Sigma 50-500 vs. Canon 100-400 IS L Lens

[morenoar]

Can anyone help me with this one. There is only a $400 difference in price and 150mm difference in the camera. I got the Sigma 50-500 (still can return before the 10 days are up). Should I return and save for the canon or keep the Sigma lens. I will be takeing lots of Soccer Shots and thought the 50-500 lens would allow me to just stay in one spot. But I am not licking the crispness of the shots

[BrettD]

Are you hand holding your shots? Tripod or monopod?
What shutter speeds are you getting?

If you are not tripod mounted, then the IS could easily help you out, it is the reason I went for the 100-400 over the cheaper sigma (and I have not regretted my decision one bit).

Brett D

[morenoar]

Here is what I have done so far, just an attempt

http://home.earthlink.net/~morenoar/

[Jim_T]

It's tough to tell how good your lens is because you've downsampled the shots. Best bet is to crop a chunk out of your image and leave it as-is and unscaled.

I have the 100-400L.. It's a great lens. I find mine a bit soft and down on contrast at 400mm.. But from 100-300 it's a killer. The IS works and is a nice bonus.

I've never used the 50-500.. Common knowledge dictates that a 10X zoom is a big compromise and because of that images will have a lot of compromise in quality. Despite that, I've heard a lot of positive comments on the lens and I've seen a couple of good reviews. Unfortunately, I've seen few full size shots on a 10D to actually see for myself.

Here is a shot I took with my 100-400L. at 340mm. The image is full sized as it came from my 10D.. I just cropped it out of the 3072x2048 image to get rid of a lot of water rather than doing any resizing or downsampling.

http://www.pbase.com/image/20073134/original

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Sorry, had to comment on the shot.
Great shot, Flying birds is something I'm still trying to master.

Greetings,
Frank

[DamienB]

The 100-400 is as said above noticeably sharper up to 300mm but beyond that the difference is less, but still there.

The IS on the 100-400 is the killer plus point for my needs and makes it no contest, but the extra 50mm on the wide end is sorely missed.

My experience with both is that they both have problems. The 50-500 is heavier (but easier to hold with that big tripod mount), the barrel part nearest the lens mount can work loose (Sigma repair it for a small fee, or for nothing if you send your attractive wife to drop it off and wait for them to do it!), it vignets a little below f11 at full zoom (yes even on a 1.6x crop DSLR) and that big 86mm filter size is expensive to deal with.

The 100-400 malfunctions a fair bit, particularly when pointed straight up or near the sun - the picture will jump left/right in the viewfinder and then the lens will lock up and the camera refuses to fire. You have to turn off, detach lens, put it back on and try again. Not great when taking action shots of aircraft. I have heard of two people with these lenses having the bearings go in the zoom mechanism - symptom being difficulty zooming initially followed by great gouges in the paint of the barrel and no movement at all. The push-pull zoom is faster to use than the twist zoom of the Sigma but the stiffness ring is a pain to use as it adjusts focus too.

If you have the money I would definitely go for the 100-400 despite its faults, but I wish Canon would do a 50-500!

[defordphoto]

I also have the 100-400L IS. Have never had the 'point-straight-up' lockup problem. Maybe your lens is defective. That being said I did have the focus mechanism go bad on mine. Took three trips for Canon to fix, but multiple trips for Canon service is commonplace. That's a whole 'nother thread.

That being said: I love this lens! See this gallery sample: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm

Most were shot at 400mm. This lens produces phenomenal sharpness, contrast and color! I was amazed from the first photo I have shot with it and still am today.

One thing I will suggest is to get the extra warranty with this lens, or at the least, purchase it with an American Express card which doubles your warranty to two years.

I have never used the 50-500, but several members here do have it and are pretty pleased.

[Wayne02]

RFMSports wrote:
That being said: I love this lens! See this gallery sample: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm
Not to throw this thread off topic too much, but I simply must comment on Jim's gallery. Stunning, simply stunning. The clarity of the shots is just incredible.

