alan_yeo1

Sorry for replying late.

 

Shun, to answer your question, I don't own this lens but was given the opportunity to test it out one month back.

 

I agree with Bob that it makes good sense to buy a used long lens. Utlimately, what you are talking about is cutting your losses should you decide to sell the lens later. However the issue of not many used Sigma long lenses does not make this lens a lemon. I believe there are many reasons for this. I stand by what I have said before. This is a good lens and I believe it is value for your money. In fact, I would have purchased one if not for the minimum focusing issue and the fact that I already own two 600mm lenses.

Mark, I believe the Sigma 800mm f5.6D APO HSM lens is a worthy buy. And frankly I don't think there is another lens in the market for this price and quality. The optics are very good and built-wise, I found no reason to fault it. The tripod collar rotates smoothly and is solid enough to allow for a stable setup. The lens is also reasonably light - 4.7kg or about 10.3lbs. The only setback, as rightly pointed out, is the minimum focusing distance of 23ft. I personally prefer a lens that will allow me to focus closer. But this may not be all that important to you.

 

I am not too worried about its resale value. Even if you were to reduce the value of the Sigma lens by 50%, you are still talking about the same amount you would lose if you were to sell a Nikon AF-S 600mm f4 lens.

 

BTW, the Sigma 500mm HSM is a f4.5 lens. Not f4. But it is just as good.

Hello everyone,

 

<p>

 

I am the guy who wrote the brief review of the Leica 35~70mm f2.8

Vario~Elamrit which was mentioned by someone in an earlier post. I am

also the owner of the VE 28~70mm f3.5/4.5 (ROM version).

 

<p>

 

Yes, it is true that the my 28~70mm is optically sharper than the

35~70mm f2.8 lens. To-date, I have tested three samples of the

35~70mm f2.8 lens. Only one sample was better overall. The other two

were soft at infinity between 40mm to 60mm. I have also spoken to a

senior staff at Leica AG regarding this new zoom lens. All I can say

is that Leica was having a hard time maintaining quality in this zoom

lens and due to the difficulty in producing it, production of this

lens was eventually stopped.

 

<p>

 

I have to agree with most of what Martin has written about the VE

28~70mm. The 28~70mm lens is indeed a very good lens optically and

despite its slight distortion, the lens is still an outstanding

performer in my book. The lens is not heavy and has silky smooth

focusing and zooming rings. It may be a little slow but I can live

with that with proper handholding technique and faster flims.

 

<p>

 

If you need a zoom lens for versatility, then you will not regret

getting this zoom lens from Leica. But do make sure that you get the

ROM version(latest) because optically this version is better than the

older model(the one with the built-in hood).

Having used the IS zoom lens, I would say go for the 100~400. The versatility alone is enough to warrant its purchase. Like Bob said, you will not notice any loss in sharpness in "real world" situations - unless the zoom lens is a lemon.

Keeping it in a dry cabinet is the better alternative for your expensive lens.

I have no doubt the Wimberley head is superb for flight and panning shots. But with regards to the FOBA head, I would like to add that the one I saw had one major flaw and that is the tension knob is made of some form of plastic which I reckon would break after a few hard knocks. My B1 has kissed the ground several times and it is still working fine, albeit a little bruised.

You are right about the higher flash sync freezing movement. But this will also darken the background significantly unless in very bright conditions. If you prefer this type of images, good for you. Although I admire the work of John Shaw very much, I would much prefer to shoot with ambient light using only fill flash. IMO, only subjects which are nocturnal by nature are treated with a black background - not always though.

Personally, I like the eyes open. Looks more natural and alive! And I wouldn't consider the pictures rare. The only "sleeping" shots I have is that of a nightjar which was taken during the day.

 

But if you prefer the closed-eye pixs, what can I say? To each his own.

I can't agree with you more, Karl. Having lived in Singapore for more than I wish to remember, I have witnessed the destruction of many natural habitats for the sake of economic development. Many of the wildlife species that are endemic to my country are either extinct or seriously threatened. For example, we used to have tigers and wildboars roaming the main island but the last tiger was shot dead in 1930. I believe the same would apply to many large animals in this region. They are usually classified as threatened - which means they are limited in numbers.

