Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Tradscot
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Dec 31, 2013 03:32:49   #
Heirloom Tomato wrote:
My favorite show was Inner Sanctum. We had a smaller radio that sat on the floor. I would curl myself around it and listen to Inner Sanctum.

My cousins and I would turn the lights off and have only the light of the radio dial.....this particular night the Roller Blind " let go" 60 years later they are still trying to repair the ceiling!!! They were the "good ol days!,"
Bill.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 21:33:47   #
Robin Poole wrote:
Bill, Thanks for checking out my photos. Hope you liked them. Robin

I certainly did! Bill.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 21:32:16   #
BigBear wrote:
Check out SwampGator's photos. He uses the 100-400 and a 1.4 tc. I hope to do as well someday (I hope soon).

Big Bear, we all need to have something to aim for, I think you, and I have that something to aim for ................and hopefully one day, achieve .
Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 21:05:12   #
greg vescuso wrote:
I have the sigma 150-500 and have had great results with it. I have recently bought the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 and couldn't be happier with it, if they are coming out with a new zoom to 600mm I would wait and add that lens to your comparison.

Thanks Greg, advice taken, will wait, the wife is now smiling, Santa is not!
Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 21:01:25   #
jimbrown3 wrote:
I have the 150-500 Sigma. I recently purchased the 100-400L. I made a comparison with both at 400mm f11. I am returning the Canon L. The Sigma lens was sharper. I shoot birds so the longer the better. I found both lenses equally difficult to hand hold. I use a Canon 5D III and find a monopod with gimbal head gives me stability and more flexibility than a tripod.

Thanks Jim, appreciate your comments, I guess the next decision will be that of tripod/ equipment but won't go there until the lens question is resolved!
Regards, Bill.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:50:07   #
bobmcculloch wrote:
For wildlife I think I'd go with the Sigma, highly spoken of, Bob.


Thanks for your comment Bob, I really thought this would be an easy choice based on the reviews and the input of the UHH members, now the Tamron 150-600 mm has been put into the mix, I will defer the decision until the new contenders are released and critiqued.
Regards, Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:40:19   #
ASR666 wrote:
the 100-400 is lighter and fast focusing. the push - pull zoom takes a bit of getting used to. Versatile and can be used for sports, birding. can be used hand held if you crank up the ISO a bit. Sharp, wide open.

the 150-500 is more a tripod lens, stopped down to f8 its sharp and produces good results. heavier and slower focusing than the 100-400 but you get an extra 100mm.

Thanks for your comments. I think I will wait until the Tamron 150-600 is released and reassess the whole thing again. Appreciate your input.
Regards, Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:34:53   #
greg vescuso wrote:
I have the sigma 150-500 and have had great results with it. I have recently bought the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 and couldn't be happier with it, if they are coming out with a new zoom to 600mm I would wait and add that lens to your comparison.

Thanks Greg, I guess there is not much more to do except wait!
Regards, Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:32:42   #
Robin Poole wrote:
Tradscot, Wild life is my target also some scenery. I only use Sigma lenses on Sigma cameras. When I have time to focus I believe the pics come out very sharp. You could check out my web site for verification:
www.robinsnaturepics.smugmug.com. All were taken with the Sigma 120-300mm plus extenders and their 300-800mm telephotos. If the Sigma only opens up to f/8 I'd recommend going for an f/5,6 or better apt. A lot of wild life is shot at the beginning or end of the day and you need all the light you can get. If you can tolerate grain shoot in the high ISO range. Good Luck, Robin
Tradscot, Wild life is my target also some scener... (show quote)

Thanks for your reply Robin, I thought the choice would be relatively easy, but it's not. Liked your photos, nice! At my level of ability, I can tolerate almost anything, makes for a basis for improvement.........and at times, frustration!
Regards, Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:24:17   #
mborn wrote:
When I used the sigma 150-500 I liked it and now my son is using it and getting great Pictures


Thanks for your comment Bob, seems the start of a family tradition is well under way.
Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:20:05   #
Bill Emmett wrote:
I agree with "bigwolf40" on this thread. Tamron has come a long way since they introduced the Tamron 200-500mm lens a few years ago. Tamron has just introduced the Tamron SP 150-600mm VC USD lens. Note, this lens will have SP glass, which is Tamrons version of "L" quality, and their new version of VC (Vibration Control). Since this lens is "SP" it will come with Tamrons own software for RAW processing. I just bought the Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD lens, and have used the included software. Mostly it removes over 90% of chromatic aberration, from the RAW image. The cost of the lens has not been announced yet, but should be available in mid February. Take a look at Canon Rumors website, not only is the Tamron listed there but other "rumored" lens are there too, including Canon.
I agree with "bigwolf40" on this thread.... (show quote)

Thanks Bill, I had not even considered Tamron but as a result of the info coming out about the " new " lens I guess it's back to the drawing board. news.cnet.com has prices and release details and dpreview.com has the technical specs of this 150-600mm biggie. Just as well I'm not in a hurry!
Regards, Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 20:12:08   #
bobmcculloch wrote:
For wildlife I think I'd go with the Sigma, highly spoken of, Bob.

Thanks Bob, appreciate your thoughts!
Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 05:41:32   #
amehta wrote:
BTW, Bill, I was just looking at some underwater pictures from the reef off Cairns, it was awesome!

Thanks for your input, yes our reefs and the Coral sea are spectacular, just too many bities swimming around for my liking. Made for tourists maybe!!!!
Regards, Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 05:38:20   #
SharpShooter wrote:
Tradscot, you already have a pretty good range covered, and with some overlap. By nature, do you mean birds? For birds you are never going to be long enough. Panos actually are pretty different.
If your doing only birds, look at the Canon 400 prime.
If a combo of birds and bigger animals, I would look at the Canon 100-400.
The zoom will also take a 1.4x well if you tape the pins.
Look at a site called JuzaPhoto. He does a lot of comparisons between Sigmas and Canons.
For versatality, the 100-400 is the best choice, but also the most money.
Personally I've never used a Sigma, and of the tons I've read about them, not likely I ever will. Do your research. "The-digital-picture" also does VERY indepth testing and has a comparison feature. Look closely at the empirical
data. Better than taking my word for it.

Good luck
SS
Tradscot, you already have a pretty good range cov... (show quote)

Thanks for the links, JuzaPhoto spells it out very well! Not much between any of them really. I hope to get to the Badlands Rendevous next year and the Sigma may just leave me enough for gas money!! Appreciate your input.
Bill
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 05:33:29   #
ebrunner wrote:
I don't know much about the lenses you mentioned because I don't shoot Canon. I bought a Sigma 150-500 VR zoom for birds and sports and such. I think the lens is very sharp and does a very good job. It is never going to be as good as, say, a 400mm prime; but then we are in a completely different price point with the zoom. You might want to give it some thought.


Thanks for your thoughts, seems more one looks at these considerations, the uncertain one gets!!!
Bill
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.