Thinking of new lens - Camera setting advice also please
 

I have a Canon EOS300D SLR and am looking to upgrade from my Tamron AF XR Di 28-300mm lens.

I take mostly wildlife photographs and had thought of upgrading to a Sigma 500mm zoom lens.

Does anyone have any experience of this size of lens with a 300D? Also as I am an amateur I am not too sure what the lens extensions HSM, DG etc mean.

Also not sure how the lens size alters the DOF!

Any explanations or opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks from a total numbnut !!! I currently use AV mode at f5.6 with centre focus point locked so this may also need to be reconsidered if anyone else can suggest any better settings.

Thanks in anticipation for your help :D :o

Rin x

Hi Rin if you want a lens for wildlife why do you want a zoom. Nothing wrong with the sigma but you will get better shots with a prime lens, and you will probably use the sigma at the 400/500 end mostly.

Anyway to try and answer your questions, HSM = Hyper sonic motor sigma's version of canon's USM. DG I believe is a coating on the lens for digital not sure what difference it makes perhaps someone else will enlighten us both.

Zoom lenses automatically change the aperture as you zoom in and out, you will get a maximum aperture at what ever you are zoomed to and below this the lens will not go. For instance the sigma 500 @ 500mm is F6.3 (I think) and will not go below this but you can go up say to F8.

A nice lens to consider although I believe they are becoming scarce is the Canon 400 F5.6 or maybe the 300 F4 with converter. Others may have further suggestions but at the end of the day itis down to a) what suits you and b) how deep your pockets are.

Hope this is of some help.

Pete (also an amateur)

Sigma 50-500 is a popular budget choice, many users rave about is quality and versitility. At 500mm a very steady hand is required or a great tripod. I perfer to use stabilised lenses (Canon IS).

DG is a anti-reflective coating to minimise reflection from a digital sensor to the rear lens element. In my experience this may occur only 1% of the time and in a widelife setting less than that!

For DOF, please read the following link, an excellent piece one of a series writted by Yelvertoft. The other three in the series a well worth a read.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...read.php?t=414

I used the 50-500mm on my 300D for about 3 months last year. In the end I traded it with anothre forum user on FM forums. The only real problem id the speed. You need nice bright conditions(which we don't often get in the UK) in order to get good results at 500mm. It is f6.3 after all. I swapped for a Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L. It was the best thing i've ever done. I paired it with a 2x convertor to give me 400mm at f5.6 when i've really needed it and anything up to 200mm is fantastic.

It's a gerat lens and if you understand it's limitations you'll be satisfied with it. The only reason I got rid of it was that I couldn't keep it and get the 80-200 and I really needed something faster. Oh yeah and it's wieght means that it doubles as a rather handy exercise aid ;-)

Thanks Pete

Fair point, that didn't cross my mind, but as you say I do usually have my lens at full whack 300mm.

Do I assume that it would be best to consider an image stabilising lens?

Thanks again

Rin x

Thanks for the info. I will look at the cost of the Canon IS range. Would you agree that it would make more sense to stick with a fixed 400mm or 500mm lens rather than go for a zoom?? Something I hadn't thought of before Petes response.

Thanks again.

Exercise aid ! Birdwatching is all about sitting in the car isn't it !!!

No seriously, I haven't held a 500mm yet so didn't realise how heavy it is.

I am going to an RSPB optics weekend in Aviemore area at the end of April and hope that there may be some organisations there with various lenses and not just binos and scopes.

If not a trip to jessops may be in order to see what is what.

Thanks again.

Unfortunately life is full of compromises. A zoom generally will not have quality of prime (fixed) lens at whatever focal length whereas a prime may have better image quality but is not a flexible/versatile. I think in real life terms a zoom may be better all round but it depends what the lens is intended for.

IS is so useful and makes such a massive difference that I would not buy a lens in the 400mm class that didn't have it.

Unfortunately, this limits your choice severely: you can get the Canon 100-400, or else start thinking about the various mega-expensive Canon primes with IS - we are talking lenses in the US$6000 and up class here. Unless I've lost my memory (entirely likely!), none of the non-Canon longer lenses have IS.

Do you get better, sharper pictures with a prime? No doubt about it. Is it worth sacrificing IS to get that prime lens sharpness? Generally speaking, no. You throw away more than you gain. Nature photography is all about finding ways to cope with less light than you really want. You can never get too much light, and you are practically always looking for ways to get your shutter speeds up. With IS, you can get away with a lower speed if you have to (which is often). Without it, you are doing things the hard way.

(Can I have my 2c now?)

Hmmm, I thought IS was rather poor actually. I think i'd rather have a 70-200 f2.8 than a 70-200 f4 for instance. It's always going to come down to personal preference I suppose.

Rob.