I want more Zoom than 18-200 provides - advice?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/23/2007 11:41:41 AM · #1

I'm getting bored with the zoom provided by my Sigma 18-200, and since the weather is nice out today, I thought I'd take a walk over to Henry's.

I'd like to do more nature photography, birds in particular. I'd like to get as much reach as possible, but have never used any lenses other than the ones in my profile. I guess 400mm would be good? I've always been a bigger is better type of person... 500mm? The prices on these things seem to be around $7-8,000, which is a huge jump from my most expensive lens which I think was about $7-800.

Am I missing something? Isn't there some class of long lens that costs less?

I think I might spend up to $3,000 Canadian today if there's a lens I like, and the service is good. I'm not even sure whether I want to get a lens that allows zooming or not, "L-glass" I think it's called, my concern being if I'm too close to the subject to include some surroundings or other subjects.

?

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1

03/23/2007 11:47:57 AM · #2

I don't know if this fits your bill or not but I just picked up about a 10 year old Tokina 400mm 5.6 APO AF lens in pristine condition for $199 USD.
It's not the fastest focusing nor the fastest glass but is pretty damn sharp especially considering the price.
I got mine locally at a shop.
I guess Sigma made a 400mm that was decent as well.
thread on 400mm for canon

super-dave

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

03/23/2007 11:50:20 AM · #3

sigma makes a lens that they call 'bigma' ... 50-500mm. aperture on that kind of range is never going to be super fast, and it weighs a bit. but it's a hell of a range if you using a tripod. anything over 300mm should usually be mounted anyways. you'd get your 500mm for about $1000 that way.

spending big $$$ on a bazooka prime lens isn't worth it if you're not going to get use or make money from your shots.

i don't own a canon, so i don't know much about L glass. sorry!

TJinGuy

Nikon Coolpix 2100

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/23/2007 12:00:41 PM · #4

What about trying a teleconverter first. They will only set you back a few hundred and I have heard that they do fine for casual shooting. B&H has several from 1.4x to 3x for canon.

Jedusi

03/23/2007 12:06:05 PM · #5

I have the Canon 100-400L and am really pleased with it. While it is a bit of a beast to carry about it is great to use and the IS really helps.

I have various shots on my profile taken with it including 'Love Lost', 'Evening tide', and 'At the Beach'.

It's well worth having a go with one.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/23/2007 12:08:28 PM · #6

Canon 100-400 L runs about $1400 US. Or for a little less money and more zoom, the Sigma 50-500, but probably not the same quality as the Canon?

Tele-converter on your 18-200 will probably make auto focus all but useless and will have a pretty bad effect on image quality, but is a good cheap alternative.

brownsm

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/23/2007 12:22:01 PM · #7

I had the Sigma 80-400 with image stabilization (sigma calls it Optical Stabilization or OS) for my Canon 20D. It cost just under $1000, and had excellent quality. Compared to my 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, the sigma focuses slightly slower, but the image quality was very close. it took nice sharp photos, and might be worth trying one out.

ralph

Nikon Z9

03/23/2007 12:35:10 PM · #8

well if you were shooting Nikon you could mortgage your house for this one Nikon 1200-1700mm
a measly $40,000 ...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/23/2007 12:43:41 PM · #9

Thanks for the help everyone. I think I'm going for a walk now.
Cheers
:-)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/23/2007 12:53:40 PM · #10

Originally posted by Jedusi:

I have the Canon 100-400L and am really pleased with it. While it is a bit of a beast to carry about it is great to use and the IS really helps.

Yes, that's a very good one. The Canon 70-300 IS is also good, and much less of a beast. Plus, it's less than half the price.

talmy

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/23/2007 01:55:59 PM · #11

Originally posted by super-dave:

I'll "me too" this suggestion. Within those limitations it's a real bargain.

Here's the dpchallenge page for Canon owners

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/23/2007 01:59:40 PM · #12

Others have mentioned the Sigma 50-500 Ex. It is a very satisfactory lens as long as the weight is not a problem for you. It has never been a problem for me. For hiking nature trails it just goes over my shoulder affixed to the body and tripod mount. Good balance and doesn't interfere with the walk cadence.

edit to add photos

a few shots taken with the 50-500Ex

Message edited by author 2007-03-23 14:06:35.

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

03/23/2007 02:42:42 PM · #13

I tried a couple out and though the reach was a bit shorter, I really like the Image Stabilization feature of the Canon 100-400, so I got that. Of course with the typical, "hmmm, if I buy it now, can you throw in a filter for free?"

Now that I'm back, I'm glad to see Shannon recommends it as well.

The weather is supposed to be great on Sunday, so I'm planning on being out before sunrise with my wide-angle, then over to my favourite spot in the woods by the swamp for some birds with my new lens!

Wheeeee!

But now, how do I break the news to the wife? Maybe she'll believe me if I say it only cost $100?

Thanks again everyone!

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

03/23/2007 03:18:57 PM · #14

I bought the same lens just over a week ago. I had a few days away staying on the Coast, and used it quite a bit. I found that I certainly got better results when it was tripod mounted, and was surprised that it was actually easier to use that way too. That said, I took quite a few photos handheld, with mixed results. I did make the mistake of taking it on a 12 mile walk - heavy and awkward, and ended up leaving at the cottage for our walk the next day. Still haven't converted the photos from RAW, but I shall try and get round to it tonight and post some to my portfolio.

