Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should I Get A More Powerful Lens?  
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Right now I have a Tamron 28-300mm lens. It's great and all, but I wish I had a little more range on it. I went today looking at lenses and found a Sigma 100-500mm lens for $769 (he told me it was the best price in FL). But if I bought that lens and sold my other one, I'd need to buy another 30-70mm or so lens. Is the extra 200mm a BIG difference? I was looking through it, and I could see some of the difference, but not as much as I thought it would have. Would it just be smart to keep what I have now? Is there anything I could buy to give it more range?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

100-500 mm lense??? Sigma????
As far as I know Sigma has only 2 500mm lense in the production line.
50-500mm and 170-500mm. I personally have the second one and I am pretty happy with it although you can not use any teleconverter on that. In addition to that I have a 24-70mm and 70-300mm.
I am still thinking about buying a fixed 400 or 500 mm but the money is missing.

Regards
Vasco

Btw....if you go to

http://www.cameraworld.com

you may find it cheaper there......good luck.


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

It was a 170-500 lens. Teleconverter was what I was trying to think of in my first post. Maybe I can find one for $150 or less hopefully.

User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

I bought a 2x teleconverter about 1 month ago for US$130, the results are not very good, I only use it with good light conditions or the photos will be of poor definition. The lens (Sigma 100-300) itself is not very luminous and the teleconverter "eats" a lot of light, I must overexposure always and my camera (Minolta 500Si) can't focus with it so it's manual focus. It's the price for having cheap material.

These photos were taken with the Sigma 100-300 and the 2x teleconverter (600mm)

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Luis Rosa



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Luis Rosa



User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

with the teleconverter you normally use one F-stop as far as I know => good light conditions are mandatory.
Wouldn't it be nice to have access to really good equipment like Mark G. has?
But for now I guess we have to save some money wait and shoot with what we have.  

Regards
Vasco


User currently offlineNscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

Vasco,

Love your latest shots. What body do you shoot with?

Saul
PS (remember who pays for Mark's equipment!  


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Do you really need another zoom? I'd look to a fixed focal length for those occasions when you need the extra length ... after all, if you are buying a lens for max reach, why pay for all the complexity of a zoom to get shorter focal lengths as well? Teleconverters are OK IF you pay the money and get top of the range models - but they are v. expensive - plus a 2x converter will eat not one, but TWO f-stops!

The cheap way to long focal lengths is mirror lenses - 500mm or 600mm are often available 2nd hand at good prices. They can be tricky to use, but can produce good results.

Cheers.

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Saul,

Nikon N60 => takes great pictures      


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

I'm not sure what's the meaning of F-stop, in my Minolta there is a function to reduce or increase the amount of light received and when I'm using the 2x teleconverter I put this function at -2.0. Is this the F-stop?

thanks


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

This is the problem with the new all singing/dancing wonder cameras - no one needs to learn much about photography to take good pictures ... most of the time .. but then when you want to do something a little unusual ...

F-stops refer to a setting on the lens which determines the aperture of the lens iris which lets the light in. Each "stop" reduces the incoming light by half. So if f2.8 is wide open (most light coming in) f4 reduces this by half, f5.6 by half again and so on. The aperture also determines the depth of field (ie. the amount of background and foreground in focus) the smaller the aperture (perhaps confusingly, the bigger the fstop number) the greater the depth of field. So at f16 you don't get much light, but great depth of field.

Of course the correct exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture setting. There is a reciprocal relationship between the two - so f5.6 at 1/250 gives the same exposure as f4 at 1/500. In this case, the photographer would be trading some depth of field in order to freeze fast movement.

Auto-exposure cameras set the appropriate fstop, shutter speed (or both) for you so you don't need to think about it - most of the time. But there are situations where the autoexposure can be fooled (eg. strong backlighting) or you wish to exercise some "creative" control. To allow for this, most cameras are fitted with an exposure compensation control, typically in the range of -2 to +2 - basically what this does is allow you to tell the camera to determine the exposure and then add or subtract by a factor of 1 or 2 to that setting. So if the camera works out that the exposure is f4 at 1/250 and you have requested a compensation of +1, the camera will take the picture at either F2.8 at 1/250 or f4 at 1/125 (depending on the program mode).

