Skip to Content

Sigma Lenses

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
Meg
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:12 pm
Location: Lowvelder in Brisbane

Unread post by Meg » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:33 pm

Awesome! (hopefully Danie can move the thread :) )

Out of interest, what made you choose the 170-500 over the 50-500? As I've only really looked into the latter and am pretty ignorant about the 170-500, so would be very interested to hear about your investigations.

The 500mm will be awesome in Kruger! You shooting Velvia?
Mothers hold their children's hands for a while and their hearts forever

User avatar
DvZ
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Polokwane, Limpopo Province

Unread post by DvZ » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:42 pm

Bought some ISO 200 Fuji (don't think it is Velvia) also some Kodak ISO200 Gold.

Once I got the hang of the lens, I will look at the better film.

Although the Fuji is 4 x colour layers. I have good results with it on 70-300mm lens.

Regarding the lens, they only had the 170-500. I tried it on a Canon in the shop. Looked pretty awsome, only thing is not much of an angle.

My next lens is going to be the 70-300mmm Sigma.

I might look at getting a 2x converter with it.

The guy in the shop was telling me, when I convert to digital, the 170-500 will actually have the effect of 272-800mm because of the sensors on digital being much stronger (1.6 x)

I sound like a professional here (and I have only just started)

User avatar
bwana
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Unread post by bwana » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:47 pm

Meg wrote:Awesome! (hopefully Danie can move the thread :) )

Out of interest, what made you choose the 170-500 over the 50-500? As I've only really looked into the latter and am pretty ignorant about the 170-500, so would be very interested to hear about your investigations.

The 500mm will be awesome in Kruger! You shooting Velvia?


Priced the 50-500 at Cameraland in Cape Town for R13000 on Thursday:shock: I had a look at both while another couple were also deciding between the two lenses. I dont know if the 50-500 is internally stabilised or not. The 175-500 was very nice. You can see a pimple on a buffalo's bum from a mile away. Forget about using it without a tripod though. I was all over the place when I looked at it and I would need to shoot
wide open and at the speed of light to neutralise the shakes.
The focusing was reasonably quick and it was a bit lighter than I expected. I was very tempted to buy it there and then but I am going to hold out for a fishbowl lens. But an impulse buy was only narrowly averted - had I had a bit more time to browse I'm sure I would have bought! :shock:

Enjoy the lens and I'm sure you'll get some stunning results. You better post some here please dvanzyl100, I'm sure you'll convince me to go out and get it! :lol:
All your snakes are belong to us.

User avatar
bwana
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Unread post by bwana » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:52 pm

dvanzyl100 wrote:The guy in the shop was telling me, when I convert to digital, the 170-500 will actually have the effect of 272-800mm because of the sensors on digital being much stronger (1.6 x)

I sound like a professional here (and I have only just started)


That is correct. The sensor size of digital cameras (except the top models!) is slightly smaller than the conventional 35mm film, thereby giving you a 1.6 magnification over their film burning cousins. This is nice when needing the zoom, but a horrid feature for when you need wide angles.
I have the 70-300 Sigma and its great, f4, and with the magnification it is like shooting with a 450mm lens.
All your snakes are belong to us.

User avatar
craigsa
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Johannesburg

Unread post by craigsa » Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:23 pm

HI

I have got a 170 - 500mm Sigma lens and to be really honest i was disappointed with the results.. And remember its only 10X magnification.. So you think you gonna get close ups but you dont really unless its sitting next to...

Meg as far as i know the 50-500mm is priced higher because of the zoom range, one does not have to buy a smaller lens.. I am pretty sure it does not have a stabiliser, but i might be wrong...
Craig
Planning next KNP trip!

User avatar
Meg
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:12 pm
Location: Lowvelder in Brisbane

Unread post by Meg » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:08 pm

bwana wrote:
Meg wrote: I take it it's also HSM?


