I know what you mean! I'm still getting to grips with the limits of this currently but even at 560mm I'm also realising that it's not always possible to get the shot you want no matter what lens you have
Heat haze is annoying!
The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread
- Thread starter Fusion
- Start date
I know what you mean! I'm still getting to grips with the limits of this currently but even at 560mm I'm also realising that it's not always possible to get the shot you want no matter what lens you have
Heat haze is annoying!
I know what you mean! I'm still getting to grips with the limits of this currently but even at 560mm I'm also realising that it's not always possible to get the shot you want no matter what lens you have
Heat haze is annoying!
It is hard to imagine even with such big expensive and heavy lenses that a bird sitting on a branch on a tree that you can touch is still tiny.
Heat haze is also a killer, and another reason to try to be out at sunrise (sunsets are warmer than sunrise, so sunrise is the best time).
anyway, congrats on such a fantastic lens. Did you suffer any buyers remorse in the proceeding days? That is the biggest reason stopping me buying a 500m /f4.0, that and the wife will kill me.
It is hard to imagine even with such big expensive and heavy lenses that a bird sitting on a branch on a tree that you can touch is still tiny.
Heat haze is also a killer, and another reason to try to be out at sunrise (sunsets are warmer than sunrise, so sunrise is the best time).
anyway, congrats on such a fantastic lens. Did you suffer any buyers remorse in the proceeding days? That is the biggest reason stopping me buying a 500m /f4.0, that and the wife will kill me.
No remorse as yet! Also tested the build quality by dropping it off my shoulder onto a paved road only 2 days into my holiday when it managed to come loose from my tripod... Luckily the rubber rim of the hood seems to be the only damaged part on the lens lol (70d needs a new screen housing as it got a bit bent but the screen itself is perfectly fine so it'll do for a while).
I'm not very good at getting up early on my own time but I guess that might change
Weight, size, cost? Look at Sigma's fixed 2.8 200-500mm for example.
Agree on your points about the 600, exactly why I went for it and not the 800 5.6 which I feel leaves you between the devil and the deep blue sea (aside from it being 5.6, slightly slower AF and not quite as sharp), even with higher ISO performance improvements.
Agree on your points about the 600, exactly why I went for it and not the 800 5.6 which I feel leaves you between the devil and the deep blue sea (aside from it being 5.6, slightly slower AF and not quite as sharp), even with higher ISO performance improvements.
The 70-300 L got it's first bit of use this weekend, great lens and blows my old Tamron into orbit.
100% at 300mm and f5.6 with a bit of heat haze to contend with:
IS works brilliantly for panning, shot handheld at 1/100th
Really happy with my current setup now.
100% at 300mm and f5.6 with a bit of heat haze to contend with:
IS works brilliantly for panning, shot handheld at 1/100th
Really happy with my current setup now.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
Andy Rouse seems to like it:
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/?page_id=174
It's not all about reach. Composition is important with wildlife too. You won't need 800mm all the time, even with birds.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
Controlling aberrations would be a nightmare at those apertures not to mention the size, weight and price. It would need its own battery to focus like the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 which would be leisurely I'd imagine.
I've got the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR and the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 VR and wouldn't like to carry much anything much heavier. The Canon 200-400 looks significantly better than the Nikon 200-400 but should be for the price. Stick a crop camera on the Canon and you have a 300-800mm lens of top quality. It really does look like the ideal wildlife lens.
Got myself my first non-kit lens for my D5100 and went with a 35mm 1.8... not exactly anything interesting compared to some of the stuff in this thread but still!
Had a bit of a play round the house and first impressions are it's tons sharper than my 18-105 kit lens and wide open the depth of field is crazy!
Here's one of my messing about shots, straight from the camera!
Had a bit of a play round the house and first impressions are it's tons sharper than my 18-105 kit lens and wide open the depth of field is crazy!
Here's one of my messing about shots, straight from the camera!
