Getting into wildlife photography.

Thanks again Gary. I'm leaning forward the 100-400 for the reasons you mentioned. I'd get some use out of it for my work too and you can pick them up pretty reasonably.
 
Finally, good luck with your choices.

Used the 100-400 goes for around £800 in minty condition.

Have to say, I've often thought about getting the 400f5.6 but the lack of IS is a real downside to me.

Kettering is not THAT far from Loughborough and I regularly have to resort to 1/100 to 1/200 th of a second at iso 1600 at f6.3 during dreary Winter days. You will struggle to get the best out of the non-IS 400f5.6 under such conditions. So, it is a fairly limiting lens in that respect. The 100-400 has only 2 stops of IS but it is very handy. Same as the 300f4ISL which you shold not overlook as well !

Gary
 
The23rdman said:
The IQ on the Sigma lenses isn't good enough and a 300 and tc is still not cost effective plus if I want longer the cost is prohibative.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree too- I use a Sigma 150-500 and its a brilliant lens for wildlife / Birds

Les :thumbs:
 
Les, with the absolute greatest of respects I've seen the shots on your Flickr with that lens and there is no way I'd be happy with the IQ at the long end.
 
The23rdman said:
Les, with the absolute greatest of respects I've seen the shots on your Flickr with that lens and there is no way I'd be happy with the IQ at the long end.
Click to expand...

Dean, is there any lens you have been happy with?

With the greatest respect, the biggest attribute you need for wildlife is patience. The best kit in the world in the wrong hands will be pants.D700 and a D300 is a superb combo for wildlife, both have their strong points and their negatives. As for lenses, going from your previous posts regarding IQ and your unhappiness with certain lenses, then you are wasting your time buying any zoom, so just get the cheque book out and go for a 500 F4 prime with a TC or two.

I hope I don`t sound too negative, buy wildlife is a very specific area, expensive and difficult to get right. Don`t waste money on any lens that you know you won`t be happy with, go for what you know you will appreciate...............and enjoy.
 
I'm delighted with the 35mm f 1.8 and generally happy with the 80-200 and 50mm 1.8G. I loved the Samyang 85mm 1.4 and previously the Canon 70-200 f4.

I admit I had a bad run for a whole with some dodgy quality control, but I've seen the quality output from the 100-400 and it's good enough for me to see if it's a genre I will enjoy.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd see that I simply cannot justify thousands on lenses with a house move happening right now. We had to sell quickly and take a huge hit on our place meaning the house we bought needs lots of work.
 
Fair enough Dean.

I have read the whole thread and genuinely believe you could well be disappointed with the Sigma zooms. I have had the 120-300 and the 300-800 Sigma, both were fine and i`m not degrading Sigma at all, I hope you find a good copy of the 150-500 to get you going.........:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
Fair enough Dean.

I have read the whole thread and genuinely believe you could well be disappointed with the Sigma zooms. I have had the 120-300 and the 300-800 Sigma, both were fine and i`m not degrading Sigma at all, I hope you find a good copy of the 150-500 to get you going.........:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think you've misread, mate. I'm not going for the Sigma. I'll either forget the idea until I can afford good glass or I'll switch and buy a 100-400L. :)
 
People were recommending it to you though Dean, personally I think you would be disappointed if you got one.

Nikon don`t do anything close to the 100-400 Canon pricewise. So fukky understand your switch to Canon.

Having recently used Canon 400 F4, if you can find one of those, they are a cracking lens.
 
fracster said:
People were recommending it to you though Dean, personally I think you would be disappointed if you got one.

Nikon don`t do anything close to the 100-400 Canon pricewise. So fukky understand your switch to Canon.

Having recently used Canon 400 F4, if you can find one of those, they are a cracking lens.
Click to expand...

It's true, they were. After a little reflection I knew I'd never be happy with one. Yeah, those f4's do look great. Bloody rare used though.
 
fracster said:
People were recommending it to you though Dean, personally I think you would be disappointed if you got one.

Nikon don`t do anything close to the 100-400 Canon pricewise. So fukky understand your switch to Canon.

