Help with long lens decision... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM

12/27/2007 12:40:46 AM · #1

So, I have decided I want to branch out into a longer lens. I am thinking something in the 400-600mm range.

I have a couple of options I am trying to decide between:

1. Stay with what I already have (Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 w/ 2X Tele)
Pro: No additional cost Con: A little short (400mm)
2. Buy a Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm)
Pro: Long lens (especially w/ 2x tele) Con: Cost
3. Buy a Nikon 300mm prime f/4 and use existing 2X tele
Pro: A little less expensive Con: Not a zoom

I am not so concerned with cost between any of these, but I really want SHARP images. I am trying to decide if the Bigma is sharp enough for me. I know the 300mm prime is laser sharp, but with a 2X tele, that might soften it up a bit.

Any ideas, suggestions, or comment you might have would be super helpful.

Thanks a million!

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

12/27/2007 01:04:08 AM · #2

Best that I can offer is here. Bjorn Rorslett
There is info about how the tele's perform with extenders in the evaluations. I use an older 300 4.5 a lot, and love the sharpness. I have not tried it with an extender, but I know that a good tripod is critical for sharpness at that focal length.

Tajhad

Canon EOS R

12/27/2007 01:22:52 AM · #3

A highjacking of thread I know - ignore if I'm being rude.
Do you have a similar comparison for the canon and the independant tele-converters ? (as the Bjorn Rorslett)

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

12/27/2007 01:30:12 AM · #4

I don't know if this helps or not with your Canon tele question, but according to the many reviews I read, the Kenko 2X Teleplus Pro300 got very good reviews, so that's the one I have. Kenko makes the same tele with a canon mount. Optics and everything else are identical.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

12/27/2007 01:31:11 AM · #5

Have you considered the Nikon 80-400 VR? It is pretty sharp in good light but suffers a little with slow focus in low light. A little short of the range you want though. I was in the same boat and use to have a Tamron 200-500. I missed it and purchased the Nikon 80-400 because it is much sharper. To get what I really want I would have to spend 7K on a Nikon 500 F4.

Message edited by author 2007-12-27 01:32:24.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

12/27/2007 01:48:21 AM · #6

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Have you considered the Nikon 80-400 VR?

To get what I really want I would have to spend 7K on a Nikon 500 F4.

My ultimate lens would probably be the 500mm prime as well. But since I quit robbing banks last year, I'll have to pass on that one for a while. :)

I looked at the 80-400, but I was thinking that my 80-200 2.8 with 2X on it would serve about the same purpose. I really love my 80-200 and it's decent with the 2X on it, so I think I would like a little more length like 500 or 600.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

12/27/2007 03:35:06 AM · #7

Originally posted by jahoward:

Turn in Jahoward and use the reward to get a 500mm f/4.

Camabs

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

12/27/2007 04:43:13 AM · #8

Originally posted by jahoward:

If SHARP is what you want in CAPITALS, a PRIME is your only choice. Teleconverters do not soften your image afaik, they do make you loose light though, and ofcourse a longer focal lenght makes handheld shooting harder. The Kenko converters have a very good rep and are not as extremely expensive as those by Nikon and Canon. I heard that Tamron converters are made by Kenko as well, but I haven't been able to check that.

The Bigma is sharp for a zoom, but not as a sharp as a prime. It is even a bit soft @500mm. Bottom line is, don't buy a 50-500 if you are looking for the 400-600 range.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

12/27/2007 05:19:11 AM · #9

Originally posted by mark_u_U:

... Teleconverters do not soften your image afaik, they do make you loose light though...

From what I have seen, using a 2x converter does, indeed, degrade the image quality, especially with the aperture of the lens wide open. However, if stopped down to f/11, quality is greatly improved.

12/27/2007 11:11:51 AM · #10

Thanks for all the input guys.

