A good reason to reconsider a " Super Zoom "

[CyberDyneSystems]

In this case it was a Sigma 28mm-300mm Lens on my 10D. I purchased this lens as an inexpensive "Walking around" lens. As the main focus of my interests is wildlife,. despite the obvious shortcomings, this lens seemed a godsend solution.

My 10D fits neatly into the leather SLR case I purchsed for my old Olympus with this lens attached.

I am able to bring the camera with me where ever I go.

If not,. I would not have had the camera with me at work on the day I took this photo.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=564030&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=

I know a lot of you knock this type of lens. But without it,. I could not have taken this photo.

[daveh]

That's great but the fact that you went through a meeting and then went to get your camera to take the picture isn't a very convincing argument for me. Since you've admitted that the birds waited long enough for a lens change, I have no desire for a zoom.

You need something more like -

I was shooting landscape shots at 28mm and these birds appeared and then left 3 seconds later - fortunately I was able to zoom in time.

:D

Great picture in any case.

[henkbos]

Don't want to critique the shot, but it also illustrates the short coming of these zooms: you forget a tripod. The birds are clearly out of focus or there was some handshake (which I can imagine in a situation like this :-)).

[Rudi]

... and a 300mm f/4 L IS would have done a much better job!... Especially since you had time to go back down and get the camera (a lens change should be a piece of cake) :D

Once in a while I have a hankering for a do-it-all zoom, and then I see the results from these and realise that I would always wonder if I should have taken a shot with one of the better lenses that I already have...

On top of that, I think of my Mini Trekker full of 10D with grip, 16-35L, 28-70L, 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 1.4x Extender II, Metz 54MZ-3 and Sekonic L-358 light meter as my light kit! If I want to travel really light, I might leave the 300mm f/4 L, 28-70 L and the Sekonic light meter at home and substitute the 50mm f/1.4 - and that IS really light! :)

I think these superzooms would be acceptable as a travel lens. A 10D, a 16-35L and a 28-300 zoom, and you're (almost) set...

... Then again, a 16-35L, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2 L with a 2x Extender II would be a MUCH BETTER travel kit! (and not much heavier) :D

[Jeppe]

Accually.. I think it's pretty Okay..

Just needed a touch of USM.

Much much better..

[CyberDyneSystems]

I guess the point was I wasn't likely to have a telephoto and tripod with me on this occasion. For me to get at any other lens and or tripod it would have reqired a 50 minute round trip drive home and back.

I also failed to mention the pitifull mistake I made! :(

I had been using the camera indoors just prior,. in porr lighting. Like an Idiot, I forgot to reset the ISO. SO the hawks were at ISO 1600. Some of the isues with the image quality are a result of that and my attempts to clear up the "graininess".

If that shot is out of focus,. I guess I don't have any that are in focus.

[daveh]

Some people wouldn't have even had a pocket point and shoot so you're more dedicated than some, but less than others. :)

[hurry]

Canon EF-L USM 4,0/300 IS 77 CPS EUR 1.723,-

Sigma C 3,5-6,3/28-300 IF C/EF EUR 269,-


Har, har, har ... show me a 6.5x better picture, done with 6.5x more expensive Canon lens.


I know a lot of you knock this type of lens

CyberDyne, let them knock .... :-)

The result counts!


Sigma 28-200/3.5-5.6 (http://www.pbase.com/image/17219419)
some more (http://www.pbase.com/image/17308712)

[Rudi]

It doesn't work that way, Hurry. As with anything in life, you pay 90% more to get that last 10% improvement in performance... :)

...but remember: You get what you pay for!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hmm,. I wonder then who's logic I prefer,. certainly if the canon lens were 6.5 times better than I might have a strong reason to buy the canon lens,.. if fo no other reason perjhaps just so I won't feel so hounded on the DSLR forum :D

But on the pother hand,. If I get the pricey gear and my pics still suck,. then will know its my fault.

,. at 1/6th the cost the "cheap" lens still gives me 90% of the performance and image quality as Rudi's post suggests,. then perhaps I should save my cash and allwyas have that 10% "crappy lens" to fall back on if my pictures suck so bad. :0


Much to consider.

