Am I crazy...

stylgeo

stylgeo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
832
Edit My Images
Yes
...to be looking at prices for the Sigmonster 300-800mm f/5.6 EX?

I recently bought the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and I am THRILLED with the results. This is my sharpest lens by far and I've produced pictures I would never imagine I would.
These for example.
2350528060_43ce9a2759_o.jpg


2351573923_4db95bc04e_o.jpg


2367712938_8b385fb4ee_o.jpg

the blurriness on the bird's right is from an out of focus twig in front of it.

2375820070_27cf6f365b_o.jpg


The fox shots are uncropped, so is the first bird shot. All my other bird shots though, including the robin here, are heavily cropped because I find 300mm to be too short for small birds and my kind of photography.
I don't have the luxury of a hide. I live in a flat on the 9th floor, and my wildlife excursions are at the nearby cemetary. You can imagine me setting up a hide in the cemetary. That would be funny wouldn't it?
I can say that I am one of the most patient people I know. I was always patient (being a fisherman for as long as I remember, carp fishermen will know what I mean), and spending two years in the army, I find it very easy to just stay still for hours without moving. And that's what i do when I am after small birds. I find a quiet spot, set my tripod and camera, sit down and wait. After a while, birds get accustomed to your presence. But sometimes, sitting still for a couple of hours is not an option. Most of the times I wish I had more reach.

I tried the 2x TC but the results were, as expected, softer than I would like. It's not that bad, but it's not that good either.
Here are two photos with the 2x TC
2375820174_6b6fb7de76_o.jpg

2374984803_2e984e6e52_o.jpg


Without the TC, I can shoot wide open without losing much sharpness. The lens is amazingly sharp from f/3.5, but still great at f/2.8. With the TC I have to stop down to f/9 to get good results, and to f/11 to get the best out of it.
Don't get me wrong, I would stop down either way to get the whole bird into focus, but not by that much. Maybe I am being too picky. Maybe someone with a budget telephoto would find the wide open photos of this lens at 600mm very sharp indeed. But after seeing this lens' capabilities I can't help but feel that it's a pity degrading the quality.
Stopping down to f/11 makes the backround distracting, as you can see in the last photo of the robin.

After seeing this gallery, by Romy Ocon, I fell in love with this lens. Check out his comparison with the Canon 500mm f/4L IS.
Am I just crazy thinking of throwing £4k in a lens of this calibre? Not to mention the extra £1k I would need for a new tripod, a wimberlay head?
Please someone talk me out of it!!
 
There is an old wildlife photographers saying, "However long the lens is it's always too short".

OK do you go for a longer lens. Do a simple test. Do you get the magnification you want with the 2x converter on your Sigma. Don't worry about it being soft for the moment.

At 600mm do you get the subject size you want. I suspect that with most of the bird shots the subjects are still a bit small. The fox pics are great by the way.

I don't know what TC you used, but generally the 1.4 is better than the 2. Well thats the case with the Canon one's.

A cheaper( relativly) option may be to go for a 400mm prime, and use a 1.4 converter when you need it. Also you may want to try a bit of PP sharpening. I don't know what software you have but you may be able to get some improvement with a bit of unsharp masking, rather than conventional edge sharpening methods
 
One of my friends has the sigma 300 - 800 on a Canon 1dmk2.
Optically it's a cracking lens, BUT it's really, really heavy.
Not the sort of lens to be carrying around the countryside. You need to settle down in one spot and just wait; unless of course you can find a sherpa to carry it for you.
 
I don't think you're crazy at all to be considering the Sigma 300-800, I seriously considered it myself before opting for the Canon 500mm f4L IS. The IS was a big factor in my decision, as was the stop larger max aperture. I find myself shooting a lot of the time at 800 ISO and stopping down is a rare luxury most of the time in the light we get here in the UK - Romy's light in the Philippines will be somewhat better! ;)

For all that, the Sigma is a great lens, as long as you're going to be fairly static as you say, but it wont be any fun at all to hump up hill and down dale.

