Posted by Jess Williams on February 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Hi everyone,
I'm new to NPN and I have been thoroughly enjoying the avian galleries. I am focusing on macro right now, but it's really a secondary passion of mine. Birds are what get me out shooting. I'm addicted to birds.
I'm inventive and I am no stranger to using the surroundings as a blind, staying in one position until you're stiff, knowing where less timid birds hang out, etc.
However, my "entry level" Sigma 70-300mm (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ALLMI8/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1 )is still just not the right lens for this and I am often disappointed that I can't get the range I need.
I have a few more months of saving before I can even consider a better lens, so I wondered if you all could give me some insight on telephoto converters. Will a converter help me here? I fear my old Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag and a converter will only cause more quality loss, but maybe not?
Any advice would be much appreciated! Spring is right around the corner. :)
Thanks,
Jess
Posted by Mia McPherson on February 19, 2013 at 1:01 PM
You should check with the manufacturer but I doubt that a teleconverter can be used with this lens because it is f4-5.6
Posted by Brian Gatlin on February 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM
Hi Jess, welcome to NPN!
You don't say what camera body you're using, but Mia is right--you will probably lose autofocus by adding a teleconverter. When you attach a 1.4x TC to your lens, the maximum aperture you can shoot at goes up a stop--meaning instead of 5.6, you'll be shooting wide open at f/8. Most camera bodies can't autofocus with a lens with maximum aperture above f/5.6 (some pro bodies can). Losing autofocus when shooting birds is a big deal. Also, like you say, there will definitely be some loss of image quality as well, more noticeable the lower the quality of the original lens. The expensive primes can handle a TC with little loss of quality, but cheaper lenses show more degradation. Hang in there, save up, and use your inventiveness in the meantime. Looking forward to seeing your work.
Posted by Jess Williams on February 19, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Thanks for the info - I am obviously going to need to learn a lot about lenses in general. :) I have a Canon Rebel XTi, to answer the question about body types.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I don't want to spend money on something that will possibly get me more range with quality loss - I want something that will get me a sharper image. I won't be able to afford a BIG lens for quite some time, but I can replace my Sigma with something better, even if the max is 300mm.
So, thanks for indulging me on this train of thought...
Posted by Jim DeWitt on February 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Jess -
Welcome to NPN. Apart from the risk of loss of autofocus - something you can test in a camera shop - my experience is that with zoom lenses a teleconverter simply can't give you a sharp image. As an example, I use a 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter with my 300mm f2.8 and get very good results. But if I try it with my 90-250mm f2.8, the image quality is unacceptable. Again, you can go to almost any camera shop and try for yourself. Try taking a photo of a highly detailed picture.
So I agree with Brian. Save for money for a high-quality prime lens. You'll never regret it.
Oh, and you'll find a lot of folks here who share your addiction to birds.
Posted by Luke Ormand on February 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM
I would consider a 300mm f4 + 1.7X (or 1.4X) teleconverter which would put you at or near 500mm on that camera. Almost all of my bird images are shot using this combo (on a nikon setup). Also, Canon makes a 400mm f/5.6 lens which is quite popular with bird photographers and not terribly expensive.
I would check out canon. I shoot with a 7D, but also owned the XT for many years. If I remember correctly its 8 mp and only has the Digic II processor. Your camera also doesn't do video, which I found most helpfull when pinpointing a Great Tailed Grackled. Right now I use my 70-300, but I'm thinking, I need to just bump up and get an extender for my new 70-200 f2.8L IS lens. My 3.5-5.6 does get perfect auto focus. So I have to disagree with the poster that said you couldnt get autofocus . The 1.6 crop factor on your chip gives you actually a 112-480 mm lens, same thing with your sigma. In order to get 35mm equivelant you have to times the 70x1.6, and the 300x1.6, that is the equivalent of your lens now. I use strictly Canon. So I don't know much about Sigma. The newer cameras have HD video 18 mp and the Digic 4 processor. I would call 1-800-okcanon and speak to an SLR agent. I hope this helped. :)
Posted by Greg Lessard on February 19, 2013 at 6:20 PM
Hi Jess,
If you have the discipline and patience, you should start the big lens fund. Spending money on shorter lenses and a tc can tide you over until the fund matures. You might want to consider diversifying your portfolio in mutual funds
Seriously set aside the daily cup of coffee and a dinner once a week and you'll be there in about two years. Good luck. It's worth the effort!