[daveh]

There's always diminishing returns but some of us still choose not to shoot $20 cameras. Not that there's anything wrong with people who do. Personally I cringe more at the thought of someone putting a superzoom on an expensive camera more than I do just using a cheap camera but that's just me and it's my right to cringe and your right to ignore me cringing :D

[defordphoto]

Zooms definitely have their advantages, but there are some compromises made to make them work. I remember when I first heard of the Sigma 50-500. Man, that's just not right. But, it works for some people that are willing to put up with the compromises it (also) offers.

If you have a 'cheap' lens, then the camera quality behind it matters little. Doesn't matter if it's a D30 or a 1Ds, the images will suffer.

I just ordered my first "L" lens and am really looking forward to getting it. Yes, it's a zoom, but I can't afford to run around with $15,000 worth of primes and it still makes me shudder to spend more on a lens than on my camera, but I know it will be worth it in the end and I'll become an "L" freak for life.

Now, that advantage with using 'cheap' lenses with a 1.6 sensor is that you never experience the outer edge weaknesses that 'cheap' lenses are infamous for.

I'd also like to see some USM on that bird photo, CDS. Almost looks like a taste of front focusing there, though there no way to confirm it. Looks like the 'shelf' they're sitting on is in focus. Anyone else see that? Kinda hard to really tell with a downsized web-pic.

[CyberDyneSystems]

RFM,

I am uploading the original pic (a 2.5 MB jpeg) now. I ttried USM on the full size version of the "tweeked" image,. but I'll be damned if I can see what ity does :( Perhaps if you would let me know what sort of settings I should use. I am using Photoshop 6

I actually took about 100 pictures up there,. 46 of them RAW,. I took the jpegs because I haven't figured out how to work with RAW yet,. but I took them so I would have them when I was ready.

Here is the 2.5 MP jpeg untouched;

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=591343&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

you will see that I cropped slightly,. altered color,. rotated,. cloned out some of the dirt on my CMOS,. and worked on the ISO grain etc.

[CyberDyneSystems]

RE Zoom lenses,..

It's funny,. I actually have the 50-500mm Sigma you mention. I was not at all interested in that particular lenses extreme Zoom range,.. for me I would have been happy with ,. say 300-500mm?

I got it because where else could I get 500mm telephoto for well under a grand??? I also looked at the Sigma 170-500,. but all the reveiws said that the build quality of the 50-500 was far superior for only slightly higher cost.

With the crop factor I can get an 800mm"ish" lens for $800.00 :D ($1.00 per mm :) )

I will say this,. haveing now used the lens quite a bit,. I am glad it has some zoom (though I never zoom down near 50mm) BUT I would have been perfectly happy with a 500mm prime. 90% of the time I am shooting at 500mm.

So,. with cost still a factor I may look into a Canon 400 L,.. the less expensive one. And maybe even a 1.4X extender.

All way down the road now cost wise,. but an option none the less.

[PacAce]

CyberDyne,

I was able to get your cropped (not the original) picture downloaded into Photoshop Elements and sharpened a bit more using USM with 120%, 1.2 radius and 0 threshold. Actually, I think that might be a little too much. It was hard to tell because I did it on my work laptop on the built-in LCD screen. Maybe 110%, 1.0 radius and 0 or 2 threshold might be better. It's something you can experiment with.

BTW, you may already know this but you shoud do your sharpening as the last thing after you do all your cropping, editing and sizing and you've flattened all layers.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks for the tips PacAce! :)

I'll give it some more tries.

[CyberDyneSystems]

This was one of my first posts on this forum :)

Many months later I find thatthis thread still generates more hits from the link to my gallery from this post than all other posts I have on this forum combined?

I have no idea why,. but I had two hits to the image from this link today.

Weird ???

Anyway,.. since it seems someone is digging up this post fairly regularly I thought I'd let those readers know that I have long since reassessed my opinion of lenses like this.

I still think they have a time and place for some people,. but it was easy ffor me to think it was an o-kay lens when I didn't know better :D

Having now used some top shelf glass... I can not recomend a "hyperzoom" as a first lens.

Only get a lens like this if you know and understand the compromises it will require.

[vvizard]

haha, I just read the whole thread, and I didn't notice the date of the initial post until I read your comment on the bottom. At the start of it, when thinking back on how it was probably you that pushed me the last inch in Sigma-direction when considering the 70-200mm options, I must admit I got freaked out a bit =)

But no, I don't regret going with the Sigma at all, and I still have confidence in your advices... maybe.. ;)

[nosquare2003]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
This was one of my first posts on this forum :)

Many months later I find thatthis thread still generates more hits from the link to my gallery from this post than all other posts I have on this forum combined?