I road race at PIR with the SCCA (amateur), as well as Seattle, Bremerton, and Mission BC. I just bought my wife a 300D for use during my races, and we are looking for an affordable zoom lens that would work for those tracks. I realize the quality lens cost $$$, but we are just starting out with this action type photography. Not to mention I am a racer first, and wannabe photographer second. A thousand dollars buys me another set of race tires for next year. :)

So, I would like to keep the price at no more then $1000 if possible. I am vacillating between the sigma 70-200 2.8 ex apo w/ 1.4 extender, or possibly the sigma 100-300 F4 EX maybe w/ extender also.

I would like to use this lens for my sons soccer games as well as the auto races. Trying to decide if a 2.8 lens is required here in the oftentimes dark pacific northwest. I would like to have more reach then the 200, but if 2.8 is required for a quality shot I guess I'll just have to give up the reach. This lens would be used for wildlife photography as well, but this would be a secondary consideration.

Also, while I have raced at PIR plenty, I've never walked around to scope out potential photography locations. Are the locations you pro's use restricted, or are the amateurs allowed to use them as well? I am not so much concerned with the pit shots as I have access to all those areas. But I was wondering where are some good track-side locations, like maybe down by the chicane? I also realize the rules and such may very well be different for the professional races you shoot, and the amateur stuff we are doing.

Any guidance you could provide would be much appreciated. If this is too much OT for this thread you could respond via email if you like.

Thanks
Wayne
wrace@softhome.net

[defordphoto]

Wayne: Thanks for the kind gallery comments! I had a blast shooting that race. Anyway, since your budget is imited I'd got for the fastest, longest lens you can and then add a 1.4TC for a little extra reach. Obviously that's going to throw you into the Sigma brand, but they'r decent lenses and a little post processing and you're good to go.

When I'm at PIR I only go accredited with credentials. Everywhere I shoot is restricted. I haven't shot SCCA events so I'm not sure how restrictive they get as opposed to CART or ALMS. I've wanted to go out and scope out the SCCA events but have just not had the time. The best places to shoot are the pits -- of course -- the island if you can get to it. Then you have the chicane, which as awesome and you can get by with 200mm there, and then you're out onto the curves on the west side of the track.

There is access on both the outside and the inside, depending on how restrictive the corner workers are. And then you have a couple of places at the top end of the course before they hit the front straight.

Put on your walking shoes as there's lots of that to had when you shoot PIR. I shot mainly in the chicane last year and was very happy with the results.

I will be at the CART event -- if that happens this year -- and then also the ALMS event in July. I love shooting PIR as it's a 15-minute drive from Vancouver!

Thanks again...

[Belmondo]

RFMSports wrote: I love shooting PIR as it's a 15-minute drive from Vancouver!

There you go.....rubbing it in again.

Thos.

[defordphoto]

belmondo wrote:
RFMSports wrote: I love shooting PIR as it's a 15-minute drive from Vancouver!

There you go.....rubbing it in again.

Thos.

I'd much rather shoot at Laguna Seca, my former home track and I lived 3.5 hours from there. And I just found an MX park up in Woodland (the town there the boats race) that runs motorcycle races all winter long so I might take a run up there sometime soon and shoot the bikes.

[Wayne02]

Thanks Jim,
I think the chicane would be a good place to have my wife try to get some shots. The first lap of one of our scca club races is always interesting. I breath a sigh of relief once I get through unscathed after the start. What little metal to metal contact I've had at PIR has happened at the chicane. On the other hand it is also a very good place to set up people for a pass. Seems many of us club racers think our 3000lb. sedans have F1 brakes.:)

It also just dawned on me that all of our races next year are slated to be paddocked in the "pro pits" (on the inside). Up until this point we have been paddock on the outside of track in the parking lot, and the cars entered the track in front of the tower. This is probably a good thing as the "walk" to the inside shooting spots will be shorter without having to hoof it over the goodyear bridge.

With regards to lens. When people speak of a "fast" lens, what are the attributes to a fast lens? My very limited understanding is that the F stop is one attribute. With all things being equal a 2.8 would be a "faster" lens then a F4 or 5.6?

The focus motor itself would be another attribute. Maybe some focus motors are "faster" then others. Maybe another attribute would be if the lens had focusing at the back of lens vs the front? IS type lenses would be slower because there is "more" glass to move?

Don't know if any of that made sense. Just trying to understand what makes a fast focusing lens.

Thanks
Wayne

[FramerPDX]

I also Road Race at PIR but we do it on Motorcyles...

I bought a Canon D10 for the same reason...


