karoly_erdei

Hi Marco!

The Neesiedlersee is a beautiful area, for photographers and for birdwathers too. It's not easy to photograph the bee-eaters.

I hope, you will bring your hide and the 500 mm lens with you.

To find a sandpit where the bee-eaters breed and which is not a private area is not easy.

The other solution is: you have to try to agree with the owner..

To get information about breeding places is not easy, the

birdwatchers are careful to give out this information, if at all.

(look at www.bird.at, go to the forum, look for my entry about the Bienenfresser and read the answers.)

The bee-eaters are very sensible for disturbance, in mid June they will perhaps already feed the squabs, but this is not sure,

because they are late this year, they arrived in some places

only, not everywhere in Burgendland and Lower-Austria in AT, where

they breed.

Did you asked for this topic only the photo.net?

Did you do photograph the bee-eater earlier, do you have some

experience about this?

I don't want to write needless, that's why the question.

So much for that.

Karoly

(Linz/AT)

This topic was covered here years ago, look for it in the archive.

There is a detailed comparision from Bob Atkins about these lenses

too, it can help you. Of course the answer depends on what you want

to shot.

As a had to make the same decision I decided for the 4.0/300L

for more flexibility, using it with and without the 1.4 TC.

It is an excellent lense, very good with the 1.4 TC too.

The one more stop it has against the 400mm was important for

me for dynamic shots.

Many thanks to all for the answers which I followed and sorry for

my late response.

I used the time to check again the available information

and to come closer to my decision. Special thanks to Carlos

for the www.photozone.de URL, which I didn't know.

I checked the user db there for the lenses in question

and for other lenses I used or I knew to get a feeling

about the information there.

Some more details about the my situation.

Sigma-Canon compatibility: I own the Sigma 2.8/105 EX Macro.

As I replaced my EOS-50 by the EOS-3 exactly two years ago,

the Sigma didn't work anymore. I called Sigma Austria, they

told me they will replace the chip for no cost (in the last month of

the 1 year warranty), but after they got to know I bought it

in Munich/Germany I had to pay for the new chip (35 $ that time).

Tips for 17-35L: I know this is the best lense. I would buy it,

if my budget would be unlimited for this hobby. But because the landscape

photography isn't my main area I can't buy a new one now.

At the moment I didn't find a used one of it.

(If I unload the 4.0/300L and save the difference in price

between the 20-35/3.5-4.5 (490 $ here in Austria, already with a special

offer, more than 16% below the list price) and 17-35L (1400 $,

same condition), I need some time to save for a 500mm,

either a used 4.5/ L or the IS version..)

Tips for the 20-35L: I made some shots with a used one of my friend

who isn't the first owner of it. I'm not satiesfied with these shots.

I found too heavy distortions in the middle range too not only

at 20mm. Perhaps this one has some problems.

Decision flow:

I already decided not to buy the Sigma 17-35.

I found too many remarks in the archive too as hints again the lens.

(Actually I didn't understand in the photozone magazine tests why they

put the three lenses: 17-35L, C20-35 (the cheap one) and S17-35 in a very narrow range indicating there is no big difference among them.

The same is true for the user db votes where the 17-35L is the

clear winner, the S17-35 the looser and the C20-35 is in the middle.

But this is another issue.)

I'll make a serious test with the 20-35L. If I think the optic

is OK, I'll buy this lense (620$).

Otherwise I'll buy the cheap C20-35, which used stopped down

(8 and below) should be a very good lense.

Many thanks again to all giving me input and helping

my decision.

At the same time a BIG thanks to the whole photo.net

community, because I based all my upgrades (after buying 4 years ago

some entry level lenses) on the information found at this site.

-- Károly

I plan to buy a wide angle zoom lens in the 17(20)-35 mm range with

good optical performance. But the Canon 17-35L is no option for me.

The Canon 20-35 (the cheap one) would be surely a good lense, but the

additional 3mm of the Sigma at the short end would be very useful

for the landscape photography.

My questioin is: what is the image quality of the Sigma in the 20-35

mm range compared to the Canon 20-35mm lens.

I checked the archive but I didn't find any usable information about

the quality of the Sigma or about the comparision.

Some background:

First: I know what image quality is and I see the differences between

the shots made with my standard 28-80 and the 70-200L (I own three

L-lenses, the 70-200mm, and the 4.0/300 with and without IS).

Second: I could make some shots with the Canon 17-35L and the 17mm

impressed me very much, that's why I took the Sigma 17-35 into

account.

Third: Only the quality will decide which one I'll buy, because there

is

almost no price difference between the two lenses.

Thank you very much for any information.

Karoly Erdei