Had to go Canon for 500 or 600mm

[farmer on the hill]

Dale,

 

Your right, I will need to win the Loto what with buying two camera bodies ( one for if the other brakes) and if were talking 1Ds Mk. 2 then the budget has gone more than 3 times over. The 30D from what I can see is not as much camera as the D200, let's bear in mind that the reason for looking at the Canon lenses was what you get for the dollar; with the savings made by buying Canon I could get a 30D. Now seeing that it looks as if I should be getting a 600mm; that means less money left for cameras, I all ready have a D200 in the bag and a D70 however the D70 with 6 megapixel and only about 3 FPS, it is not a good candidate for the job in question. The D200 is good value, 5FPS 10 megapixel and seems to be put together well. The budget might manage another D200 if I am getting the 600mm but the budget is blown if I have to buy two high end camera bodies to work with the Canon lens. So the monster has once again raised his head by saying you are committed to Nikon. Yes I am hoping that in a short time Nikon will produce the answer with lenses but some how I doubt it as I can't even get a new or used 600, they are back ordered or out of stock. Do I mortgage my house and go the Canon cameras and lens way, or do I get a Sigma?

[farmer on the hill]

47th St. Photo say they have a 600 in stock $9000.00

[farmer on the hill]

Please see attachment that was taken with a Nikon 500 f4. I don't know if it was dropped, if a converter was used or both. Not to bad an image. The ball is delivered to the the batsman at around 80-90 MPH.

[farmer on the hill]

Heres the attachment.<div></div>

[joeb]

I've seen some positive comments on the Sigma f5.6 300-800. If you are considering Sigma or Nikon Primes with out image stabalization, the 300-800 zoom should be in the mix.

 

Fred Miranda has reviews with comparisons to the Canon 400 f5.6 and the Nikon 600 f4.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=106&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

 

I can not find any comparisions of the Canon 500/600 IS lenses with the Sigma 300-800.

[farmer on the hill]

Joe,

 

Excellent images by the Sigma 300-800! I have also seen reports that the 300-800 is sharper than the 800 prime?

 

The 300-800 at 47th St Photo is $6200.00 and the 800 is only $5179.00

 

Have you also heard that the zoom is sharper than the prime?

[richard_lewis3]

Jonathan

 

Nice shot of your batsman! It looks like the 500mm was working for you there. Too bad it won't in the upcoming event. And yes, I agree the Nikon D200 and Sigma 300-800 would certainly work for your purposes, assuming there's enough light for a shutter speed fast enough to stop the action, and you can work from a fixed tripod position. Much more friendly from a financial consideration as well.

[mark_chappell]

FWIW..... I logged onto the link mentioned above for reviews of the Sigma 300-800. The

one from Romy Ocon was extremely helpful. Although it's hard to conclude much from

web images, his full-frame vs. cropped examples suggest that this lens can achieve

sharpness that's pretty comparable to what the Canon 500/4 IS +2X converter can do. In

other words, very good sharpness and most of the time you're probably going to be

limited by technique (here's where IS can help) or by uncontrollable external factors (like

heat waves), and not by the optics.

 

Romy's photo of the indigo-banded kingfisher is especially impressive at 0.5 seconds of

exposure -- clearly he knows what he's doing!

[farmer on the hill]

Richard,

 

The picture was not taken by me. I know the photographer who did take it and I know he uses a Nikon 500 f4, I don't know if it was cropped or if a converter was used.

 

Mark,

 

Yes I was impressed by what I saw on the Sigma 300-800, strange how it seems to out perform the prime 800; I know it's a newer lens and perhaps Sigma got it down perfect with the zoom. I am now once again looking closely at this zoom.

[richard_lewis3]

Jonathan

It would be worth finding out how he did it, since it mirrors your interest. If a 500 f4 will work, it's by far a better option for mobility and long term value. Oh, I assume you posted his picture with permission. My compliments to him as well.

[mark_chappell]

<I> I am now once again looking closely at this zoom.</i><P>

 

Then make very sure you want to carry a lens this big and heavy, along with the requisite

heavier tripod you'll need compared to a 500/4. In your first post you mentioned wildlife.

Generally that means walking around through various terrain types while carrying your

equipment to within range of your subjects. Compared to the Sigma 800/5.6 I found the

Canon 500/4 much easier to carry (significantly lighter and shorter). And the 300-800 is

even heavier and (slightly) longer than the 800 prime.

[joseph_smith3]

Personally, I do not see much need for IS in a 500mm or 600m lens. I am still using a mf Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens for nature photography with 1.4x and 2.0 x Nikon tcs on my D 200. I have no trouble competing head to head with those using AF or IS lenses for birds and other species, except flight shots where AF is a real plus if not an essential feature. I do see a need for an excellent tripod, level base and excellent long lens technique regardless of what brand of lens you have or whether it is AF, mf , IS, etc. That being said, if IS is a need you must have, buy Canon. The Canon pros will tell you what they have told me (out of listening range of the Canon reps) that the Nikon lenses are better built(more sturdy and rugged) than the Canon lenses. Both brands are sharp especially the 500mm. Most of the nature photographers I know who take winning images with 500mm or 600mm lenses that are Nikon AF-S or Canon AF and IS, use them in manual focus mode. Make sure you take that factor into consideration when you consider making a changeover. If a mf lens will work for your application, consider getting a used Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens and use it with Nikon 14B and 301 tcs. Joe Smith

[mark_chappell]

<I>The Canon pros will tell you what they have told me (out of listening range of the

Canon reps) that the Nikon lenses are better built(more sturdy and rugged) than the Canon

lenses. Both brands are sharp especially the 500mm. Most of the nature photographers I

know who take winning images with 500mm or 600mm lenses that are Nikon AF-S or

Canon AF and IS, use them in manual focus mode. </i><P>

 

Hmmm. You must run with a different crowd of nature photographers than the ones I

know. I have <B>never</B> seen anyone shooting wildlife with a Canon or Nikon AF

supertele use it in manual focus, unless they had no choice (too dark, AF incompatabilities

with tubes or converters, etc.). And I've had several folks with big Nikon teles comment

to me that their lenses -- despite being more expensive and lacking stabilization -- are

flimsier and less sharp than the Canon equivalents. How they know this (or think they

know this), I'm not sure. It's pretty clear that both N and C make excellent equipment.

[farmer on the hill]

Got the 30D for the lens, wish it would fit on the D200, but the 30D is not a bad camera.

[farmer on the hill]

Just got back from New York where I bought the Canon 500mm f/4 IS with a TC 1.4. This lens is as sharp as crystal, after working with the Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 for about 4 years, this lens is a welcomed change. See image attached.

[ShunCheung]

Jonathan, congratulations on your new camera and lens. I would suggest testing this combo shooting in some cricket match. That is the only way to get familiar with its pros and cons.