I got the 100-400 though and have loved it ever since...

I am to a racer then a photographer but I am starting to get the hang of it...

check out my pbase site for some of the PIR shots...

http://www.pbase.com/framerpdx

PS

we still need to get together Jim I am game anytime this weekend...
tyl17@comcast.net

[morenoar]

Well, after taking over 70 pictures on the soccer fields, and comparing some of the pictures here on a 100-400 lens, time to take my Sigma back. Taking my pictures in Automatic or manual mode. Changing the Focus metering, doing Autofocus or manual focus. There is a HUGE difference in pictures. I used a Monopod to help me balance the 300D with the Sigma 50-500mm, and I don't like the pictures. Not as crisp as the pictures with the Canon lens. Love the 500mm capability, but I don't want to give up Sharpness for Depth. I would rather move around the field and get SHARP Pictures. This way, I can at least sell the pictures to the parents for a few dollars. Thanks for all of your inputs.

[defordphoto]

Morenoar: I'd show some of my soccer shots, but have made an agreement with the parents not to publish them on the Net due to privacy concerns (weirdos, freaks, soccer fetish-ists), but I have been just as pleased with the results, once I learned how to shoot them. Quite a learning experience from shooting cars and boats! :)

Wayne: You'll like it so much more better being paddocked across the way in the 'real' pits. Those tower pits are, well, the pits.

2.8 is 'faster' than 4 or 5.6, but when you're shooting outside 4/5.6 is plenty fast enough, even when it's cloudy.

And, there is no more glass in a IS lens than there is in a non-IS. The difference is the gyros. Best way to see this would be to download the schematics for an IS lens and then a non-is and compare. (http://www.micro-tools.com/pdf/Canon/) So focusing speed would not be an issue and would be virtually the same between the two lenses. But, with a different quality/build of a particular lens, the focusing speeds can differ quite a lot. USM-type lenses are the fastest and just like most things, the more expensive the lens is, the faster it will focus -- for the most part.

For a complete explanation of what is meant by f-stop and other aperture related information, see this page: http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

FramerPDX: You have mail. And call me this time! :)

[Canuck]

Have you looked into a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 w/ 2x TC???

That lens really rocks! I have one. I can't begin to tell you how much it rocks! This lens runs about $1900 from B&H.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[morenoar]

Well, a co-worker of mine allowed me to use his Canon 100-400L lens with a 2x Canon converter. No WIERD issues on my pictures AT ALL. Not like the Sigma Lens where I was getting ghost images on the pictures. The only negative I see is I can only use Manual Focus when using the 2X converter. But the PICS come out pretty good, even in a Semi Sunny Day. Looks Like the L lens will be purchased (which I already liked the outcome anyway) with a 2X converter.

[jameseba]

I like my Sigma 50-500 so far. I brought this over Canon 100-400L on cost. Look at http://www.pbase.com/jameseba/rhs I was very pleased with it. I was sitting about 5 to 10 rows at Texas Stadium. The only problem I had was DOF. I did not set my Av to wide open. I am planning to try again this weekend and I was supposed to be on the field. If I had the money, I might get Canon 100-400L or prime lens.

Take a look at http://www.pbase.com/image/23702809
The plane was about 20,000 feet over Denton, Texas. I cropped 200% It still clear but not sharp. Sigma 50-500 is powerful lens.

I have nothing against Canon Lens except for cost.

[morenoar]

I must have gotten a BAD LENS then. I have had the people in my company, photography department, look at my pictures and they can't figure out where I am getting the HORRIBLE lines on my PICS. I am going to save up for the Canon Lens and hope I don't have a problem. Nice Pictures though

[sjprg]

Here are more 50-500 shots

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/ed_levine_park

Paul

[Jerry Eisen]

These were all handheld using the 100/400 at various focal lengths. Hope this helps to make up your mind. The pictures of the two birds in flight were extremely cropped.

http://www.pbase.com/vciinc/florida_wildlife

Jerry

[morenoar]

Both of the sites show GREAT PICTURES. I am NOW SURE OF IT, I got a BAD LENSE. Now the question is, do I try another one and hope it works good, or just save for the L series and become an LCAHOLIC :-). HMM You are all turning me to the DARK SIDE. I was OK, with POINT and SHOOT, but then I got the BRIGHT IDEA to go DSLR, oh BOY.

