Haircut,
With the 20d I have the basic lense which goes to 300 (don't feel like running back to check exact details)
but really really want a 4 or 500. To take shots in the snow, and better surfing, windsurfin, kiting shots. Had a look today and the Canon 100-400 with image stabiliser is over 2k and the Sigma 50-500 was $1439. I'm not rich (not working for 3 weeks, then low pay anyway) but I do need a better lense. Is the Sigma good enough?
Cheers,
Susie
that 100 to 400 with IS is on my wish list (along with the 24 to 70 IS) Susie. both worth the same sort of coin.
I was recently having a look at it in a pro's kit and just so nice, the shots at distance were perfect. I guess thats what you get for the $$$ but it is a lot to outlay.
Yeah, I want that one as well. both on my wish list. But I might have to settle for the 50-500 Sigma. And a better tripod. So how come Haircut said the lense was $1250???
btw - it's worth trying sigma's lenses in the shop because there seems to be variations in the characteristics between lenses of the same model. this happens with canon too, but apparently more common with sigma
positive review for the 50-500 herehttp://www.vividlight.com/Articles/413.htm
the one i tried was soft on the left zoomed out between 50 and about 100
i was told a 24mm lens just ain't wide enough.
better of 12-18mm max at the wide end.
18mm
24mm
50mm
it's unfortunate that canon don't have a 18-100 L f4-ish stabilised
which is why i use the sigma. not a heap of difference between 18 and 24, but makes a difference shooting indoors
That was a great review on the Sigma. Now I'm totally confused. I want the Canon but not sure about the money, and also the shipping of the lense.
Go tha Canon, while ever you stay with Canon bodies you will have the lense. I know guys that invested big $$$ in lenses and have had them through 3 or 4 body changes. Thay have always said to me to invest more here
Susie - the 100-400 is a feww hundred grams lighter than the sigma 50-500, but it's still quite long when extended to 400. The zoom on the 100-400 is a pump action so it's extremely quick to change zoom range. It also comes with the tripod mount ring which usually costs about $100 to buy seperately.
There doesn't appear to be many reports of dust getting in the lens considering it is a pump type
hi guys,
tried the gear out properly for the first time yesterday.
(40d)
set to Av
shutter speed was 1/1500+
iso 200-400
stumbled across a bit of an issue.
i found when the target was filling the view finder autofocus worked really well, images were sharp etc.
however, when the lens was at max zoom and the target was still a long way off the autofocus started wandering around and usually focussed the wrong area.
so i guess to keep on the Av track before going to Tv it may be possible to do the following. what's the verdict?
a couple of options i am thinking of are
1. set a larger depth of field. ie F8-f32
2. force the AF point to centre ignoring the other areas of the frame.
my preference would be to use the later as i can still keep the f/number as low as possible cause that is the effect i am playing with.
this was only a problem when the subject was further out than the zoom could handle, (300mm). when the subject filled the viewfinder the 9 point AF worked a treat.
cheers
i use only the centre point AF when shooting subjects against a busy background, like with windsurfing
the only time i bother using the 9 point AF is when shooting model planes against a clear blue sky with no risk of the AF grabbing a wrong target, or if i want it to take an average focal point across the whole pic.
my 2 bobs worth for settings - if you are standing in the same spot shooting roughly in the same direction for most of the time, i would simply set manual mode for something like 200 iso, 1/1600 - 1/2000 shutter, and open the iris right up. If metering is too bright, shorten the shutter time even more, if not bright enough, crank up the iso to no more than 650 on the 40d as 800 and above starts to get noisy when viewing the shots full size.
not sure if you have already tried this or not - If for some reason you need to close the iris somewhat, but want to soften the background, use the zoom's tele end to create a soft background. Zoom right in and walk back a bit till you get the subject how you want it in the viewfinder - though this obvously won't help much if the subject is already too far away. Ideally you want the subject roughly halfway between you and the objects you want to soften in the background. The closer you have the subject to you and the further away it is from the background, the more control over the amount of softening you will have
the only other alternative to to use a lens with a huge iris, which come at huge costs , physical size, and weight
closing the iris down to f8 to f12 does sharpen the image somewhat on most lenses, but closing it even further starts to soften it again. The average sweetspot is about f8
excelent 
cheers haircut. can't wait to try it all again now. my main issue on saturday was the wandering AF. i new it was wandering around but wasn't sure what to do about that. will set it to centre point AF in future. Main prob was with the guys coming back in. i couldn't get the camera to pick them up focus wise so tracking was an issue and by the time they had gotten close enough for the AF to work properly it was all over. subsequently i missed some great opportunities.
will try some zooming to blur background as well now.
cheers.
even the 2 L lenses i got will not focus when fully zoomed in if the target is too far out of focus to begin with - this usually requires me to quickly zoom out a bit, focus, then zoom back in again. it's not too much of an issue really
I want the Canon but not sure about the money, and also the shipping of the lense.
yeps. that 18-200 sigma i got is at its best at about 6.4.
those 2 L lenses i been using seem to be sharpest at 9ish.
the lttle elcheapo 50mm 1.8 i benn using is sharpest between 8-11. i cant see any difference with it between 8 & 11 but beyond 12 it softens again
gestalt - you definately can't see a black furryness along the top of your viewfinder? i'm starting to wonder if mines got a problem. i can't ever remember noticing it on the other canons
any hoo, if it helps someone to make a decision between the 100-400 and any other lens, i'll stick some 100% crops in here. This is about as sharp as this one gets at 5.6f and 400mm @ 1/2000 on a monopod, it might get slightly sharper with the camera sitting dead still shooting a stationary object, but it is this sharp all the way across the image
does anyone know if there are any good sites that allow full size images to be uploaded, without having to create accounts etc?
some others
Hi Haircut,
Hi Haircut,
not home at the moment, be back online later tonight where i'll let you know about the viewfinder
cheers.
hi haircut,
i can't see anything at the top of the viewfinder.
is it possible your camera is in mirror lockup mode? i read something in the manual about the mirror staying up until the shutter is pressed when in this mode?
cheers.
no it's not, but thanks alot for checking for me
it is the black sponge in the orange cirlce i can see. it mustn't be glued on in quite the right spot. if i push it with a toothpick it gets it out of view. i'm tempted to tear it off, but not sure if it wipes the mirror, focus pane, or something else?
yeah,
mine doesn't look like that. the foam on mine is fully seated under the flap.
i can barely even see the foam at all and the flap seems to be sitting tight against the housing below.
is the flap folded up in yours?
any chance you could post a pic of it gesty?
Thanks dude
you are right, and i've just realised it is like the 5d with the removable AF focussing screen and AF point screen
For all you other poor bastards like me who can't afford a DSLR, with good quality lenses, this was taken with a Panasoninic FZ30 (cheap), full zoom 420mm, great P&S.
The sailer is Troppo at Yorkey's.
Nice coloured water hey, that's my speed strip
