400mm to 600mm Lens Advice

ppp

ppp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,671
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok I have been looking at the Sigma 170-500 and 50-500mm lenses but have decided due to some issues with them that they may not be suitable for what i need:nono: , can anyone recommend a way of getting ideally 500mm or more for approx £500, is it possible :thinking: or am i loony:bonk: ?

I have a 70-300mm lens already and had thought about a teleconvertor for it but it looks like i will lose the autofocus, is this corrrect?

The other option would be to find a f2.8 250 or 300mm (ideally a zoom) and put a x2 TC on that, i assume this way i would get AF.

I could stretch to more money as i am in no real rush for the lens so could prob get to £600 ish or more if it was worth doing.

PLEASE HELP!!! :help: This is driving me nuts.:cuckoo:

Many Thanks :notworthy: :thankyou:
 
Cheap, super telephoto lenses - join the back of the queue :lol:

I think the Sigma 50-500 or tele converter option you mentioned is probably the only way for your budget.
 
Ok thanks guys, sadly thats what i thought, looks like i will have to forget it for now. Ah well.

Thanks for your input, its always appreciated.
 
i have the sigma 50-500, and i got it for £420 all in from HK last January , they are expensive, but compared to the Nikon lens at £5k , they are a steal, dont forget that it is a sigma lens and not a nikon one mind,

another ppoint is that its actually a 75-750 with the 1.5 correction factor of the digital sensor size,

you wont regret getting this lens

MyPix
 
My biggest concern is that some people say that it is not the sharpest of lenses (don't get me wrong i know its £420) and that anything above 300mm needs a tripod and the fact that a lot of tests have shown the need to run 400 or 800iso to use it, this to me does not seem acceptable in the real world, i would prefer to be able to handhold (if that is realistic) and use it at f6.3 and iso 200 without having to worry about slower shutter speeds as it is mainly fast motion/motorsports i would use it for.

Are these real concerns to have or the normal web bull***t.

Have you any pictures you have taken with the lens i could have a look at?

Thanks again.
 
Joe T said:
Yes, the 70-300 + TC will lose AF
Click to expand...

Is this really the case Joe ... :shrug: ... I don't have the 70 - 300 so you would know better than I ... ;)

I only ask because I was told the same for my 80 - 400mm Nikkor ... but it turns out this is only the case with manufaturer own TCs ... I now have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4 TC and it works absolutely fine with the long tele ... AF included ... :D
 
As i understood from onestop-digitals info on their site, all the descriptions of TC's show they only work with f2.8 or better
 
ppp said:
As i understood from onestop-digitals info on their site, all the descriptions of TC's show they only work with f2.8 or better
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... don't think the 80 - 400mm is better than f2.8 ... at f4.5 ... :thinking:

A J Purdy's tell it like it is ... :thumbs: ... Steve Marley is the man ... helped me choose the Kenko ... after they told me the Nikon one would not work with own lenses ... :shrug:
 
canon AF supposedly doesnt work above f5.6

an f2.8 lens with a 2x TC (adds 2 stops) becomes an f5.6
an f4 lens with a 1.4x TC (adds 1 stop) becomes and f5.6
and f 5.6 lens with a TC means the max aperture is above f5.6 and thus wont work

however with a non canon TC it probably doesnt tell the camera to turn off AF so it continues to work, all beit probbaly not as decisively in low light/contrast conditions

does the viewfinder get any darker with the TC fitted?
 
I have looked at Ebay and will prob end up getting the 50-500 as i can't see any other option and there is no way i can spend £1K+.

*Ally* Why is it irritating you?
 
ppp said:
*Ally* Why is it irritating you?
Click to expand...

Sorry should have put that in with my post - I feel the image quality has went down since I got it. Mabey its just me or it needs a good cleam but I'm really starting not to like it :(

I put up some pics with my 50-500 in the photoshareing section have a look and see what you think?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=9037
 
For 500mm that second one looks pretty sharp. You do have to take into account that this is a zoom lens with a massive range so it's not going to be perfect.

:)
 
SammyC said:
For 500mm that second one looks pretty sharp. You do have to take into account that this is a zoom lens with a massive range so it's not going to be perfect.
Click to expand...

...and it's the cheapest lens from a mainstream manufacturer
 
thanks Ally appreciate the pics and input, will have a butchers at the pics now.
 
I notice you are at 800iso when shooting 500mm do you find this necessary? Are the shots handheld. Also viewed the gallery, the Cow in Country Life is great but again at 500m it is iso 800mm??
 
I'm guessing it's to get the shutter speed up?
 
I thought it might be but just wondered if it's a requirement to handhold or whether it was down to those particular situations?

Is it generally quite dark and slow at the 500mm end of the zoom??
 
The fact is lenses of 500mm and above are quite specialised really. When you consider that the minimum safe hand holding shutter speed for a lens equates to the focal length, that gives you a minimum safe shutter speed of 1/500 of a second. This is only accounting for your own movement and takes no account of any movement which may or may not be present in the subject. Image stablisation can help you get sharp shots at a couple of shutter speeds lower, but the longer and heavier the lens, the more difficult it is to keep the AF area centered over the part of your subject you want to focus on, so it's really a two pronged problem.

To use my 100-400L as an example, I can hand hold it and get a reasonable proportion of sharp shots, but it's by no means guaranteed, and the problem is as much to do with that dithering AF spot as much as the focal length of the lens.

If I put the 1.4X converter behind the 100-400L then I have an effective 560mm f8 lens, but the problems are just heightened and my ratio of really sharp shots drops appreciably. If I want a good return of really sharp shots with the lens, then I use a tripod whether I'm using the converter or not.

The Canon 500mm f4 weighs about 11 pounds and is just about hand-holdable for very short periods. The Canon 600mm f4 weighs about 16 pounds and isn't hand holdable at all, so apart from the weight of these lenses you have the added weight of a good tripod to lug around, plus the rest of your gear. They're not lenses for the casual user or the faint hearted, you have to be pretty committed and organized to lug those brutes around. Those lenses cost a lot of money for a reason, they have fast max apertures which mean they're usable in reasonable light without pumping up the ISO. If you buy at the budget end of the market then the smaller max aperture will mean that you're often struggling to use the lens in all but the best light.

Long lenses and moderate apertures do impose working restrictions on you - they always have.

Hope that helps somewhat? :)
 
Yeah that info helps a lot, my main concern is that for me it's a lot of money to spend and i am concerned that the lens is not v.good, but it does seem to be and considering in the grand scheme of things it is a cheap lens it doesn't seem bad. I would just love to be able to try one before i had to fork out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top