Skip to Content

Lens Advice Needed

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment

Moderator: lion queen

User avatar
Meinfam
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am
Location: RSA

70-200mm F 2.8 Lens

Unread postby Meinfam » Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:30 pm

I am looking to buy a Sigma 70-200mm F 2.8 EX APO DG HSM  Lens, specific for early morning and late afternoon shots.
Any comments on the range of 200mm with constant Æ’2.8.?
I tried to go to ISO400 to get better speed on Æ’4, but I prefer to shoot ISO100.
Do u think we need more than 200mm for that time of day ?
The 120-300 Æ’2.8 costs a lot more - is it worth it ??

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:57 pm

Question.
Are you going to use it for landschaping and the odd animal?

User avatar
Meinfam
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am
Location: RSA

Unread postby Meinfam » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:19 pm

Question.
Are you going to use it for landschaping and the odd animal?


Hope not. I am looking for a answer to the problem of taken photo's early morning, or late afternoon, without a flash of animals not to far.
In other words the hiena around the car or the lion sleeping in the road - on the tar for the heat. Not for images on the otherside of the waterhole - for that I will wait for good light and use the 500 or 800mm

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17941
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread postby DuQues » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:27 pm

Here are some userreviews. They rate it to near the sharpness and speed as the Canon and Nikon ones, so it must be a very good lens.
F/2.8 is close to the maximumspeed you can get, so if you can't get the shot at ISO 100 you will have to up the ISO. It must be pretty dark then...
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 Lens

Unread postby bert » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:39 pm

Meinƒam wrote:I am looking to buy a Sigma 70-200mm F 2.8 EX APO DG HSM  Lens, specific for early morning and late afternoon shots.
Any comments on the range of 200mm with constant Æ’2.8.?
I tried to go to ISO400 to get better speed on Æ’4, but I prefer to shoot ISO100.
Do u think we need more than 200mm for that time of day ?
The 120-300 Æ’2.8 costs a lot more - is it worth it ??


I myself only use Canon 4.0 L
70-200
and 300
Use both for first/late shots with ISO 50.

If i were you i would go for secondhand. In Holland the 2.8 lenses are sold of in a jiffy by photographers who go digital.
They prefer a lighter lens and believe that they achieve the same speed with 4.0 lens and 400 iso.

User avatar
Arie
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: Netherlands

Unread postby Arie » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:03 pm

MeinÆ’am wrote:Hope not. I am looking for a answer to the problem of taken photo's early morning, or late afternoon, without a flash of animals not to far.
In other words the hiena around the car or the lion sleeping in the road - on the tar for the heat.


For these type of subjects a focal distance of more than 200mm would be overdone. Besides, using f2.8 with 200 mm (or more) at short range would result in a very small depth of field. In these situations you would probably not use the f2.8.

For digital cameras Bert is right in his advise to use higher ISO-settings. I use a Nikon D100 which can shoot up to ISO800 without noticeable noise or loss of image quality. But with film you will most certainly loose on details and color saturation when using faster films.
Are you using a digital or analog camera?

User avatar
Meinfam
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am
Location: RSA

Unread postby Meinfam » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:16 pm

Arie
Are you using a digital or analog camera?


I am using a Sigma SD10 myself, up to ISO800 and Louise a Minolta 7D - 1600 ISO

Thanks DuQues - interesting reading.

User avatar
Arie
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: Netherlands

Unread postby Arie » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:42 pm

My suggestion is to buy the 70-200mm for it's overall quality, use higher iso-setting for late/early shots, and consider the f2.8 as a bonus which might be useful in some situations.

The site fredmiranda.com is indeed a very useful site. I allways take a look there before I buy a new lens or camera.

User avatar
Krokodile
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Wondering if I'll ever get back to SA!
Contact:

Unread postby Krokodile » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:23 pm

I own the 120-300mm F/2.8 and I love it to bits although it is heavy (2.6kg) and difficult to manoevre quickly. I wouldn't recommend it for quick shots of close up subjects although for use from a hide, for example, it is superb. The sheer size of it can make changing lenses in the front seat of a car a bit of a mission, so when it's on my camera, it's on for the whole day (hence the purchase of a 350d as well so we can use other lenses!).

User avatar
richardharris
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Location: Nottinghamshire UK

Unread postby richardharris » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:34 pm

I have the Canon 135 F2 and the 300 F4; I try very hard not to use either at max F number. As Arie has said depth of field really suffers at these apertures and I try for F8 if at all possible. Of course there are times when you want very little depth of field but that is not usually the case with wildlife photography.

Here is an example.

Image

As you can see the eyes etc are very sharp but the body is most definitely out of focus. I still like the shot but would have preferred a bit more depth. This was taken with the 300 at F4.5 160s iso 200 as a 'grab shot' early one morning; I then raised the iso for further shots.

Shoot RAW and then use a noise reduction program if noise bothers you when using iso 800 or faster. I use neat image but there are several others.

Bottom line; if you can afford the fast lens and don't mind the weight go for it - but do your best not to use its speed unless there is no other option!!

Richard

User avatar
Meinfam
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am
Location: RSA

Unread postby Meinfam » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:35 pm

Thanks for everyone's input. In the end I decided against buying it. Will go with higher ISO.

mervifwdc
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: Ireland

Unread postby mervifwdc » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:39 pm

I brought a 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens with me, and hardly ever used it! I used the 120-300 2.8 Sigma instead for early/late stuff, but could usually work at f5.6 or above. I only used 2.8 when I wanted to get a certain effect, or when an animal was behind grass etc and I wanted to have a narrow DOF.

During the day I used a 35-350L lens (discontinued) as it allowed me to do all day with no lens changes. Next time I will have a 1.4 extender with the 35-350 for all day stuff.

Merv.
Merv.

User avatar
Andreas Cierpka
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:38 pm
Location: Germany

Unread postby Andreas Cierpka » Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:06 pm

I do have the 70-200/2.8 and I'm quite happy with it.

User avatar
craigsa
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Johannesburg

Canon 100 - 400mm IS USM or Sigma 170 - 500mm

Unread postby craigsa » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:15 pm

Hey guys.

What you think one should go for, not thinking about the huge price difference!

Canon 100 - 400mm IS USM or Sigma 170 - 500mm

I am interested as to which one people would recommend more for wildlife?

Let me know, thanks
Craig
Planning next KNP trip!

User avatar
richardharris
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Location: Nottinghamshire UK

Unread postby richardharris » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:34 pm

Went to Kruger with some friends in December 2004 - I was using the Canon whilst Sue was using the Sigma. I think we both agreed that the Canon's quality was better - and the IS invaluable. But the extra reach was occasionally the winner with small birds etc.

The commonest reason for the best shot was sheer luck - which side of the car the creature appeared!

As an aside, and I have said it before (!), I have gone off zooms and now use a fixed 300 and 500. OK, this combination costs more - but I would rather have the 300F4 IS than the zoom. Quality is considerably better - and most of my shots were taken at 300-400 anyway.

Richard


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”