I second what Luke said. I recently rented the canon 300 f/4 and a Canon 1.4 tc and got decent results on my 7D. Much better than my Sigma 80 - 400. Got that advice from this board. Glad I listened.
Posted by Jess Williams on February 19, 2013 at 6:45 PM
Thanks so much for the advice - I can see that I have a lot of research to do. :)
I think my plan right now would be to do the following:
1. Buy a replacement for my Sigma 70-300mm. I need something under $400 that is better quality.
2. Save for the BIG lens. :)
My new Sigma macro is a prime and oh my is it ever gorgeous. I have now owned two primes and the quality of both is much much better than my telephoto.
So, any suggestions on a replacement for my Sigma 70-300mm are appreciated!
Jess
Posted by David Bostedo on February 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Buy a replacement for my Sigma 70-300mm. I need something under $400 that is better quality.
It sounds like you have two problems : both better reach (longer than 300mm) and better quality.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that will solve either of those problems for less than about $1000. The Canon 70-300's in that price range won't be significantly better than the one you have. And longer lenses than 300mm universally cost a LOT. The most likely options for you under $2000, and their current prices at B&H :
Tamron 200-500 : $949
Sigma 150-500 : $1059
Canon 400 f/5.6 L : $1339
Canon 300 f/4 L : $1339
Canon 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 L : $1439
Canon 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 L : $1699
I can't comment on these directly, not being a Canon shooter (though the Sigma and Tamron lenses in this range are not as well reviewed as the Canon's). But you'll find that with lenses (as you've seen with your primes), given the amount of technical scrutiny they get, you generally do get what you pay for in terms of performance.
Posted by Jess Williams on February 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Thanks for the rundown, David. I am afraid at this point I need a lens with better quality more than a lens with longer reach. Or I need some guidance on how to get the most out of my lower quality lens. Or I need to win the lottery. :)
If I had a lens that was even 30% better quality than my current telephoto I would be happy with that for the next year or two while I save up for a better lens. The options you posted above are definitely doable but not right away.
Not to open up another can of worms, but what does everyone think of buying used lenses?
Posted by David Bostedo on February 19, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Jess - You can use the lens comparator from The Digital Picture to get some idea of the difference between lenses for Canon cameras. Pick a lens for each side and hopefully the same body, focal length, and aperture (if available) and it will flip between the two lens images as you move the mouse back and forth. You can check the same lens at different apertures and focal lengths too.
Most zoom lenses - particularly cheaper ones - will likely be much better in the middle ranges of both focal length and aperture than otherwise. For instance, your lens is probably much better at, say, 200mm and f/8 than it is at 300mm and f/5.6. It might be worth doing some testing yourself to see how much improvement you get by backing off the focal length a little or closing the aperture. Of course, that may not suit the types of shots you want to take.
Unfortunately, they don't typically have the cheaper lenses, so maybe not much luck there. If someone here has used your lens, or other entry level 70-300 lenses, and the more expensive ones, maybe they could help. You may also want to read through the reviews on the big online cameras stores like B&H, Adorama, Calumet, etc.
As far as buying used lenses, that can be a great idea. There have been a few threads on here talking about it. The most reputable places tend to be the forums here, on Naturescapes and Fred Miranda, and KEH, B&H, and Adorama stores.
Posted by Jess Williams on February 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM
David,
Thank you so much for the information! This group is so helpful and friendly, I am really grateful for the guidance.
I will spend some time researching this weekend, but I definitely want to try some tests with my lens, as well.
Discussion
13 repliesI'm new to NPN and I have been thoroughly enjoying the avian galleries. I am focusing on macro right now, but it's really a secondary passion of mine. Birds are what get me out shooting. I'm addicted to birds.
I'm inventive and I am no stranger to using the surroundings as a blind, staying in one position until you're stiff, knowing where less timid birds hang out, etc.
However, my "entry level" Sigma 70-300mm (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ALLMI8/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1 )is still just not the right lens for this and I am often disappointed that I can't get the range I need.
I have a few more months of saving before I can even consider a better lens, so I wondered if you all could give me some insight on telephoto converters. Will a converter help me here? I fear my old Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag and a converter will only cause more quality loss, but maybe not?