I'm not sure about that Meg. Will try and find out.
regards bwana


I had a look around the web. It looks like it isn't HSM, but is RF (rear focusing) for quick, silent focusing as well. I guess that's just as useful as an AF-S and internal focusing lens in terms of things like polariser use as well.

Looking forward to hearing DVZ's thoughts!
Mothers hold their children's hands for a while and their hearts forever

User avatar
DvZ
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Polokwane, Limpopo Province

Pictures with the Sigman 170-500mm lens

Unread post by DvZ » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:17 pm

I am not even going to try and post pics here.

It was a very bright day in Cape Town, so some of the pics look over exposed.

See website:

www.dvanzyl.blogspot.com

Awaiting your comments

User avatar
Meg
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:12 pm
Location: Lowvelder in Brisbane

Unread post by Meg » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:13 pm

It's hard to tell much at that size, but you're right about the harsh light. Which of the shots were taken at the full 500mm? They look pretty sharp (but then I guess you would have had to have sharpened them as well after reducing for the web?). It looks like you had a great day :D

Most importantly, looking at the prints, are you happy with them? Also, did you find it focused nice and quickly when you asked it to? What film were you using btw?
Mothers hold their children's hands for a while and their hearts forever

User avatar
bwana
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Unread post by bwana » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:14 pm

Before I comment, I hope you dont mind if I put one of your pics here for GP:

Image

Gp, those are black springbuck- see the differing colouring from chocolate brown to black.

Debbie, I will give my comments in a moment.

regards
bwana
All your snakes are belong to us.

User avatar
DvZ
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Polokwane, Limpopo Province

Unread post by DvZ » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:25 pm

Meg wrote:It's hard to tell much at that size, but you're right about the harsh light. Which of the shots were taken at the full 500mm? They look pretty sharp (but then I guess you would have had to have sharpened them as well after reducing for the web?). It looks like you had a great day :D

Most importantly, looking at the prints, are you happy with them? Also, did you find it focused nice and quickly when you asked it to? What film were you using btw?


Most of them were taken at Full Zoom. It was very difficult to get good shots, as these animals are grazing along a very busy main road in Stellenbosch. They tend to stick towards the back of the camp.

However the following two pics have a story:

Image

The pic above was taken at full zoom (animal +/- 800m away from us.)

Image

When I scanned this pic onto PC, I only selected the animal in the pic. Pleasantly surprised.

Yes, I was very impressed with the response of the lens.

A lot of the pics were taken standing in front of a fence (especially those of the cheetas). I am surprised that the fence does not even feature.

The film I was using was Fuji DX 200 (i think).

User avatar
bwana
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Re: Pictures with the Sigman 170-500mm lens

Unread post by bwana » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:28 pm

dvanzyl100 wrote:I am not even going to try and post pics here.

It was a very bright day in Cape Town, so some of the pics look over exposed.

See website:

www.dvanzyl.blogspot.com

Awaiting your comments



Hi dvanzyl100,

Its difficult to give a complete analysis from the size of the pics but they seem to be pretty much sharp. You are right about it being bright! It looks like they could have been stopped down by atleast 2 stops. That said how do you feel about the photos? Did it take long to get comfortable with the lens? How did the bean bag work out?
Ideally what you want to do is take the same pic twice one at 170mm and one at 500mm. Blow them up and compare the two. (something for you to do next weekend! :D )
Oh would it be possible for you to email me the full size pic of the springbuck lying down? (the one I posted above this post)I'd like to work it through the editing programme I've got if you dont mind?

regards
bwana
All your snakes are belong to us.

User avatar
DvZ
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Polokwane, Limpopo Province

Re: Pictures with the Sigman 170-500mm lens

Unread post by DvZ » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:40 pm

bwana wrote:
dvanzyl100 wrote:I am not even going to try and post pics here.

It was a very bright day in Cape Town, so some of the pics look over exposed.