The important thing to note is that the exposure is determined correctly by the camera regardless of what lens/convertor you are using. You do not need to dial in any compensation because you added a converter. However, because you are adding a lump of glass between the lens and the camera, the light reaching the film is reduced by a factor of two - this turns your f2.8 lens into a "virtual" f5.6 lens - ie. you lose two stops. But the camera knows about this - you do not need to manually compensate.

That is (believe it or not) the simple explanation - it gets more complex because modern cameras can operate in fractions of fstops and shutter speeds, or even in a "stepless" fashion, but the same principles apply.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineHias From Germany, joined Sep 2000, 349 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Hi Vasco and all the others,

I have different lenses. A Sigma 2,8-4/28-105mm, a Nikon 4,5,-5,6/75-300, a Nikon 2,8/80-200 and a Sigma 5,0-6,3/170-500mm.

The Nikon 80-200 is by far my best lens, as range is not always the most important thing. I have so many different lenses as a "multi-zoom" like Vascos 28-300 lens, brings not the best results compared to other lenses as vignetting is the problem and the sharpness in the edges.

The Sigma 170-500 is a good lens, but with 500mm you need at least 1/500 sec to make a sharp shot and don't forget with that lens haze is becoming a problem for you, as you will shoot while with your smaller lens you won't.

I am doing slides and there you see every unsharpness on the slide. I don't know how it is, when you make color prints.

Best regards

Mathias
http://www.spotter.de.vu
mathias.henig@gmx.de


User currently offlineHias From Germany, joined Sep 2000, 349 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (14 years 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Sorry Vasco,

I mixed up the facts...  

Dazed uses the 28-300mm lens and not you.

Here are two examples from my last trip to Corfu and both are shot with my Sigma 170-500mm lens:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Mathias Henig




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Mathias Henig



I hope this gives you an example what you can do with such a lens.

Regards

Mathias


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (14 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Ok...I have an N70, the instruction booklet doesn't HELP at all. It was becoming dusk, and I went to shoot a KLM 747-300 that came here to MCO for about a month, of course it was too dark, and my shutter speed was slower, which caused the pic to become blurry. How do I fix that? I thought if I tried to change the aperture, it would help, but if I do, it won't let me take a picture (basicly i have a camera smarter than me). How do I change the F-stop then (if that's the problem?)

User currently offlineNscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (14 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Justin, I have the N80 and am able to change the settings to fit what I want (rather than what the camera thinks I want) easily. I'm not that familiar with the N70 but it should be basically the same. Regardless, you would need to use a short shutter speed and a large aperature at dusk/night. Try panning with the subject. You would need a tripod of course. I have seen some great shots using this technique, but have failed to produce anything with it so far. It takes a lot of practice.

Saul


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (14 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

Thanks a lot Colin for your reply. I'm aware of shutter speed and exposure but this function in my camera has made a lot of confusion in my head.

thanks


User currently offlineBraga From Russia, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (14 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

most common problem with the lenses is the "volume" of light which can go throuh the glass. and this is indicated by the f: nr, should be as small as posible. for tele lenses f:2 is excelent by this way you can usee lower speed films and get bigger prints what will do the same as more powerfull tele. 300 is enough
best wishes
zpik
ps pls exuse spelling


User currently offlineBraga From Russia, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

by the way using teleconverters you will increase also by the factor /2X/ the f: number. in some cases when the f: will be bigger then 8 you won't be able to use autofocus
zpik


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Got My 1st DSLR....Which Lens Should I Get posted Sun Apr 23 2006 01:22:07 by BradWray
Which Canon 75-300 Lens Should I Get? posted Fri Nov 12 2004 04:22:46 by Dlx737200
What Lens Should I Get? posted Thu Apr 11 2002 23:15:29 by GRZ-AIR
Nikon Vs. Canon. What Should I Get? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 22:16:37 by 797
Should I Get A 1.4x Converter? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 15:23:20 by JakTrax
I Get To Choose A Lens - But Which One? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 04:57:30 by AndrewUber
Just Saw A G3 For 150,- Dollars - Should I Get It? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 00:03:20 by CPH-R
What Scaner Should I Get? posted Mon Apr 8 2002 14:01:18 by GRZ-AIR
What Improves Quality More? New Lens Or Camera? posted Mon Apr 8 2002 08:19:14 by LGW
P&S Digital Or SLR, Which One Should I Get? posted Tue Jan 22 2002 17:54:56 by OH-LZA