Having recently used Canon 400 F4, if you can find one of those, they are a cracking lens.
Click to expand...
i tried recommending the new 50-500mm os which is £1269 and eveybit as good as the 100-400mm and better, and if you get a good 150-500mm it wont be fare off the 100-400mm but then new its only £800, compared to the canon at £1299.
i think the best way to make sure you get a good sigma is go try before you buy, i tried 4 copies of the 50-500mm os and they were all good but i picked the one i thought was sharpest and im happy man, its everybit as good as my nikon lenses.
but once again dean goodluck buddy in the move and the gear you choose.
 
scottthehat said:
i tried recommending the new 50-500mm os which is £1269 and eveybit as good as the 100-400mm and better, and if you get a good 150-500mm it wont be fare off the 100-400mm but then new its only £800, compared to the canon at £1299.
i think the best way to make sure you get a good sigma is go try before you buy, i tried 4 copies of the 50-500mm os and they were all good but i picked the one i thought was sharpest and im happy man, its everybit as good as my nikon lenses.
but once again dean goodluck buddy in the move and the gear you choose.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate .:)
 
scottthehat said:
i tried recommending the new 50-500mm os which is £1269 and eveybit as good as the 100-400mm and better, and if you get a good 150-500mm it wont be fare off the 100-400mm but then new its only £800, compared to the canon at £1299.
i think the best way to make sure you get a good sigma is go try before you buy, i tried 4 copies of the 50-500mm os and they were all good but i picked the one i thought was sharpest and im happy man, its everybit as good as my nikon lenses.
but once again dean goodluck buddy in the move and the gear you choose.
Click to expand...

Fair comment Scott, I wasn`t bashing Sigma at all, had four Sigma lenses and all have been fine.

I recently got a 150-500 for a mate of mine, tested it before giving it to him and was very impressed with the results.
 
fracster said:
Fair comment Scott, I wasn`t bashing Sigma at all, had four Sigma lenses and all have been fine.

I recently got a 150-500 for a mate of mine, tested it before giving it to him and was very impressed with the results.
Click to expand...
:thumbs:, we all know sigma can be hit and miss you can get a cracker or a duffer, thats why i will never buy a sigma without trying it first. the other thing alot of people forget about is how many sigmas sell compared to nikon and canon.
 
It made me chuckle, Tbh.
 
Forget the lens mate for the time being and think about everything else. What exactly do you want to do? I honestly can't see you sitting in a hide for hour upon hour, for example. Aren't you a bit too busy for that sort of thing?
If I were you I'd think about what you can achieve with what you already have and go from there.
 
Well exactly!

Anyway, after fighting with my stooopid android phone to write that post, you owe me more than one word Mr...

All I'm saying is before you splash out on all this gear, swapping back to Canon and then regretting it, try using what you already have to see if you like it, as wildlife photography is a whole new ball game. You can't ask a stag to hold a pose while you set up your strobist gear :D

If you've got a 70-200 or similar there are things you can have a go at, its not all super massive long lenses and hiding in bushes ;)
 
Ste Manns said:
Well exactly!

Anyway, after fighting with my stooopid android phone to write that post, you owe me more than one word Mr...

All I'm saying is before you splash out on all this gear, swapping back to Canon and then regretting it, try using what you already have to see if you like it, as wildlife photography is a whole new ball game. You can't ask a stag to hold a pose while you set up your strobist gear :D

If you've got a 70-200 or similar there are things you can have a go at, its not all super massive long lenses and hiding in bushes ;)
Click to expand...

I'm fed up fighting with my bloody own phone to type more!

I do see your point and it may be that I'm just bored and frustrated with a lack of shooting. I did, however, take up photography with the idea of doing more wildlife than I've ever done because I miss being in nature since giving up fishing.
 
far be it from me to put anyone off changing to the one true camera system , but i'm not sure i get the logic - you don't have a K to spend on a lens, so you're going to change systems -meaning that you'll have to replace all your lenses/flash guns/batteries etc which will cost more than a grand , even allowing for the income from selling the nikon kit

then you'll have to spend the best part of a grand to get a good 100-400 anyway (theres a minty one in the classified currently for £770 plus postage)

by all means change to canon because you fancy it , but a cost saving it is not
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top