Non Nikon/Canon lenses for birding?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/24/2005 12:08:21 PM · #26

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.

So let's say I did have a "bad copy". That still does not justify the major design flaws with this lens, such as stiff manual focus, lens creep, and a zoom that acts like a gigantic piston sucking in moisture and impurities evry time the focal lenght is changed. This is hardly a lens that was designed for a hostile enviroment.

cghubbell

Nikon D300

03/24/2005 12:10:13 PM · #27

I'd like to suggest that the birder on a budget can do quite well by investing in their technique and patience until they can afford better glass. I'm doing all of my bird photography at the moment on a Nikkor 70-300 f4-5.6 G. Anyone who knows Nikon glass will agree that this is the proverbial "bottom of the barrel" when it comes to Nikkors. I think it sells for around $350...

Take a look at my bird gallery and I think you'll agree that even with cheapo equipment you can do good work. I admit, they probably won't fare well on a big enlargement, but I still think they are quite decent. I worked hard for those shots over the past year, and spent a lot of time building technique and patience.

If I were going to do it over again, I'd go to eBay for a Nikkor 300/f2 and a 1.4x teleconverter. That rig would be relatively cheap for telephotos. If I had plenty o money I'd go with a Nikkor 100-400 VR.

If the word budget is in your vocabulary, then you don't *NEED* VR/IS. It's very nice to have, just like weatherproof fast glass. But technique is WAY more important and a good tripod will take you farther than image stabilizing technology.

Quiet lenses are also irrelevant unless you are doing some seriously specialized work. You can use manual prefocus in stealth scenarios, so it's not necessary. When it comes to focus what makes the most difference is FAST focus - like Nikons AFS lineup. You want silent wave internal motors because they are quick. Songbirds will stay put for 2-3 seconds at a time. If your tele hunts just once you will loose the shot. The compliment to speed is fast glass in the f/2 range. Simply put, the more light your lens can take in, the more consistent your a/f sensors will be.

Hope some of this information was useful...

Message edited by author 2005-03-24 12:10:31.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/24/2005 12:28:21 PM · #28

Originally posted by ovenbird:

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.

Very interesting info - I have the same lens and have not panned enough using mode 2 image stabilization to really know how much (if any) difference there might be. On static subjects I am with you; I pretty much always use a tripod. I really can't remember the last time I was using this lens without one.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/24/2005 12:30:17 PM · #29

These would be my sugestions for a lens in the price range you mentioned, give or take a few hundred.

And as Clara has yet to clarify whether it is Nikon or canon Glass she is looking for...

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/24/2005 12:36:28 PM · #30

I think that has more to do with the lighting than anything. I will suggest that any expensive Nikon or Canon prime would not fare much better with this sort of lighting and metering. There certainly appears to be a great deal of detail in the photo.

I think it would help an awful lot if you could post some crops from the good Nikon or Canon primes vs the Sigma. I know you donâ��t want to have your photography copied by all the internet pirates but certainly you must have some crops of some pictures that will not compromise your business. I think it would go a long way in proving your point to give us some photo evidence since it is often difficult to judge one personâ��s much sharper and more conrasty from anotherâ��s.

If you read internet forums about photo gear very much you will most likely see that there is quite a bit of talk about poor Canon QC with their L lenses. I know I have read an awful lot about it so far and I wouldnâ��t be surprised if there isnâ��t at least a little truth to it.

Thanks,

Tom

Originally posted by nsbca7:

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.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/24/2005 12:38:21 PM · #31

Originally posted by nsbca7:

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

An excellent technique. I have not had occasion to set something more permanent up anywhere as I mostly am in public parks and such, but there are a few places I could probably get away with it. Definitely worth the time investment.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/24/2005 12:38:36 PM · #32

Originally posted by nsbca7:

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?

No, I can't. Can you? ovenbird referred to a magazine test but you dismissed that one because you thought the magazine may have had ads for Sigma. Did you check to see if that mag also had ads for Canon? I think your bad experience has left you wanting for objective in regards to the Sigma 50-500.