With regard to your example pics, I'd have to say first of all that there isn't a shot there including those excellent fox shots, which isn't looking soft and which wont benefit from sharpening. I appreciate that they're resized for web viewing and may not have been resharpened, but to judge those lenses on the examples here is impossible. A quick sharpen on the first fox shot...

fox_sharpen.jpg


Do give a lot of careful thought to which lens to go for before spending this sort of money. Don't discount the Sigma, but remember that if you're going to use converters then they're best used behind a prime lens - a zoom is inevitably compromised compared to a prime anyway, and adding a converter only adds to the problems.

I opted for the Canon 500mm which, with both converters, gives me 500mm, 700mm and 1000mm options anyway. Don't forget that the best quality bird shots are obtained at closer ranges than you'd think, regardless of the length of the lens you use, and sensor size plays a huge part in maximising the reach of these lenses too.

Good luck with your choice. :thumbs:
 
I thought about the 300-800 as well but i went for the Canon 500 F4. It does have more portability. If you can call that portability... my shoulders ache after a day of carrying it around.

I can also manage to use the 500 hand-held as well for birds in flight shots but it does get tiring after a while. I'm getting stronger and stronger using it though so thats becoming less of a problem.

Think about it hard and weigh up all the pros and cons of your options before taking a choice. Its a lot of money to spend isn't it.
 
Thanks guys for your replies. You haven't actually convinsed me of not buying the lens, you have actually thrown the 500mm f/4 in the mix aswell:D.

I really need to think this through.

CT, they do seem unsharp don't they? Should I always sharpen these small sized photos for uploading?
Here are some 100% crops of the above photos, and another 2 I found lying around.

2452061902_66c191a5d1.jpg


2451235731_aa30c0fe98.jpg

150% of same bird
2452061828_62c4dd59de.jpg


2451235633_3b5f78c761_o.jpg


2451235583_bbd4bacf7a_o.jpg


Btw, all of these photos were hand held (lying on my stomach). It was before I bought my new tripod. Unfortunatelly i only got out and about another 3 times, all of which struggling with the 2x TC. All of them went through my normal PP, unsharp mask 0.3px at 80-100%

Stewart, I think I'll contact you on early June, when thinks clear enought to give me some time to really try it out!
 
Well there's nowt wrong with those. Yes- you absolutely must resharpen images when you've reduced them in size as they will lose definition in the process. You can clearly see the loss of sharpness, which is why I'm amazed that we see so many excellent images posted here spoiled by looking soft. Just beware of hosting sites which resize your images to a permitted max as the compression process they use can also spoil all the careful sharpening you've done.

When I'm uploading images to Gallery here at TPF, I always resize them to exactly 200kb( or just under) and 800 pixels on the longest side for that reason.

Rotating images also causes unsharpness in images. Rotating at 90, 180, 270, or 360 degrees is fine as the pixels are square so there's no loss, but rotating at any angle in between those causes noticeable unsharpness and the image needs a resharpen.
 
Thanks CT, I really didn't know all that!! I'll keep everything in mind now and never forget to reshapren after downsizing.
How do you keep your images at exactly 200kb? Is there a quick way to check the size of the image or the only way is by save as jpeg to see the size there?
 
I use PSP nearly all the time, but I find the easiest way is to first of all resize the image to 800 pixels on the longest side. Now resharpen it till it looks it's best again. If in doubt use USM in small amounts and keep an eye out for artifacts and halos appearing.

When done, go 'Save As', specify jpeg, which brings up the compression settings for jpeg, then adjust the compression slider till your image is exactly 200kb or as near as you can get it without going over. Hit the 'Save' button and Bob's your Auntie. :)
 
Thanks again CT!!! Sounds easy!
I was indeed trying to upload these photos here but I was keep cropping and cropping and I couldn't get below 300kb for some, so i opted to upload on flickr as private :p
 
Don't forget to use the correct sharpening algorithm. In PSP it's bilinear for downsizing and bicubic for upsizing. In Photoshop you have a few other options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top