brians.

<p>This is a long thread so I'm sure others have already said something similar -- I'll try to read everyones when I can.</p>

<p>My feeling is that there is a wide body of photographers contributing in Photo.net, and everyone is posting his/her best at the level they have reached. I love nature photography but I have yet to equal the many wonderful shots I find here.</p>

<p>Then, I think everyone is unique. What they see as wonderful, you may see as ho-hum. And even if you are the only person who thinks a photo is great, it's still a great photo.</p>

<p>Remember, you are talking photographers, people... they are all very different, and see things as differently as you do.</p>

 

<p>It must be Spring, I see some photos of young birds already posted, so here's mine.</p>

<p>For the last four years the same Mallard couple has claimed our apartment's swimming pool to raise their brude. I decided to risk the ire of mama duck to get in close to one of her little ones. She quacked a lot, and I still had to crop in quite a bit.</p>

<p>D90, 16-85mm @85mm, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 200, hand-held</p><div></div>

<p>I took a trip to northeastern California this weekend. It's a very rural place with many wide valleys crossed by short mountain ranges. At first light I descended into this little valley with two lumber mills.</p>

<p>D90, 70-300mm VR @70mm, 1/40, f/5.6, ISO 320. I'm beginning to settle on ISO 320 as ISO 400 is a little noisy but I don't always need ISO 200. I've started using the 70-300 VR @70mm when I want my sharpest images -- it even beats out my 50mm f/1.8.</p><div></div>

<p>This my first WedNEsDay post and there wasn't anywhere to go so I started shooting flowers in the front yard. D90, 16-85mm VR, f/5.6, 1/2500, ISO 200</p>

<div></div>

<p>Randy, Mat is right but I wouldn't cover up the manufacturers name. Even if they read this thread it will only bring pressure on them to do the right thing. Also it will serve as a heads-up to potential buyers. From what you described there should NOT have been anything close to shock damage.</p>

<p>I use a Sigma 1.4 t/c and it goes right on. However, the 70-300 VR hunts when over 200mm and quits at 300mm -- I assume there isn't enough light getting to the AF sensors.</p>

<p>I caught my first airshow last fall over San Francisco Bay and was disappointed with my 70-300 VR with 1.4 t/c on my new D90. The Blue Angels never got close enough for an un-cropped shot from where I was sitting. Also, at 300mm with the t/c (420mm) AF was too slow so I had to focus manually, which I found challenging while panning at the same time. If you're at a show where you get fly-bys over your viewing stands you'll probably be fine though. </p>

 

<p >The D70 is an excellent body that will do all the basics very well. However, it is fast becoming obsolete and only good for a temporary fix until you can get into a D90 or better. That said, D40/D50/D70 owners who upgraded to the D90 complained about a less intense image that needed tweeking to equal their older bodies (but they always come around eventually). When looking at samples in Flicker clubs, the D90 out performs the older bodies hands down, in my opinion. Also, the D90 shares the same sensor as the D300 so unless you need pro features or a larger sensor the D90 seems to be a "pinnacle" body (like the D70 was). One last thought: Most D70 owners actually own a D70S – the original D70 had mechanical problems, so heads up on that if you go that way.</p>

<p >I went from a D50 (same sensor as the D70) to the D90 for all the reasons talked about everyone else here, but mainly for higher resolution so I could crop down more without loosing quality. I recommend the D90 if you can find the extra bucks, but the D70 is a great body too. Oh, if you can, check the number of shutter releases – I wouldn't buy anything over 50k-60k unless the price is low. </p>

 

<p>They won't let you link directly to it from the US, and YouTube only shows it in 10min chunks, but it is a great series. Perhaps PBS will pick it up over here. I spent a lot of time (2 years ago) digging up historical refferences on photography that this series covers in a much more interesting way. Plus there's a lot of discussion about photography as art, which I enjoyed. Thanks for sharing Colin.</p>

<p>Congrats Cynthia, Tell them moose to "Smile!"</p>

<p>

<p >Cynthia, I think you are dealing with an old dilemma: how to make a big lens behave like a little lens. A TC won't work very well on a small aperture. My Nikkor 70-300 VR (f/4.5-5.6) won't focus (hunts) past 200mm with a 1.4x TC – there just isn't enough light getting to the sensors for auto focus to work well with the TC. Apertures f/4.0 or larger seem ok however.</p>

<p >Lil's comment about weight is right on: big lenses are heavy – even my 150-500 weighs over 4lbs and that's a lot to tote around, even for me, and I'm a big guy. 10Lb lenses should come with wheels, or a pack mule. Unless you are all muscles, you will probably want a tripod or monopod, no matter how good the stabilization might be.</p>

<p >Personally, I'd like to have a 500mm lens that's built like a tank, sharp as a tack, and only weighs 2lbs.</p>

<p >Thanks for posting a fun and informative thread :) </p>

</p>

<p>I don't want to take over this thread but I'll post one last example of the Sigma 150-500mm in poor light, 500mm, and the D90 look like. </p><div></div>

<p>Here is another duck from unknown distance, but they can be very sharp at 500mm and close distance. </p><div></div>

