the same issue of Pop that that evaluation was in? Allways look for a motive. Money is usually a strong one. I owned a Nikon version of the 50-500 EX and I will tell you with all sincerity that the lens is nowhere close to being as sharp or contrasty as Canon L glass.

You've posted about your experience with the 50-500 a few times in the past. But others have said that it is a sharp lens, some like the mag test saying it is as sharp as L. I'm beginning to think that you had a bad experience with a bad copy, and are perhaps holding a grudge. If it is a quality control issue, then that puts Sigma right there with Canon as we certainly have heard about "bad copies" from them too.

Clara, here are some bird shots from my portfolio taken handheld with my Tamron 200-500. It's sharpness is very good, even at full zoom and esprcially if there is enough light to stop it down a notch or two off max. Aperture is not as wide as I'd like for things like sports, but fast enough for birding. It's very quiet, my 20D's shutter is much louder. I think it has good bokeh. At times I have wanted more reach, but haven't gotten around to buying a teleconverter yet so can't say how that works, but would expect no problems. However, I think using a teleconverter would make a tripod mandatory. It sells for about $880 so fits your friend's budget with some change left over to put toward a teleconverter if desired. May not be the best birding lens in the world but I think it does pretty well and is a good value for the price.




Just looked at B&H to check the price and found there is a $50 rebate thru end of April. One nice thing about buying a non-Canon lens is the warranty-- Tamron's is 6 years and Sigma's is 5 yr compared to Canon's 1 yr. Tamron 200-500 at B&H
 03/24/2005 11:51:30 AM · #25
Originally posted by coolhar:
You've posted about your experience with the 50-500 a few times in the past. But others have said that it is a sharp lens, some like the mag test saying it is as sharp as L. I'm beginning to think that you had a bad experience with a bad copy, and are perhaps holding a grudge. If it is a quality control issue, then that puts Sigma right there with Canon as we certainly have heard about "bad copies" from them too.



Can you show me a good side by side objective test that has been done with this lens in comparison with an L lens that is not skewered with personal oppinion?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 01:33:02 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 01:33:02 PM EDT.