All I know about the Bigma is from what I've seen and read on the web. There are a lot more people who have had experince with it and with L glass that seem to think it is a very sharp lens, equal, or close to equal, to L, than those who say it is nowhere close as you do. And I have been impressed with photos posted taken with it.
From my own personal comparison I can say that this Tamron is sharp. Not as sharp as L but close enough to be taken seriously. And it doesn't have the near reputation that the Bigma does.

Didn't the title of the thread tell you blemt was looking beyond Canon/Nikon lenses?

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/24/2005 12:40:23 PM · #33

I have a friend who is an extreme birder (a fanatic, actually) and he digiscopes. He uses a Nikon Coolpix 995 and a Swarovski spotting scope. With the correct hardware adapter, any camera can be fitted to a spotting scope with excellent results. You get aperture, speed and sharp, sharp pictures, for a good price. And you have a spotting scope to use when you're not shooting through it.

You MUST see his work,

click here.

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/24/2005 12:44:11 PM · #34

The same can be said about my EF 100-400 IS. It is after all a pump zoom and I can tell you that mine has been in some pretty hostile environments so far. It has been through more than one dust storm in AZ, many trips to the beach and through several rain storms where it has gotten quite a bit of water on it. The lens still works great. There are a few specks of dust in it but really it isnâ��t a significantly different amount from what my 24-70mm f/2.8L had it in when I sold it and that lens was supposed to have the weather seals.

I donâ��t mean to argue with you or say that you are wrong, but that has been my personal experience.

Tom

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

03/24/2005 07:43:26 PM · #35

I am very happy with the sigma 50-500Ex. It does require a solid tripod and head, but for MY MONEY, it serves me well, plus a whole host of "birders".

Dim7

Canon EOS R

03/24/2005 08:03:57 PM · #36

I`m happy with my Canon 200mm f2.8 L

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

03/24/2005 08:08:21 PM · #37

Originally posted by ovenbird:

I think it would help an awful lot if you could post some crops from the good Nikon or Canon primes vs the Sigma.

I'm afraid I really don't have anything to prove. You all seem to have your minds made up. I showed you a few crops on a different thread that I know for a fact could not be duplicated with the 50-500 and you want more. Show me something from the 50-500 that comes close in sharpness and detail to what I posted and prove me wrong. You all haven't showed me anything yet but a bunch of zoo pictures.

I don't make a dollar either way whether you buy a good lens or 400-1000 Vivitar.

blemt

Nikon D70

03/24/2005 08:13:49 PM · #38

Originally posted by Dim7:

I`m happy with my Canon 200mm f2.8 L

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! I said no L glass. ;) Thank you for playing, please try again. :D

Clara

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

03/24/2005 08:17:08 PM · #39

Originally posted by blemt:

Originally posted by Dim7:
I`m happy with my Canon 200mm f2.8 L

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! I said no L glass. ;) Thank you for playing, please try again. :D

Clara

Clara, I would suggest your friend invest in a good Sigma 50-500 EX HSM lens. It's within your friends budget and I hear it is just as good as Canon L glass that costs 7 times as much. It really would be a good investment.

Dim7

Canon EOS R

03/24/2005 08:18:44 PM · #40

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by blemt:

Originally posted by Dim7:
I`m happy with my Canon 200mm f2.8 L

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! I said no L glass. ;) Thank you for playing, please try again. :D

Clara

Clara, I would suggest your friend invest in a good Sigma 50-500 EX HSM lens. It's within your friends budget and I hear it is just as good as Canon L glass that costs 7 times as much. It really would be a good investment.

Yes but its under $1000

blemt

Nikon D70

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

03/24/2005 08:22:14 PM · #41

Thanks for the help guys! I refered my friend to this thread. I do agree that technique is a critical component to any wildlife photography. I've refered my friend to this particular thread. I've also pointed out the merits of primes and more interesting lenses.

I personally use nothing but Nikon lenses. Then again, I'm a lens snob. ;)

Clara

Dim7

Canon EOS R

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

03/24/2005 08:25:22 PM · #42

These were taken with one of the cheepest lenses I own! I payed $110 for it (Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 super2 macro).

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/24/2005 09:29:11 PM · #43

Originally posted by blemt:

I personally use nothing but Nikon lenses. Then again, I'm a lens snob. ;)

Nice to see someone own up to it. ;)

03/26/2005 12:47:10 PM · #44

Originally posted by nsbca7:

You all haven't showed me anything yet but a bunch of zoo pictures.