Any advice would be much appreciated! Spring is right around the corner. :)
Thanks,
Jess
You don't say what camera body you're using, but Mia is right--you will probably lose autofocus by adding a teleconverter. When you attach a 1.4x TC to your lens, the maximum aperture you can shoot at goes up a stop--meaning instead of 5.6, you'll be shooting wide open at f/8. Most camera bodies can't autofocus with a lens with maximum aperture above f/5.6 (some pro bodies can). Losing autofocus when shooting birds is a big deal. Also, like you say, there will definitely be some loss of image quality as well, more noticeable the lower the quality of the original lens. The expensive primes can handle a TC with little loss of quality, but cheaper lenses show more degradation. Hang in there, save up, and use your inventiveness in the meantime. Looking forward to seeing your work.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I don't want to spend money on something that will possibly get me more range with quality loss - I want something that will get me a sharper image. I won't be able to afford a BIG lens for quite some time, but I can replace my Sigma with something better, even if the max is 300mm.
So, thanks for indulging me on this train of thought...
Welcome to NPN. Apart from the risk of loss of autofocus - something you can test in a camera shop - my experience is that with zoom lenses a teleconverter simply can't give you a sharp image. As an example, I use a 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter with my 300mm f2.8 and get very good results. But if I try it with my 90-250mm f2.8, the image quality is unacceptable. Again, you can go to almost any camera shop and try for yourself. Try taking a photo of a highly detailed picture.
So I agree with Brian. Save for money for a high-quality prime lens. You'll never regret it.
Oh, and you'll find a lot of folks here who share your addiction to birds.
If you have the discipline and patience, you should start the big lens fund. Spending money on shorter lenses and a tc can tide you over until the fund matures. You might want to consider diversifying your portfolio in mutual funds
Seriously set aside the daily cup of coffee and a dinner once a week and you'll be there in about two years. Good luck. It's worth the effort!
I think my plan right now would be to do the following:
1. Buy a replacement for my Sigma 70-300mm. I need something under $400 that is better quality.
2. Save for the BIG lens. :)
My new Sigma macro is a prime and oh my is it ever gorgeous. I have now owned two primes and the quality of both is much much better than my telephoto.
So, any suggestions on a replacement for my Sigma 70-300mm are appreciated!
Jess
It sounds like you have two problems : both better reach (longer than 300mm) and better quality.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that will solve either of those problems for less than about $1000. The Canon 70-300's in that price range won't be significantly better than the one you have. And longer lenses than 300mm universally cost a LOT. The most likely options for you under $2000, and their current prices at B&H :
Tamron 200-500 : $949
Sigma 150-500 : $1059
Canon 400 f/5.6 L : $1339
Canon 300 f/4 L : $1339
Canon 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 L : $1439
Canon 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 L : $1699
I can't comment on these directly, not being a Canon shooter (though the Sigma and Tamron lenses in this range are not as well reviewed as the Canon's). But you'll find that with lenses (as you've seen with your primes), given the amount of technical scrutiny they get, you generally do get what you pay for in terms of performance.
If I had a lens that was even 30% better quality than my current telephoto I would be happy with that for the next year or two while I save up for a better lens. The options you posted above are definitely doable but not right away.
Not to open up another can of worms, but what does everyone think of buying used lenses?
For instance, here's the comparison between the Canon 70-300 IS USM, and Tamron 70-300 Di VC USD. Those are both moderately expensive lenses - around $600.
Most zoom lenses - particularly cheaper ones - will likely be much better in the middle ranges of both focal length and aperture than otherwise. For instance, your lens is probably much better at, say, 200mm and f/8 than it is at 300mm and f/5.6. It might be worth doing some testing yourself to see how much improvement you get by backing off the focal length a little or closing the aperture. Of course, that may not suit the types of shots you want to take.
Unfortunately, they don't typically have the cheaper lenses, so maybe not much luck there. If someone here has used your lens, or other entry level 70-300 lenses, and the more expensive ones, maybe they could help. You may also want to read through the reviews on the big online cameras stores like B&H, Adorama, Calumet, etc.
As far as buying used lenses, that can be a great idea. There have been a few threads on here talking about it. The most reputable places tend to be the forums here, on Naturescapes and Fred Miranda, and KEH, B&H, and Adorama stores.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=71601&CGISESSID=eb53108ca57cbdb598fc186cee34f743&u=15522
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=52224&CGISESSID=eb53108ca57cbdb598fc186cee34f743&u=15522
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=52221&CGISESSID=eb53108ca57cbdb598fc186cee34f743&u=15522
Good luck!
Thank you so much for the information! This group is so helpful and friendly, I am really grateful for the guidance.
I will spend some time researching this weekend, but I definitely want to try some tests with my lens, as well.
Thanks again!
Jess