<p>Richard, give me a few moments to upload a couple more. I'm not importing them from another site so I have to upload them one by one :) P.S. I'm noticing these shots are loosing detail in the resize and upload. </p><div></div>

<p>Hi Richard, I never use a tripod or monopod (anymore). The OS on the Sigam 150-500mm is excellent, if you can overlook the noise it makes and the drain on your battery. I'll include another shot of some people about 400ft away @500mm. Remember, these are optimal conditions for the lens (sunny day, D50), and it is the first version of the lens (second not quite as good).</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, your point is well taken. I used to shoot exclusively with a tripod but discovered photography is much more fun without one -- it's all a compromise...</p>

<p>You're right Robert, but that's the best autofocus (spot focus) would do when aiming at the eye, which makes me wonder if comments that Sigma lenses don't focus accurately on the D90 aren't true. As far as sharpening is concerned, I shoot at low sharpening and sharpen in pp. That way I can get more detail in my JPEGS (I don't shoot RAW). I'd rather have a softer image than halos, so what you see is what I prefer. Thanks for the suggestions.</p>

<p>Shun, I finally got a look at your comparison, it sure makes the Sigma look good. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>Second shot is with D90 @ 500mm</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, I had a little trouble getting the upload to work but I'll try it again...<br>

First shot is with first lens, D50 @ 500mm</p><div></div>

<p>

<p >I have waited to post anything about the Sigma 150-500mm because I get a lot of conflicting results in different environments and with different cameras (D90 vs D50). I bought is lens back in November of '08 and immediately got beautiful sharp hand-held shots at 500mm. However, within a week the OS started making a loud whining noise, so I exchanged it for another one. The second lens wasn't as sharp at at 500mm but quite good at 400mm. The OS is not noisy like the first one but still squeaks and whirs at times, especially on startup. I sent it to Sigma for calibration and it came back better but not as sharp as the first lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you consider this lens, take into account that it is several hundred dollars less (around $900) than a comparable Nikkor, and that it weighs (just over 4lbs) 2 to 4 lbs less then comparable Nikkors. Also, despite being noisy and using a lot of battery, the OS is excellent – you really can use this lens hand-held.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To my surprise, the Sigma 150-500mm delivers a sharper picture on my D50 than on my D90. I haven't figured out what's happening with that – some people say Sigma lenses don't focus accurately on the D90, but that's just conjecture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, in low or gray light image quality suffers greatly. I never go further than 400mm on overcast days.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All in all, I like this lens, but there are significant trade-offs. Also, my experience indicates that there is a big difference between versions of this lens. I won't consider Nikkors because of their heavy weight and price so the Sigma 150-500mm is a better alternative for me. </p>

</p>

 

<p >I have waited to post anything about the Sigma 150-500mm because I get a lot of conflicting results in different environments and with different cameras (D90 vs D50). I bought is lens back in November of '08 and immediately got beautiful sharp hand-held shots at 500mm. However, within a week the OS started making a loud whining noise, so I exchanged it for another one. The second lens wasn't as sharp at at 500mm but quite good at 400mm. The OS is not noisy like the first one but still squeaks and whirs at times, especially on startup. I sent it to Sigma for calibration and it came back better but not as sharp as the first lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you consider this lens, take into account that it is hundreds dollar less (around $900) than a comparable Nikkor, and that it weighs (just over 4lbs) 2 to 4 lbs less then comparable Nikkors. Also, despite being noisy and using a lot of battery, the OS is excellent – you really can use this lens hand-held.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To my surprise, the Sigma 150-500mm delivers a sharper picture on my D50 than on my D90. I haven't figured out what's happening with that – some people say Sigma lenses don't focus accurately on the D90, but that's just conjecture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, in low or gray light image quality suffers greatly. I never go further than 400mm on overcast days.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All in all, I like this lens, but there are significant trade-offs. Also, my experience indicates that there is a big difference between versions of this lens. I won't consider Nikkors because of their heavy weight and price so the Sigma 150-500mm is a better alternative for me. </p>

 

<p>

<p >Dpreview has caused me no end of grief and relief. I would never buy a camera without checking their review first. Their reviews are still the most comprehensive and objective of any I've found. However, the affect of different lenses in their tests is barely mentioned and real-world results are often different. What ticks me off most about Dpreview is some of the participants in their forums. Instead of discussing or ignoring a post, some participants slam the photographer for lack of experience. That sort of thing bugs me because everyone works at a different level and novice views can often be very revealing, despite what the pros like to profess. That said, Dpreview has galleries that rival Photo.net. Right now, I am avoiding Dpreview because of some unfriendly conversations in their forums. At least for now, I'm avoiding the place.</p>

</p>

I had similar problems with my E510 kit lenses. When I got my 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 the whole character of the camera changed. Since the cameras auto functions depend on getting enough light, the kit lenses slow down focusing and generally make everything less accurate. In the dark, with the kit lenses, the flash would flicker for up to 2 seconds before focus could be obtained (and sometimes never). With the new lens, focus is almost instantaneous, even complete darkness (with flash).