Thanks all of you for your help and I will THANK all of you ahead of time for your SUPPORT

[sjprg]

I ran a copy of this in Photoshop CS and it really dosen't look bad. Post a full size tif and we can take another look at it. You didn't say if you shot Raw or Jpeg. I would say that this image shot in raw and processed with PSCS would look great.

[daaaveman]

How about the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L? That looks to be extremely versatile and at 3 lbs, a lot lighter than the Sigma and the same weight as the 100-400L. It runs $130 more that the 100-400L at B&H. The 35-350 is $1,479. The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is $1,349. What are your thoughts? I'm in the process of making the same decision.

[By S]

Nice pictures RFM. I understand the 100-400 is soft wide open at 400mm. Do you find that also? If so, how far do you have to stop down to bring it back to the sharpness found in the 100-200mm range?

[sp00g3]

jameseba wrote:
I like my Sigma 50-500 so far. I brought this over Canon 100-400L on cost. Look at http://www.pbase.com/jameseba/rhs I was very pleased with it. I was sitting about 5 to 10 rows at Texas Stadium. The only problem I had was DOF. I did not set my Av to wide open. I am planning to try again this weekend and I was supposed to be on the field. If I had the money, I might get Canon 100-400L or prime lens.

Take a look at http://www.pbase.com/image/23702809
The plane was about 20,000 feet over Denton, Texas. I cropped 200% It still clear but not sharp. Sigma 50-500 is powerful lens.

I have nothing against Canon Lens except for cost.


I see some massive Chromatic Abberation with that lense. anybody else notice this?

[KennyG]

By S wrote:
Nice pictures RFM. I understand the 100-400 is soft wide open at 400mm. Do you find that also? If so, how far do you have to stop down to bring it back to the sharpness found in the 100-200mm range?



This only seems to apply to a few lenses - manufacturing tolerances maybe? My 100-400L is tack sharp over the full range. I have a Sigma 50-500 (not for much longer I hope) and it does not have the crispness of the Canon, or the contrast, or the lack of flare, or the lack of CA, or the IS...... You have to use them side by side in anger to really appreciate the difference.

[justme_dc]

sp00g3 wrote:I see some massive Chromatic Abberation with that lense. anybody else notice this?

Uh yeah, the CA is terrible in the football shots. I hope that's just a bad sample of the lens otherwise I can't see the point in owning that lens at all.

[Jack_C]

I read a lot of CA issues with the 70-200 2.8 but have not heard of that issue with the 50-500.

I seen bad CA in the football shots but only on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 photos.

Didn't see any on the 50-500 shots I looked at. Might have missed it. Did you see some on the Bigma pics as well?

[defordphoto]

By S wrote:
Nice pictures RFM. I understand the 100-400 is soft wide open at 400mm. Do you find that also? If so, how far do you have to stop down to bring it back to the sharpness found in the 100-200mm range?



Soft? Not hardly. A majority of the shots in that gallery are full wide open at 400. Everytime I look at that gallery I cut myself.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I just read a measured comparison of Canons 400mm lenses including the the primes.

I wish I could remember the source,. but it listed the 100-400 at a better image quality @ 400mm then the 400mm f/5.6 AND the 400mm f/4 DO !!!!!!!

Personally I find it hard to believe that any zoom could out do those top shelf primes,. but thats what the report said.

Only the 400mm f/2.8 beat the 100-400mm.

[defordphoto]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I just read a measured comparison of Canons 400mm lenses including the the primes.

I wish I could remember the source,. but it listed the 100-400 at a better image quality @ 400mm then the 400mm f/5.6 AND the 400mm f/4 DO !!!!!!!

Personally I find it hard to believe that any zoom could out do those top shelf primes,. but thats what the report said.

Only the 400mm f/2.8 beat the 100-400mm.

Yeah I saw that too. That was over at Miranda's site and the anal-measurebators with their primes said the report was BS, which it wasn't, but they just can't fathom the lower-priced zoom beating their precious primes. I found their responses quite amusing.