See website:

www.dvanzyl.blogspot.com

Awaiting your comments



Hi dvanzyl100,

Its difficult to give a complete analysis from the size of the pics but they seem to be pretty much sharp. You are right about it being bright! It looks like they could have been stopped down by atleast 2 stops. That said how do you feel about the photos? Did it take long to get comfortable with the lens? How did the bean bag work out?
Ideally what you want to do is take the same pic twice one at 170mm and one at 500mm. Blow them up and compare the two. (something for you to do next weekend! :D )
Oh would it be possible for you to email me the full size pic of the springbuck lying down? (the one I posted above this post)I'd like to work it through the editing programme I've got if you dont mind?

regards
bwana


It did not take long getting used to the lens. Response with the camera was great. I was concerned with some of the pics as I was standing and the pic was all over the place, because of the shakes. The pics don't even show this (I was using ISO 200).

Bean bag works great. I am however still looking for a pod that fits on the window.

I will try the two pics next time I am out and then post for you guys to look at.

Bwana, please help me out here a bit (or even Meg). All the photo's were taken on autofocus.

What could I have done to reduce the brightness on these pics with my cam. I am not familiar with the manual stuff yet. Only learnt over the past two days about apeture & exposure.

Bwana, maybe if you and Twiga have time over the next week-end or two, we can meet up somewhere. You can then help me with this manual stuff and then give the lens a test drive for yourself?

User avatar
bwana
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Unread post by bwana » Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:14 pm

You have a pm!

Secondly, about the brightness, there are two ways to reduce overexposure.
a)one way is to shorten time the picture is taken.
b)The other way is to reduce the aperture size.

a) This is indicated on your camera like this : 100, 200, 400, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000. 4000 means the picture is taken in 1/4000th of a second ie. damn quick = less light.

b) The hole that the camera sees the subject through can be made smaller or bigger. By being bigger you are letting in more light, by making it smaller you are letting in less light. Obviously the more light you let in the brighter your picture will be. On your camera the indication of the size of the aperture is indicated by numbers that go like this: 4, 4.5, 5, 5.6, 6.3 etc. The smaller the number the larger the aperture = more light= brighter picture.

I also think you should use and ISO 50 or ISO 100 film in bright conditions.

This is confusing but it is easier to demonstrate than to explain on a forum through typing.
Maybe meg can take over where I've left off.

regards
bwana
All your snakes are belong to us.

User avatar
bwana
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Neither here nor there.

Unread post by bwana » Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:36 pm

HSM = hyper sonic motor. Its a quick silent fast focusing procedure for the lens. Rear focusing lenses are important for use with polarises as the polariser filter is screwed on to the front of the lens. Polarising gives you those deep blue skies you seen in landscape photo's. The polarising lens needs to be turned to give you the dark blue, that is to say that the filter is graded in a way that by turning it either way will darken or lighten the blue tint. So looking through your camera you give the polariser a turn till the sky bit is dark enough for your liking and then you focus and click. If the front of the lens turns to focus it will turn the polariser and it might turn the polariser to a less intense blue and thereby rendering the polariser useless.
Another example where a practical demonstration is easier than an explanation!
regards
bwana
All your snakes are belong to us.

User avatar
ceruleanwildfire
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: Born and Bred in SA, Living in NZ

Re: Pictures with the Sigman 170-500mm lens

Unread post by ceruleanwildfire » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:56 am

dvanzyl100 wrote:Bean bag works great. I am however still looking for a pod that fits on the window.


I would not recommend a window mounted tripod as the 170mm - 500mm Sigma lense is quite a bit heavier than most window mounted tripods can handle. Would recommend sticking to the beanbag.

If you still want one and you got the money, you can try having a look for a Manfrotto. They have a window pod http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=92&itemid=339 and a nifty mounting bracket for large lenses http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=92&itemid=349.


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Webcam Highlights

Addo
Submitted by Tazrules229 at 20:45:05
orpen
Submitted by Ton&Herma at 20:36:27
satara
Submitted by Karin Mitton at 21:22:03
nossob
Submitted by Trrp-trrrrrrrr at 10:37:21