I'm not talking about at the tele end but the wide end. The lens would be the exact same size and weight. The aperture of the tele end is sufficient to allow faster apertures at shorter focal length, in the exact same way that other variable aperture zooms work.
The lens would be the same size and weight as they are now. The aperture at the tele end would remain the same, and it is that aperture that defines the size and weight of the front element, and the focal length dictates the length of the lens, and the overall size and weight of the lens.
Take the 100-400L for example, the front element allows an aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm, but he lens is allowed to open up to f/4.5 (although technically the lens could physically open wider). This doesn't make the lens any heavier or add much complexity.
A 400mm f/4.0 lens requires a front element with a minimum size of 100mm. That 100mm allows for an aperture of f/2.0 at 200mm and f/3.0 at 300. To ensure the lens isn't used wide open at these shorter lengths you could allow f/2.8 at 200mm and f/3.5 at 300mm this slight stopping down is why you will see most variable aperture zooms perform better away from the tele end because the lens is effectively stopped down.
Last edited:
Couldn't quite catch the focus with my other camera but that's totally fungus in the lens innit?
Yep looks like fungus to me. Old lens I presume?
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
You would need more glass to correct for aberrations which would put up the weight size and cost. If a 200-400 f/4 costs £9k then an f/2-f/4 would be a ridiculous price. Nobody could afford it and there wouldn't be that much of a benefit over an f/4 constant. Variable aperture zooms are best left at the lower end of the market.
Just bought the Canon 30D to play with some old M42 lenses, came with a 18-55mm kit lens which has fungus inside! Thankfully my lenses are fine!
The thing is for the most part the glass required to correct for aberration at 200mm f2.0 is the same as at 400mm f/4.0. Aberrations are inherently linked to the physical aperture and not the F number, the F number is not indicative of the underlying complexity because it is just a ratio and not a physical measurement. A 600mm f4.0 lens is much more complex to design than a 85mm f/1.8 desperate the f-number difference.
The fact that you say a variable aperture zoom is best left to the consumer zooms is precisely the reason why no one does this for high end zooms because marketing is drilling in the fact that fixed aperture zooms are superior. They aren't, a fixed aperture zoom is an artificially compromised lens that has been forced to be slower than the aperture allows just so the aperture stays constant and it can be marketed as such. Fixed aperture zooms were handy before automatic exposure but now is completely redundant (and can be solved by a simple switch). Variable aperture is what a zoom lens should naturally be, a fixed aperture lens has been forced mechanically not to open to the widest aperture.
I've often wondered this, but I can't see that it's simply marketing- any manufacturer would jump at the chance of releasing a "World First! Canikon shocks the world with an F1.8-at-the-wide-end zoom!".
I have nothing to back it up, but my suspicion is that IQ at the wide end would suffer at the larger aperture, and a lens will be remembered by willy-wavers for it's poorest area of performance. That Sigma had to compromise the focal range on the 18-35 f1.8 suggests that it's not as easy as we think.
I have nothing to back it up, but my suspicion is that IQ at the wide end would suffer at the larger aperture, and a lens will be remembered by willy-wavers for it's poorest area of performance. That Sigma had to compromise the focal range on the 18-35 f1.8 suggests that it's not as easy as we think.
With other variable aperture zoomthe wider end is typically sharper than the full zoom, in part because they still don't allow the lens to fully open at the wider ends.
Sadly you would be surprised how much marketing gets in the way of a good camera or lens. Why do you think so many canon lenses are dirty grey for example.
Design an f/1.8 wide to normal retrofocus zoom like the sigma is much more complex than allowing a telephoto zoom to open up to its nautal aperture.
Got myself my first non-kit lens for my D5100 and went with a 35mm 1.8... not exactly anything interesting compared to some of the stuff in this thread but still!
Had a bit of a play round the house and first impressions are it's tons sharper than my 18-105 kit lens and wide open the depth of field is crazy!
Here's one of my messing about shots, straight from the camera!
My first lens purchase for my D5200, it's a great purchase. Hope you enjoy