This comment comes accross as condescending. I do not see how it assists one in lens selection. I support your right to say it, but IMO it was unnecessary.

03/26/2005 12:53:13 PM · #45

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
You all haven't showed me anything yet but a bunch of zoo pictures.

This comment comes accross as condescending. I do not see how it assists one in lens selection. I support your right to say it, but IMO it was unnecessary.

Show me something then.

I give my honest oppinion about the quality of a lens that is being discussed and I get testimonies from four sides telling me how wrong I am. And all they use to back up their arguments are basically uncropped zoo pictures. Show me an unaltered tight crop taken with that lens that shows any definition and I will assume that perhaps I just had a bad sample when I had mine. No one seems willing to back up what they say about the 50-500 and this has happened on several other threads as well.

So if it sounds condesending maybe it was meant to.

Message edited by author 2005-03-26 13:03:46.

03/26/2005 01:15:05 PM · #46

Originally posted by nsbca7:

So if it sounds condesending maybe it was meant to.

That is unfortunate. I was hoping that you were not an egotistical photographer, full of themselves, aching to prove how great they are. My preference is for a photography community that shares information to elicit informed choices or enhance learning. However, again, I support your right to be condescending if you choose. It is simply an unfortunate choice IMO.

The horse's eye lash was taken at a farm. I was unaware that only certain "free" uncontained subjects were worthy of photography. Thank you for informing me. I can now select more carefully which subjects would be a misguided venture on my part.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

03/26/2005 01:32:28 PM · #47

Originally posted by Flash:

The horse's eye lash was taken at a farm. I was unaware that only certain "free" uncontained subjects were worthy of photography. Thank you for informing me. I can now select more carefully which subjects would be a misguided venture on my part.

This has nothing to do with where the image was taken beyond the fact that being able to walk up within 5 feet of an animal does little to prove what a lens is capable of. Here is your horse.

Show me an unsharpened 100% crop of his eye. If you can back up your convictions I'll go promptly out after the rain stops and take a similar picture of a horse using L glass and then we can compare. If your crop come close to what can be done with L glass I will gladly concede that I am wrong and apologize.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

03/26/2005 01:49:26 PM · #48

I ended up buying the Tamron 200-500. Not fast, not as sharp as expensive glass but fast enough and sharp enough to take you a few years to outgrow. And it is about the most lens I could afford at the time. The Sigma in my opinion has to much range and was a bit heavier. Zoom is important for framing and following the bird but 200 on the low end seems to work for me. If you are going to shot any bird other that one that sits still zoom will help.

As for zoo vs "wild" there is a difference. It is not a snobish issue. Zoo is much easier to control than in the wild. Containment eliminates the stalking and concealment issues.

Finally, I agree with those who have said patience is the issue. I get better every time out. You learn the birds and their habits and know what they might do. Getting close and going out in good light is always the best answer.

You can see some of my shots at:

My PBase Site

The photos where taken mostly with the Tamorn 200-500 but some where also taken with a Tamorn 28-300. Lately I have started taking RAW and processing is better. I will be updating my site with some recent pics in the next few days so check back for comparison, I think they are getting better.

Good luck and get out there and enjoy not matter what your choice ends up being.

Edit - forgot to say that I find a full tripod difficult in the environment I go out in so most of the time I use a heavy monopod. Not quite as stable so you do lose a little sharpness but for now I'm willing to accept that compromise.

Message edited by author 2005-03-26 13:58:46.

03/26/2005 01:54:32 PM · #49

That is not my horse. However, the link provides some stunning examples of photographs that would make many (I said many)photographers proud. If your argument is that "L" glass will provide even better detail on 100% cropped enlargenments, well.........I would counter with, if your photography requires that level of detail then, you should shoot what you think you need. As the original post stated, the query was for specifically non-Nikkor/Canon glass and later stated even more specifically non-L. It mentioned a "budget" and was intended to seek replies from those favoring "other" glass. The Sigma 50-500 complies with those stated features and further your link gives me even more reason to like the glass I have.

The purchaser will decide for themselves, according to their needs. There are certainly enough examples here for an informed decision.