I bought that lens without doing too much reading on it. Saw it was an L and the least expensive way to get into the 400 range in L-glass so I jumped on it. To say I am pleased with the lens is an under-statement. This lens just shines. The color, contrast and sharpness are pretty amazing whether wide open or not. Yeah it is not built quite as well as some of the other L's -- the 70-200L is world's above the 100-400 in build quality -- but the proof is in what it's produced and I still look in awe when I see my galleries from this past summer.

[By S]

Soft? Not hardly. A majority of the shots in that gallery are full wide open at 400.

Really? I looked at quite a few photos (several dozen at least)and didn't see see any full wide open at 400. When I get time I'll take another look.

[defordphoto]

By S wrote:

Soft? Not hardly. A majority of the shots in that gallery are full wide open at 400.

Really? I looked at quite a few photos (several dozen at least)and didn't see see any full wide open at 400. When I get time I'll take another look.


Really? You definitely need to re-check that gallery (Here's another link for you: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm ) And you'll see that indeed the majority are at 400.

http://www.rfmsports.com/USSBA/Photos/USSBAPhotos.html

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Saturday/index.htm

And the galleries located on theis webpage: http://www.rfmsports.com/USSBA/Photos/USSBAPhotos.html

I re-checked the previously mentioned gallery and the very first photo is at a full 400. Here is one of my faves with literally buckets of sharpness (There has been some USM applied on this photo and the others in this particular gallery:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4264_std.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

MAN! that shot is just awesome! ANd this guy doesn't spend a lot of time tweeking in PS either! Wow!!! I never thought that I would be able to see "heat" so damn clearly!

RFM,. I think when he says "wide open" he means at f/5.6@400mm,.. not just at 400mm. The wide open referring to aperture.

// don't say it,. I can hear it now... "DOH!"

[defordphoto]

Yeah true, but you know what? (I know YOU know CDS, and 99% of this does NOT apply to you but I'm saying it anyway) I could really care less one way or another. I don't sit around picking nits about every freaking lens and what's soft at wide-open at 100 or 400 or 147.957684637. Who freaking cares?

All I know is that the proof is in the photographs and this lens has helped me produce some of the most stunning photographs I have ever shot in my life. That is what matters.

Doesn't matter if it's the Sigma 50-500 or the Canon 100-400. I have seem some absolutely, unbelievable, cut-yourself sharp and bleed on your keyboard, fantastic photos from both lenses.

When I'm shooting, I don't worry about whether I'm wide open, at 233mm or 400mm. I don't lose sleep over CA, is it soft at f5.6 or any of that crap. I let the camera do its thing because that why I bought a camera like that.

And what is with the meters? Why would someone meter a setting when you already have a totally automatic camera? And with a histogram?

Personally I think there's way to much nit-picking and knocking this lens, and that lens, and this filter and that flash. Heck people even argue over which freaking bag to buy!

Since photography's gone digital I have never seen so much angst over sharpness. It's incredible and sad all at the same time to see people so concerned about the technical aspects of almost every shot that they can't even see the subject.

They can't even see the forest for the trees. Some of the world's most famous and Pulitzer-winning prize photographs are technical disasters. But, the subject is stunning and that is what matters.

It's the moments we capture, not the f-stops or DOF. That is what I do and that's how I approach my photography. If I ever get too caught up in the minute details and quirks about my equipment I'll just throw it all in the street and walk away. That is NOT photography.

Photography is an art. A feeling. A fleeting moment captured for a lifetime. It makes you laugh and makes you cry. It captures the pure love and innocence of a child. It captures the hate and death of war.

And once you lose that aspect of photography and attempt to break it down to bits and bytes and f-stops and chromatic aberration it becomes meaningless and the art it tossed out the window.

Sure the finest equipment will assist you in capturing the perfect moment at the perfect time, but photography, in my most humblest of opinions is so, so, so much more than that.

I feel most fortunate to being blessed with the ability to own some of the finest photographic equipment in the world today and the ability to produce a few photographs that people can appreciate and understand what I was seeing and feeling at that very moment.

Life itself does not get much better than that, and it's comments like your's this evening CDS that make photography all worthwhile.

I'll get off my soapbox here now, but let us please not lose sight of the world that is right before us every day, whether the shot be grainy or soft, sharp or crystal clear.

On my personal site logo is the saying: Celebrating the art of photography. Don't ever forget that.

http://www.defordphoto.com/DPlogo.jpg

[Belmondo]

Same lens. More heat.