 

But even as more skyscrapers are built, pockets of wildlife can still be found. However, as Karl correctly put it, the terrain and vegetation in this region is dense and this makes finding and shooting wildlife even more difficult. The situation is worse in other less developed countries where certain areas are not so easily accessible.

 

IMHO, landscape photography in Asia is so-so. I much prefer the scenery in Europe and America.

 

The only area in nature photography in this region where it is fairly easy going is shooting flowers/plants. There are plenty of opportunities here.

Hasan,

 

I am sorry if my statement has touched a raw nerve in you. Let me ask you this simple question : Since you have travelled so extensively and have shot in the Himalayas for six years, do you think you represent the typical Asian? And does that automatically make you a nature photographer? I know of some nature photographers who wouldn't bat an eye to the thought of glueing a young bird to a branch so that they can shoot the parent birds feeding the young in a "perfect" situation. And my wife would love to visit Alaska someday soon but she ain't no nature lover. I can vouch for that!

 

Please understand that it is not my intention to belittle us Asians in any way. When I mentioned that Asians are not brought up to appreciate nature as compared to our western counterparts, I qualified that by stating that we are too caught up with economic development to have time to appreciate our natural surroundings. How do you expect someone to appreciate nature, especially nature photography, when he hasn't enough food to feed himself and his family? IMO, appreciating nature is a bit akin to appreciating art. As we progress, we will learn to appreciate nature more.

 

I agree with Jeet who said that if we truly want to, we can find nature aplenty in our own backyard. It takes effort but if we have the interest, we will surely find lots of nature subjects.

Hi Chee Wai and Shun,

 

If I may add to what has already been mentioned, nature photography is a very specialized area often requiring expensive equipment - bird photography comes to mind. Even macro lenses aren't that cheap. This coupled with the fact that the general wildlife in Asia are more finite and elusive, makes nature photography in this region tougher and perhaps less appealing to most people. You simply can't compare the opportunities of shooting birds in Florida or even Australia to Borneo or Malaysia. They are totally different. And I am not even comparing Africa. Over there you can shoot a lion with a 50mm lens! That is if you don't mind being eaten.

 

Another point which I feel has a part to play is that not many Asians are brought up to appreciate nature like our western counterparts. We are only beginning to learn of the importance of our natural surroundings. Most of the time we are too caught up with economic development to really appreciate the wonders of nature.

Yes, Kodak 100VS and Fuji Velvia are currently the only two chromes that I know of with the most saturated colours for nature photographers(in the case of Velvia, some say too saturated). Fuji 100F just doesn't have the vibrant colours.

 

Another contender in the colour department is Kodak's Elite Chrome Extra Color. This ISO 100 chrome does give rich colours and fine grain. Best of all is the price.

I was at a nature slide presentation the other day and the presenter rated most of her 100F at ISO 200. Though the images were sharp and good, you can still tell that they were not Velvia in terms of colour and grain.

Hmmm, maybe I should have elaborated a bit more. I asked a simple question to the man(not just any Canon rep) who helped designed the 1V(and probably the EOS3). He hesitated and then gave a positive reply. He explained why it was faster(the tracking bit) BUT also said that it may be "difficult to see the difference" since both shared the same technology. I believe he was being frank. Please don't misread this as indicating that the 1V is inferior to the EOS3 in any way. I have tested both cameras on their latest IS supertelephotos(300mm and 600mm) and found both cameras to be equally competent in AF. I did not specifically do a AF test but I certainly did not notice any big difference in AF.

It may interest you to note that I posed this question to the senior technical guy from Canon Japan who designed the 1V and he hesitated for a moment before concluding that the 1V is faster at AF. I gather from him that the AF dfference is marginal - definitely not very obvious.

I had success shooting grey and purple herons at shutter speeds between 1/250 to 1/320 while retaining a slight blur of the wings. I am afraid that at 1/500 sec, you may get a "frozen" bird in flight.

Since my name was mentioned, I thought it is only fair that I give my 2 cents worth on the issue of QC.