I have no idea why,. but I had two hits to the image from this link today.

Weird ???



Isn't it good to have a "Super Zoom"? I will click your link every day to see if there're any good reasons.

[defordphoto]

Hah! A revival! :)

That was right before I got my 100-400. Wow! And I also shot one of my first shots out of my 10D at ISO1600. Posted it somewhere. Maybe here I don't remember as I was active on several photo forums then, but everyone was amazed at the clarity that ISO1600 delivered, as this shot also proves.

The 10D is an amazing machine. I'm sure glad I have one.

[CyberDyneSystems]

vvizard wrote:
haha, I just read the whole thread, and I didn't notice the date of the initial post until I read your comment on the bottom. At the start of it, when thinking back on how it was probably you that pushed me the last inch in Sigma-direction when considering the 70-200mm options, I must admit I got freaked out a bit =)

But no, I don't regret going with the Sigma at all, and I still have confidence in your advices... maybe.. ;)

lOl! :D :D
I have been tainted! Now you know the deep dark truth!

Those super zooms seem to work a lot better on a film body using only 4X6 prints! :)

In the end,. attaching one of these lenses to the highest quality DSLR will in effect turn it into a very large pricey digicam with a 10X zoom :)

It does have it's advantages for weight etc... but once you see the difference in image quality a fine peice of glass can offer... well :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

nosquare2003 wrote:
CyberDyneSystems wrote:
This was one of my first posts on this forum :)

Many months later I find thatthis thread still generates more hits from the link to my gallery from this post than all other posts I have on this forum combined?

I have no idea why,. but I had two hits to the image from this link today.

Weird ???



Isn't it good to have a "Super Zoom"? I will click your link every day to see if there're any good reasons.

ROFL,...

So your the one!!!! :D

[nosquare2003]

One click today...

I read that EF35-350L and Sigma 50-500 are quality super zoom. A 70-200L with 2x TC is also a 6x superzoom. I have never used the above lens so I don't know how they perform.

If the thread was started with "A good reason for lightweight super zoom", you would even get more hits.

[Man-Fai Wong]

LOL and ROTFL! :D

I didn't click on your linked photos, but I also didn't realize this was an ancient post until you mentioned it. And I just started looking into going DSLR too. Of course, I wasn't about to go for a super zoom either as you can tell from my 1st time thread in this forum (just started earlier today). :D

Not much interest in shooting wild-life here (unless you count the occasional zoo stuff). I much prefer street photography and shooting people and places (and try odd, but interesting POVs w/ all). :D

_Man_

[robertwgross]

I have to admit that I understand some of the compromises of a super zoom. I have the Canon 28-200mm lens, and it has been my workhorse for over a year.

I guess I find myself out hiking on nature trails, and changing lenses all the time just would not work for me. If I had to change lenses much, I would have more dust on the sensor. One lens weighs much less than a variety of lenses, and when I'm covering 10-15 miles per day, that means something.

I'm shooting wide one minute and shooting long the next. Just two days ago, I was shooting a racing event. Well, it was the annual banana slug race. Fine thoroughbred animals that they are, banana slugs are the California State Gastropod. I certainly did not have to use Sports Mode to capture the action. I had to put the camera into Portrait Mode to get a closeup of the smiling winner at the finish line. He won by a neck, er, not a neck...

---Bob Gross---

[openspace]

I can think of a good reason - when space is limited, and weight is a critical factor, like when you're 10 miles out and 13,000 feet up in the Rockies.

I have captured outstanding images in the backcountry with a Tamron 28-200 aspherical in places that I never would have reached had I been carrying 10 extra pounds of big glass.

No, it's not my primary lens. But it has saved my butt - and my back - more than once.

Taken with a Tamron 28-200 LD Aspherical in Yellowstone National Park on Fuji Provia 100 slide film. Duplicated from the original slide using a Tamron 90mm macro, 10D and a cheap Tundra light box, and sold many times over. 194KB file...

http://www.iaspd.org/images/buffalo.jpg

[Belmondo]

robertwgross wrote: I was shooting a racing event. Well, it was the annual banana slug race. Fine thoroughbred animals that they are, banana slugs are the California State Gastropod. ---Bob Gross---



Isn't that the official mascot of UC Santa Cruz? Must've been exciting!