T

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353111_1175-2-med.jpg

[defordphoto]

Beautiful Tom!! Stunning! Was that at the train drags? ;)

[Belmondo]

Yeah. One thing about those trains, the burnouts are spectacular.

Actually, the red-nosed locomotive was pushing on the tail end of a train going the opposite direction. The yellow locomotive was coming towards me. The speed differential was probably around 70-80 mph, so the shot was a little tricky to time. Glad you like it.

Tom

[defordphoto]

Oh really? That's neat. I'll have to make a trip down to the trainyard sometime. Not only for shooting the trains and the other metal stuff there, but also the people.

I can see a trainyard on a foggy day with a gnarly looking trainmaster walking across the tracks to his train.

I need to go out for a shoot. It's been a couple of weeks...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Great shot Tom! It does look like a drag race :)

RFM, well said,. indeed if I could fit those paragraghs,. you would be quoted in my sig!

As to why the switch from Film to Digital has had such an effect on the way people talk about photography gear... I think it has a lot to do with the mix with computer stuff... not just the digital aspects but the forums themselves,. the ability to compare al this stuff we are photographing.

Without the internet,. where on earht would a group of individuals be able to get to gether long enough to discuss at length the details of which peice of glass has more CA or which is softer, or the bits and bytes?

Ahh well,. I can be a gear head with the best (and worst) of them, but the lesson is as you say, its not about the gear.

This is why I love it so much,. it gets me outside with the birds and the trees! (and my two dogs)

[CyberDyneSystems]

O-kay,. for comparisons sake :)

This is with the 50-500mm late evening under a canopy of leaves and trees at ISO 800 500mm "wide open" :D

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1214026&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another shot this time before sunset


Again 500mm f/6.3

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1214031&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[Jack_C]

Here's another Sigma 50-500 sample, 500mm 1/250 f5.6 ISO400.

From Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/bigma_in_the_wild

http://www.pbase.com/image/24228692/original.jpg

[defordphoto]

Excellent! All very outstanding shots!!

[Jack_C]

Jim - your shots are very impressive. How do you achieve such color/contrast, any suggestions for those of us trying to improve our results?

[defordphoto]

Jack_C wrote:
Jim - your shots are very impressive. How do you achieve such color/contrast, any suggestions for those of us trying to improve our results?



Jack: If you go back a few posts and read my long post that will explain a few things through all my other bantering.

First off and foremost: All those shots were shot Large/Fine. I do not shoot sports in RAW mode. It's too slow and takes up too much space.

I pretty much let the camera do its thing. Sometimes I shoot in the sports mode, sometimes in P mode, but mostly in TV mode and then just set whatever shutter speed I feel like shooting with.

When shooting both the boats and the Portland ChampCar shots we varied from sun to clouds and I'd adjust the WB to fit. But, then if it shifted too much, then I'd just flip it over to AWB and forget about so I can concentrate on shooting.

Except for the Portland 3 Day gallery, I did no post-processing on ANY of those shots other than put them through BreezeBrowser which does some sharpening.

And you can tell the cloudy shots as you'll see a brownish cast over the cars/boats as compared to the sunny pics.

My post processing on the Portland 3 Day gallery consisted of setting white and black points through Image/Adjustments/Levels, sometimes punching color saturation a few clicks (maybe) through Image/Adjustments/Variations/Saturation/Fine and then applying USM as 200/.05/0.

That process resets the white balance and removes that brownish haze in the photos. I then resave as JPEG (but ALWAYS keep the original intact) at the lowest level of compression.

If I do any sigiificant changes on a JPEG -- say someone is making a photo purchase, I make my changes and then save the file in TIFF so as to not lose ANY photo quality by recompressing.

Now, on the other hand, say if I were hired by a team or sponsor to do a specific, important shoot I would most definitely then shoot RAW, whip out the grey cards and all that, as I would need that extra RAW info for more detailed post-processing and possible huge enlargements.

So, I pretty much shoot with the KISS attitude. I don't get too caught up in the technical details of what I am shooting. Let the camera figure that out. Heck, I rarely even look at the histogram! That's why I bought such a sophisticated camera so I can concentrate more on WHAT I am shooting as opposed to my camera settings.

And lastly, one major factor in getting more punch into your photos is the L-factor. L-glass has definitely changed my world. The difference is quite amazing.