 

Shun is correct to worry about QC because sample variations do exist among lenses. To-date, I have tested four AF-S 28~70mm lenses and they all performed differently. This does not mean that this lens is hopeless. All it shows is that there are variations. Likewise, when I tested two AF-S 17~35mm, one was clearly sharper than the other. But to be fair to Nikon, I have also seen "bad" lenses from Leica. I won't bother to elaborate.

 

As for the 80~400mm VR lens, I believe this lens will be a hot seller despite it being a slow lens. I do not expect this lens to be as sharp as the AF-S 300mm f2.8 lens but as someone rightly put it, the VR lens will sell because it more versatile and, more importantly, a lot cheaper than those fast super telephoto lenses. I trust this lens will be sharp enough to satisfy the majority of the people. And if the VR feature really works as claimed(and I am sure it does), it will serve well in many shooting situations. I am, however, disappointed that this lens is not an AF-S lens.

 

Will I buy this lens? Yes, I would buy this lens because it will be a handy lens to carry when I go explore some new places. I just need to keep my fingers crossed that the lens I buy is a good sample :)

Any of the long lens bag you mentioned should be able to hold your setup. The question is whether you store the lens hoods in reverse order or extended from the lens. If you keep the lens hood in reverse order, I am sure the bags will hold your lens plus a camera body.

Sorry to go off track a bit but I believe Ivan is right about Nikon

working on their VR lenses. I heard from a very reliable source that

Nikon is working on several VR lenses. Looks like the situation can

only get better.

 

<p>

 

As for the SB28, I would be surprised if Nikon can make a better

flash unit than this. But I guess we will never know for sure.

I was given the opportunity not long ago to test out the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens. I did a side by side comparsion of this lens with a AF-S 300mm f2.8 lens. Both lenses were mounted on Gitzo tripods and set at shutter priority. The cameras used were the EOS 3 and the F5. The speeds tested on both systems were 1/30, 1/15 and 1/8 sec. I tested the Canon lens with IS and without IS switched on. I also handheld the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens and shot at 1/60 sec. The results ?

 

At 1/30 sec, both lenses performed equally well - sharp images. However, at 1/15 sec, images with IS switched off were a tad softer. Surprisingly, the AF-S lens produced sharp images at 1/15 sec. At 1/8 sec, all images were soft even with IS switched on. Things looked better with mirror lock-up and 2sec self timer/cable release.

 

The great thing about the IS lens was that it produced consistently sharp images when I handheld the lens and shot it at 1/60 sec. - something I could not achieve with the AF-S lens.

 

Canon has agreed to let me test out their other IS super telephotos(400, 500 and 600mm) soon and I will try to feedback to this site when possible.

 

Regards,

 

 

Alan

Hi everybody,

 

Thanks for the many replies received so far. I never expected some replies though.

 

This is what I like about photonet. One can expect all sort of replies from jokers to serious photographers. And of course, there are photographers who look like clowns :)

 

I may just take John MacPherson's advice and try photographying the Yeti in the Himalayas.

 

Thanks again for the very entertaining read.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Alan

I have been trying to get that elusive snipe for sometime now but

without much success. The problem with these birds is that they are

so well camouflaged in the open field that I always flush them out

instead of photographying them. The field where they hide is an open

area with low grass(about 8 inches tall max.). I know one way is to

camp out in the field and wait for them to arrive and feed. Is there

another way to photographying these birds? They are very shy birds,

in case you are unaware.

 

Appreciate any practical tips.

Chuck, the AF-S 17~35mm is basically a good zoom lens. It can't be

worse than the 20~35mm although I originally thought it was. It is

true that pincushion and barrel distortions are very well controlled

with this lens. But the lens is definitely soft in the corners at

f2.8 - just like most wide zoom lenses. IMO, a good buy if the price

right.

I have this lens for slightly over one year and I have not noticed any light fall-off. There could be a very slight hint of light fall-off when shooting a subject against a clear blue sky but it is not as serious as described. I always use this lens with its supplied lens hood. It's a great lens.

You must be very lucky to be able to achieve 50 rolls on this battery because I can only managed an average of about 15 rolls before recharging is necessary. Of course, a lot also depends on the lenses you are using(eg. whether AF-S, AF or manual) and your shooting style(eg. pressing the shutter release often).