Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: swallowtail
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 next>>
Jul 1, 2014 06:32:51   #
Thanks lighthouse, they are very good considering the conditions they were taken under.

lighthouse wrote:
Sigma 150-500mm at 500mm, F/6.3 and 1/20th and 1/40th sec.
Can't remember if they were tripod mounted or handheld with vibration control, but the light was low, very low. Sun was already down I think.
Absolute worst conditions and settings for showing off this lens.
What you think?
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:39:43   #
More great shots, thank you for sharing. How big is small? I'm looking at 11-14cm and flighty, they don't sit still for long.

Gene51 wrote:
Little birds in shadows (ok, maybe not always in the shadows, but little): :)
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:37:24   #
I do try and creep close to them but they are a lot smarter than me!!!

RTFM wrote:
I also like to photograph those little birds in the shadows and discovered how testing these shots are for the equipment. I found using a 7D is not the best solution as the noise shows up over ISO 800. To cut a long story short I saved hard and ended up with a 5D MkIII and a 600L IS II, a MKIII 2x TC and MKIII 1.4 TC, 600EX flash, a carbon fibre tripod and a wimberley gimbal. With all that firepower you would think game over - alas the only way to get a good shot is to get closer...
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:35:41   #
Thank you.

lighthouse wrote:
Adorama do ship to Australia.
I got a 150-500mm plus another lens shipped out by them less than 3 months ago. About $140 postage.
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:35:00   #
Thanks for the comparison. I downloaded them to compare,wonderful shots and there is a big difference in quality, I just don't have much money to spend. Unless my Lottery numbers come up!!!

Gene51 wrote:
Here is a comparison with a superzoom (Sigma 50-500) and a 600 F4. The Sigma image is barely cropped and taken at its sharpest apeture, the 600 F4 images were taken wide open at about 350 ft and heavily cropped. There is no substitute for good optics.
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:31:09   #
Hi gemlenz, unfortunately I have very shallow pockets. I'm going to look at the Tamron if I can find a store wiyh one in stock and will also look at the Sigma. Thank you.

gemlenz wrote:
Of course a lot depends on how deep your pockets are. If money was no concern I'd choose of the 3 you listed, Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with a 1.4X converter. The 2X converter may cause OOF images.

Next, I would go with the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM which has good reviews and priced much lower than the 300.

That's my 2 cents.
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:27:43   #
Hi Erv, they are wonderful shots, beautiful bird. Thank you.

Erv wrote:
Hi again Anne. Take a look here. I just shot this last week at work. He was 75-100 yards away. And I have to crop big time for these pictures. Let me know if you think they are not sharp.:):) The 28-300 is a great lens to have on your camera!
Erv

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-222415-1.html
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:24:45   #
Hi David, I have looked up reflex lense as I didn't know what they were. Looks very interesting but don"t think I would be happy with it. Thank you for the suggestion though, and I have learnt something.

djenrette wrote:
Have you thought about getting a reflex lens? They are really inexpensive (even new ones) and you can learn a great deal from using them.

I have had 600mm (f/4 and f/5.6) lenses and I can not justify the expense and the back breaking weight, [I use my photography as a business and there is no way I could make a profit on super long lenses] but I do have a Nikkor 500mm f/8 that is pretty good even if rather limited with respect to f/stop. I even use it with a TC-14B. And you can avoid the donut shaped bokeh in many cases if you are careful.

But you can learn a lot using one. And you don't have to tell the pixel peepers what lens you used ...

David Jenrette
Have you thought about getting a reflex lens? The... (show quote)
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:16:30   #
Thanks speters, this seems to be the opinion of quite a few people. I'm going to try and find a store that has one in stock to have a look at.

speters wrote:
The 300/f4 with the 2x converter would not give you the best IQ and the AF would be a tad slow as well, in my opinion, the best one of your group would be the new Tamron, it has the most reach and it is a better lens than the Sigma!
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:12:54   #
Hi pattitwins, I would be very interested in your opinion of the Tamron. Hope you enjoy it. Get well soon and enjoy your trip to Alaska.

pattitwins wrote:
Hi!
Just yesterday, I bought a Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 DI VC USD. actually, it was a gift from my husband for our 40th anniversary. Hoping to cruise Alaska once my health improves.
From all the research and recommendations, that is the lens I picked.
But.....it is big!
I will keep you posted when I really begin using it.
Have a great day!
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:09:57   #
Thanks Gene51, Great images, I don't think I'd be happy with only 300mm reach, reckon I'm going to have to comprimise and look at the Tamron.

Gene51 wrote:
Doesn't work with a TC - sharpness is pretty bad at 300mm, it is F5.6 at 300, and to get usable sharpness you need to stop down to F8, so effectively you will be shooting at F11 and the quality will be pretty bad.

If you are set on using a TC, the 300 F2.8 will be a first choice, and if you use an F4 version, then at least your image quality will still be excellent. The 28-300 is an all-around superzoom that does nothing exceptional - ok for snapshots, but there are better lenses with less reach that are really pretty good. I have used 3 different copies, a friend's and two out of Nikon's NPS program - I am not a fan - though I had high hopes that it would be at least as good as my 18-200 was on my cropped cameras. It isn't even close. And it you are looking for quality at 300mm, then you should be looking elsewhere. If you don't mind buying used and third party, I am sure you can find a Sigma 100-300 F4, which does satisfy my quality standard, and can be found in great shape for $500-$600. I paid $550 for mine a year ago. Images taken with it rival my 600 F4, except for the bokeh, which can be a little "nervous" sometimes.

The first three attached images were all taken with the Sigma 100-300 and a D800 and cropped considerably.

The last one was with a 600mm F4

As you can see, the image quality is comparable.
Doesn't work with a TC - sharpness is pretty bad a... (show quote)
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 05:05:16   #
Hi imagemeister, thank you, I did think of buying a better body but then could not afford to buy the longer lense, Think I might try and find a store that has the Tamron and have a look at it.

imagemeister wrote:
Anne, if you had a better camera body, I would say that the 300f4 with a Tamron SP 1.4X TC would be your best option especially in lower light. ( better focus and better high ISO ) - and you would need to be on a monopod using good sharpness techniques to maximize the IQ - so you could do some cropping and up-sizing in post process. Without the better body, the Tamron is the next best option ( if you can get one).
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 04:59:18   #
Wish I wasn't on such a tight budget.

wj cody wrote:
always a prime lens and a nice heavy tripod
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 04:57:46   #
Thanks ronjay, I will try and find a store that has the Tamron 150-600mm in stock and have a look at it. think this is going to be more within my budget and I do need the extra reach. Have looked at second hand primes today and they seem to hold their price. I know that I wouldn't get the shots I want with a 300mm. A lot of the birds I want to photograph are about 11-14cm and very skittish.

ronjay wrote:
I have the Canon 100-400mm and the Tamron 150-600mm. For the price i would go with the tam 600 for sure. Image quality is the same but you get 200mm more and $500.00 less.
Go to
Jul 1, 2014 04:49:51   #
Thanks for the information Erv. Have had a look at your Blue Heron shots, they are very good.

Erv wrote:
You have to be careful putting a TC on zooms. The glass on the lens and TC will hit and break if you zoom in. I have a Bowwer I use on it once in a while that does pretty good. But just the lens alone works great by it's self. I never try to shoot a mile away.:):) If you look at my post about the Blue Heron, he was about 75-100 yards away from me. And the shots I posted were cropped as tight as I could get them.:):) Just click on my user name and hit the list button. Most of what I put on the site is with the 28-300.
Erv
You have to be careful putting a TC on zooms. The ... (show quote)
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.