Also, I rarely crop my photos. I like shooting the photo my eye sees as the finished product with no cropping. Sometimes I'll envoke a little cropping where I missed something in the background, but pretty much in my work I do WYSIWYG and crop rarely.

Did that answer your questions?

[Jack_C]

Great, thanks Jim.

[By S]

[RFM,. I think when he says "wide open" he means at f/5.6@400mm,.. not just at 400mm. The wide open referring to aperture.

Yes, I mean at f5.6 and 400mm... Needed for wildlife which tend to be out and about in the lower light conditions.

I did try one lens but found it quite soft there and returned it (although it sharpened up nicely when stopped down a bit). Still trying to decide if it is a build quality issue and I should try again...but I'm gradually deciding from the many examples on the web that it is in fact the lens and not a build quality issue. Too bad since I'd like the longer reach and IS over my current 100-300L. :(

[defordphoto]

By S wrote:
[RFM,. I think when he says "wide open" he means at f/5.6@400mm,.. not just at 400mm. The wide open referring to aperture.

Yes, I mean at f5.6 and 400mm... Needed for wildlife which tend to be out and about in the lower light conditions.

I did try one lens but found it quite soft there and returned it (although it sharpened up nicely when stopped down a bit). Still trying to decide if it is a build quality issue and I should try again...but I'm gradually deciding from the many examples on the web that it is in fact the lens and not a build quality issue. Too bad since I'd like the longer reach and IS over my current 100-300L. :(


Yeah well then obviously I probably have NO wide open aperture shots as that was not the conditions I was shooting under. In that case you'd probably be better off with a prime.

But, soft is fixable too. As you can yell by my previous posts, I don't measurebate. :)

[ilya]

Jim - that's got to be one of the best sports shots I've seen. Simply amazing.

Tom - so you do take pictures of non-linear moving objects? Considering that these trains are moving in opposite directions at 80 mph (sounds like a high school math problem), and you really have only one shot at it, that is a fabulous shot.

CDS - as usual, fantastic bird shots.

Now all of you, stop it. Folks may think you really are into taking pictures rather then talking about your equipment. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

To my eyes the 100-400 images i have seen have allways looked sharper.. of the tow lenses. It is hard to compare from my own experience as I seems all my pics are taken in difficult lighting with higher ISO settings.

I think they are both great lense,. the 100-400 is a lot lighter too. But the 50-500mm is certainly a respectable lens,.. wanna buy mine?

I have a 500mm prime now and I think it's time to sell the zoom :D

[KennyG]

I wondered why the car below was making such an awful racket on his way round the circuit. It wasn't until I had a closer look at one of my pics that I spotted the problem.

Full size at 400mm, 1/500 and F8. His speed at this point would have been around 100mph. The close-up is simply a 100% crop. This was good enough to be published.


http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/blow-full.jpg

http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/blowing.jpg

[defordphoto]

KennyG: SCCA Runoffs at Mid-Ohio?

Great shots, BTW.

[KennyG]

It is Classic F3 here in the UK. We have a quite a number of 'classic' race series:

TGP Thoroughbred Grand Prix with a lot of 70's and 80's championship F1 cars.

F3 classic over a similar era.

Formula Ford classic covering 25 or so years.

BOSS Big Open Single Seaters. I love this one. Mixture of old(ish) F1 cars as well as ex Indy and Champ. Makes for great racing and the grid girls are tasty too!

Classic touring cars with cars that look more like family run-abouts.

Maybe it is because I was photographing them when they were current and I am a bit nostalgic, or trying to recover my youth. Whatever, I do love to see them in action, and trust me, these boys don't give any quarter.


One for the saloon types - 10D + 100-400L @ 330mm.

http://www.ken.grey.dsl.pipex.com/images/oulton2003/ctc-38.jpg


The embarassing thing is that there are very few pictures of me racing in my Formula Ford. Maybe its because I'm rarely in the top three.

[defordphoto]

Ahh excellent! The lower echelon of motorsports in Europe is kind of hard to follow here in the US. Not now with the advent of the Internet, but previosuly unless you subscribed to the proper mag, you knew nothing.

I am going to try and make it out to my local track in 2004 and see the classic races and some of the lower echelon as there is some fun racing to be had out there.