[robertwgross]

It was the most exciting gastropod race that I've ever witnessed.

Unfortunately, the forest light was very dim, so the internal flash on my D60 was used. I much prefer to try to get nature shots with the natural light, but sometimes that just doesn't cut it.

---Bob Gross---

[Ballen Photo]

I've recently picked up a Sigma 135-400 because I thought this range of zoom was far more reasonable than stretching all the way from 50-500. Unfortunatly, I haven't had the chance to wring it out yet, and was wondering what if any, others here have had any experience with this lens?
..........Bruce

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. despite the unreasonable idea of stretching a lens from 50-500mm,. that is the better lens of the two. The 135-400mm had a good following at one point.. but it is a much older design and lacks some of the advancements in lens design that Sigma has put into the 50-500mm EX lens. Still I don't think Image quality will be much worse of any,. mainly it is the lack of the HSM motor that will be most noticable.

Post some picks Ballen. I'd love to see what you can do with that monster! :)

[Rudi]

As a matter of fact, I used to own the Sigma 135-400mm at one point, and it is a great lens optically. What lets it down, IMO, is the handling, and that is why I sold it! I just couldn't get used to using it alongside all my Canon gear (zoomed the wrong way, all the actions were stiff, no USM, and very front-heavy). That said, if I needed a zoom in that range and didn't have the money or didn't need IS, I'd certainly consider the Sigma before the 100-400mm IS. But only if I needed a zoom in that range. The Canon primes are much better optically than both those zooms. :)

[laurelfink]

This is an interesting thread. I'm wondering what input is offered on the decision I now face: do I buy the 70-200 mm f/2.8 L USM with a 2x teleconverter, or do I buy the 100-400 f/4.5-5/6L IS USM? I'm inclined towards the smaller lens with the teleconverter, and would appreciate any thoughts on what I trade off, etc.

[Rudi]

laurelfink,

I'd choose the 70-200/2.8L and a 1.4x teleconverter to start off with. I'd only get the 2x is you absolutely have to have 400mm reach (the 1.4x gives you much better image quality).

Going with the 70-200/2.8L gives you more options than the 100-400 IS. Wider aperture up to 200mm, much better image quality when you use the 70-200 alone, etc.

[defordphoto]

The two lenses are not really comparable because they have different uses. If you need 400, get the 100-400 or the 400 prime. Do not try to convert the 70-200 into a 400. The quality, though still okay, is not acceptable for a pro quality lens and you will more than likely be disappointed.

I have both the 70-200L f2.8 IS lens which is Canon's finest zoom they make. And I also have the 100-400L IS which is Canon's most underrated lens. Take a peak at these two (EDIT: Okay, 4 galleries) galleries before you make your decision:

100-400L IS: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm
(Note that these photos have been post-processed) These two other galleries have no post processing whatsoever:
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Friday/index.htm and
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Saturday/index.htm

This gallery was with the 70-200L f2.8 IS and the 1.4xTC:
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/SprintBoats/Marsing/index.htm
(Note that there was no post processing on any of the photos in this gallery)

IMO the 70-200 is a more versatile lens and is incedible in low light conditions. The 100-400 does what it does very well, but is limited to shooting the long stuff. It all depends in what you're shooting.

Adding the 1.4 to the 70-200 take it to 280mm reach which equates to 448mm on a 1.6 sensor. The 100-400 translates to 640 with the 1.6 sensor. And yes, it makes a huge difference when you're shooting the long stuff.

Also be forewarned that there have been some quality issues with the 100-400 and the AF went out on mine. Sent it in for repairs and it's working just fine now and I don't plan on getting rid of it. Not after it assisted me in producing those photos.

Also read this recent thread over at Fred Miranda's site: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/61715

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree with RFM's thoughts..

IF you need the 70-200 range,. with ythe Idea that occasionally the 1.4X or 2X t-con will be mounted,. then go for the 70-200mm.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is fast and excellent in low light and offers that super narrow DOF when required.

But if it is 400mm is what you want,. then go straight for the 400mm!

T-cons are nice in a pinch,. but don't consider them as a replacement for the real deal...

That said,. T-cons are cheap too and make a lens flexible for the occasional use.. so if you get a 70-200mm you SHOULD get a 1.4X as well,.. :)