A good reason to reconsider a " Super Zoom "

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.

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.



Great picture in any case.

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 ).

... 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)

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)

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

Just needed a touch of USM.

Much much better..

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.

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

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
some more

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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 …=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.

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 ($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.

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.