As this point, I guess I am trying to figure out which is going to be a sharper option:

1. Sigma 50-500mm
2. Nikon 300mm Prime w/ 2X Tele

Some of the images I've seen with the Sigma are still very sharp. I have a feeling a lot of it has to do with technique and the use of a sturdy tripod. I know that the 300mm has awesome sharpness, I don't know what it would look like with a 2X tele on it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/27/2007 04:13:01 PM · #11

I think I am leaning towards the 300mm f/4 prime lens with my existing 2X tele. The lens I am looking at is an older one, but it does have AF, but not AF-S.

Do you think this is the right choice?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/27/2007 04:36:53 PM · #12

I have yet to see any MTF data, and the crop sensor might help, but I just cannot bring myself to believe that a 3rd party can obtain sharpness out of a zoom with 10x range.

Can anybody prove me wrong?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

12/27/2007 05:00:23 PM · #13

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I just cannot bring myself to believe that a 3rd party can obtain sharpness out of a zoom with 10x range.

I agree with you doc. That's my only hang up on this lens. If someone can tell me that it's super sharp and all the fuzzy pictures on the internet from this lens are due to camera shake, then I'm sold on it.

JeffryZ

Nikon D80

12/27/2007 05:12:03 PM · #14

At the long end, the Sigma is f/6.3 which is not that fast if speed is an issue. It also weighs in at about four pounds. I would imagine a tripod would be critical with it.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/27/2007 05:25:45 PM · #15

Here's what would concern me:

The Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Lens shows a little barrel distortion at 50mm and moderate pincushion distortion over most of the rest of the focal length range. Distortion is less noticeable at longer distances (not unusual). Flare is well controlled on the wide end, but increases to very strong with the sun touching the corner of the frame at the longer focal lengths. Stopping down helps - I haven't had flare issues when actually using this lens.

The Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Lens is decently sharp wide open in the center at 50mm through 200mm but degrades rapidly to soft at 300mm and beyond. Corners are not as sharp as centers (not unusual), but are not bad wide open until the longer focal lengths. 200mm seems to be a sweet spot for this lens. Stopping down 1 and especially 2 stops makes a big difference in the results.

However, stopping down an already slow lens with no image stabilization means you need a lot of light or high ISO settings to stop subject motion. To handhold this lens at the longer focal lengths, you need a lot of light, high ISO settings or a support such as a tripod - and a relatively still subject. The Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Lens' 9-blade aperture gets narrow fast - going from f/4 @ 50mm to f/4.5 at 57mm to f/5.0 at 72mm to f/5.6 at 116mm to f/6.3 at 417mm.

(from the-digital-picture.com)

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

12/27/2007 07:28:54 PM · #16

There are some comparisons of these lenses with converters etc, most show the results to be acceptable around f/11 or so with not much in the way of choices. Try googling? searching the forums?

I would recommend using a 1.4x TC over a 2x since I've heard that the performance is notably different. I've used a 2x in daylight with my 80-200 and results were OK.

If price is an object, you are pretty much guaranteed to be making a compromise and that compromise is pretty much going to be using a tripod and stopping wayyyyy down.

Incidentally Doc, the comparison I speak of above shows the Bigma to be pretty close in some situations to name brand lenses, but only stopped down and when combined with TC's for equivalent lengths.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

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

12/27/2007 09:04:58 PM · #17

Originally posted by jahoward:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Have you considered the Nikon 80-400 VR?

To get what I really want I would have to spend 7K on a Nikon 500 F4.

My ultimate lens would probably be the 500mm prime as well. But since I quit robbing banks last year, I'll have to pass on that one for a while. :)

I looked at the 80-400, but I was thinking that my 80-200 2.8 with 2X on it would serve about the same purpose. I really love my 80-200 and it's decent with the 2X on it, so I think I would like a little more length like 500 or 600.

My experience in using a 1.4 TC and a 1.7 TC with my Nikon 70-200 VR have been good but with the 1.7 you still have to stop down and have good light. That is why I decided to try the 80-400 VR. I get a little more reach with only a half stop slower lens (f4.8 with the 1.7 TC vs. f5.6) and still keep VR. It is still to early to tell if I will be happier with the sharpness as weather here has been horriblr since I got it.

In any case my guess is that using a 10x zoom will be a disapointmnet for you. Same if you try to push a decent lens with a 2x TC.

Good luck with your search.