Bud

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

03/23/2007 03:21:53 PM · #15

Well, as a fellow Sigma 18-200 zoom owner, I found myself in the identical situation. So, last year, I bought the Canon 70-300IS, which is a wonderfully sharp lens and beats the pants off my sigma for color and contrast.

I also purchased the Tamron 2x teleconverter, which works with either the Sigma 18-200 or the Canon 70-300IS, but without any autofocus. But, truth be told, besides a few photos of the moon, I rarely use my 2x telecoverter.

After all of this, I saw that Tamron offers a 200-500 zoom, which was is pretty sharp and inexpensive (around $800) and Tokina has a 200-400 zoom for around $650. I have tested the Tamron, and it is the best big zoom in that price range, but without IS, it is a bit big.

Best of luck and let us know what you decide.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/23/2007 03:38:45 PM · #16

Originally posted by aguapreta:

Best of luck and let us know what you decide.

Thanks. I got the Canon 100-400. I think I'm really going to enjoy the IS feature.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/23/2007 04:22:10 PM · #17

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I'm getting bored with the zoom provided by my Sigma 18-200, ...

I'd like to do more nature photography, birds in particular. I'd like to get as much reach as possible, ...

I think I might spend up to $3,000 Canadian today if there's a lens I like, and the service is good. I'm not even sure whether I want to get a lens that allows zooming or not, "L-glass" I think it's called, my concern being if I'm too close to the subject to include some surroundings or other subjects.

What I find fascinating is no one has suggested a different camera, like a Canon D5 or other 'larger format' camera, rather than a different lens. What blows me away is that what you are really asking for is a wider field of view and that is format size dependent.

You say you want to include more surroundings and the only way that is possible is to either use a lens at a wider FOV and hence a lower focal length or with a camera that has a fundamentally wider field of view than you have with the 350D with the lenses you have. Ironically, what you are asking for was 'normal' with a 35mm camera or today with Canon 5D dSLR. You might want to consider a new camera body rather than a new lens.

Message edited by author 2007-03-23 16:23:43.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/23/2007 04:29:32 PM · #18

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'm getting bored with the zoom provided by my Sigma 18-200, ...

I'd like to do more nature photography, birds in particular. I'd like to get as much reach as possible, ...

I think I might spend up to $3,000 Canadian today if there's a lens I like, and the service is good. I'm not even sure whether I want to get a lens that allows zooming or not, "L-glass" I think it's called, my concern being if I'm too close to the subject to include some surroundings or other subjects.

What I find fascinating is no one has suggested a different camera, like a Canon D5 or other 'larger format' camera, rather than a different lens. What blows me away is that what you are really asking for is a wider field of view and that is format size dependent.

You say you want to include more surroundings and the only way that is possible is to either use a lens at a wider FOV and hence a lower focal length or with a camera that has a fundamentally wider field of view than you have with the 350D with the lenses you have. Ironically, what you are asking for was 'normal' with a 35mm camera or today with Canon 5D dSLR. You might want to consider a new camera body rather than a new lens.

I think I was unclear. I meant I wanted the option to zoom in or out, as sometimes I find myself closer to my subjects. With a non-zooming (fov-changing) lens I wouldn't have that option.

I'm confused (read, ignorant) about the difference that a different body would make. :-O

(I went out & bought the lens a number of posts ago. I'm impulsive that way.)

Message edited by author 2007-03-23 16:31:46.

Jedusi

03/23/2007 05:28:12 PM · #19

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by aguapreta:
Best of luck and let us know what you decide.

Thanks. I got the Canon 100-400. I think I'm really going to enjoy the IS feature.

The IS is great. This shot is taken handheld at 1/80 at 285mm.

It looks sharp enough to me :- )

While I said earlier it 's a bit of a beast, I do still carry it all over the place and take most of my shot's handheld. It was worth every penny. enjoy it - and if it helps I'm sure Art Roflmao could make you an authentic looking receipt for $100 with his art work :0 )

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/23/2007 05:33:17 PM · #20

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I'm confused (read, ignorant) about the difference that a different body would make.

A Canon 5D would give you a wider field of view (but also considerably less reach with a telephoto lens). A 400mm lens = 640mm on your Rebel, but only 400mm on a 5D.

Message edited by author 2007-03-23 17:34:32.

PGerst

Canon EOS-20D

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

03/23/2007 08:47:16 PM · #21

Strikeslip:
Just to clarify on the difference in focal length: if you look at the ratio between 640/400 it is 1.6. Its called the focal length multiplier. This is essentially due to the fact that the lenses are "calibrated" to a 35mm film equivalent. The chip size in a Canon Rebel is smaller than the 5D, and thus smaller than a 35mm negative. You also don't capture the full field of view.

Just read that link and it should clarify the difference.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'm confused (read, ignorant) about the difference that a different body would make.

A Canon 5D would give you a wider field of view (but also considerably less reach with a telephoto lens). A 400mm lens = 640mm on your Rebel, but only 400mm on a 5D.

super-dave

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

03/23/2007 09:53:17 PM · #22

Originally posted by scalvert:

A Canon 5D would give you a wider field of view (but also considerably less reach with a telephoto lens). A 400mm lens = 640mm on your Rebel, but only 400mm on a 5D.

this is exactly why i'm not bothered about full frame cameras. i enjoy the extra reach. my 300mm becomes about 450mm. that's good enough for me! :)