/p/ - Photography » Thread #2923875

[50 / 4 / ?]

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 09:45:42 No.2923875 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2924131 >>2924869 >>2925077 >>2925290 >>2926292

Anyone on /p/ have any experience with budget super teles?

I'm thinking the Sigma 150-600 C will be best for me, but can't find one second hand anywhere.

There's plenty of Sigma 150/500 C second hand for cheap and plenty of Tamron 150-600s as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 11:05:34 No.2923918 Report

Quoted By: >>2923922 >>2926274

Slow as shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 11:11:23 No.2923922 Report

Quoted By: >>2923926

>>2923918
i'm an enthusiast, I don't want to pay 5K+ to get this focal length

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 11:17:18 No.2923926 Report

Quoted By: >>2923929

>>2923922

What are you shooting? You'll get much nicer shots with 300 f/4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 11:28:19 No.2923929 Report

Quoted By: >>2923950

>>2923926
want a nice telephoto for travel,

Wildlife, landscape etc etc.

zoom with that focal length and range at just 2kg is amazing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 12:10:33 No.2923950 Report

Quoted By: >>2924846

>>2923929

It's not amazing, though. You're sacrificing image quality and speed.

600mm needs high shutter speeds. You will be pushing your ISO a lot, believe me. Even average lighting conditions may force you to not only raise ISO, but also lower your exposure time.

Just saying... it is cheap for a reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 14:30:39 No.2923989 Report

Quoted By: >>2924097 >>2924695

Nikon 200-500 is fixed at 5.6, 1/3 darker than 4. is this a nice option?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 15:20:25 No.2924003 Report

Quoted By: >>2924154

Wow it's not like there isn't a thread for just this sort of thing

If only people weren't borderline braindead and could read the sticky and lurk moar

>>2922026

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 18:53:26 No.2924097 Report

Quoted By:

>>2923989

>1/3 darker

Kek.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 19:31:12 No.2924131 Report

Quoted By:

>>2923875
Just get a cheap mirror lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Sep 2016 20:05:17 No.2924154 Report

Quoted By:

>>2924003

fuck off cuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 10:31:41 No.2924695 Report

Quoted By:

>>2923989

It's twice as dark, sweetie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 11:48:16 No.2924755 Report

Quoted By:

I have the tamron 200-500.
It's OK for birding in broad daylight I guess.

Honestly my 28-300 has good enough image quality to crop and provide a better close up most of the time, plus have enough range to take most any photo I want. (Thanks Ken)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 13:24:48 No.2924846 Report

Quoted By: >>2924850 >>2924887 >>2924900 >>2927671

>>2923950
I live in a sunny country and I'm tired of shooting at f8 iso100 1/2000 on the street.

In average light conditions f6.3 is more than enough to shoot at iso 100-800 with shutter speeds of more than 1/1250 anyday. If you need more iso than that you live in fucking norway during winter; and if your camera gets noise so bad it's hard to stand even after post production your sensor is shit or you're a pixelpeeping gearfag.

And even if you're one of those, in both cases chances are you can afford an 80d/d7200 if you're looking at 1k zoom lenses for birding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 13:26:39 No.2924850 Report

Quoted By:

>>2924846
Also sigma and tamron has superb stabilization nowadays.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 14:06:14 No.2924869 Report

Quoted By:

>>2923875
not worth it and for a lot of valid reasons already listed here.

this logic applies to all lens purchases, but the supertele lenses especially: the value of the investment increases exponentially the more you're willing to invest. you get what you pay for with sigma and tamron's "budget" super teles.

Canon's 100-400mm II will get you a much, much better image at a more consistent rate (aka AF) and with far better handling if you're willing to wait for used varieties to start popping up on craigslist. It shouldn't cost you much more if you're patient.

Sigma has awful AF and if that doesn't bother you you may as well buy an older and sharper manual superprime for a fraction of the price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 14:37:16 No.2924887 Report

Quoted By: >>2924936

>>2924846

>strugglig to justify at all costs

If you want to buy an ultra pleb level lens no matter what, go ahead. Stop coming here to ask questions you will only dismiss the answers to.

The sun is bright everywhere on the globe, retard. But I know that with wildlife there is never enough light, and f/4 at a lower focal length will get you more shots than that joke.

Enjoy the consistently subpar shots.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Wed 14 Sep 2016 14:57:00 No.2924900 Report

Quoted By:

>>2924846

Just a bit of advice:

A bright day for a super tele is very different than with a wider lens, because you are taking in so much less of the scene.

It can be as bright as possible, but the bird on the side of a tree or the face of a bear is only going to reflect so much of that light, even if it is direct. It makes a huge difference.

On a budget, 300 f/4 is king for wildlife.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 15:31:58 No.2924936 Report

Quoted By: >>2924949 >>2924964 >>2925158

>>2924887
I'm not op smartass. And yes, those lenses are fast enough and focus fast enough for any enthusiast that want good results.

And no, a 300mm pcroppedicture taken at f4 will never, or almost never be sharper than a 600mm shot at f6.3, not to mention that you need to move to frame subjects in situations that you cant (i.e. hiding in a bush, silently awaiting an animal to pass by) and pay almost 400$ more for that prime.

And if animals move fast you just use the panning technique to follow and get them sharp.

You're like those that say that kit lenses are bad because they can't overcome their gear limitations with knowledge and ability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 15:49:38 No.2924949 Report

Quoted By:

>>2924936

Let's see all your stellar results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 16:08:56 No.2924964 Report

Quoted By: >>2925291

>>2924936

>can't get closer
>can't compose with primes

Oh, yeah. You should be giving advice, Protog.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO just get the new tamron.jpg, 18KiB, 800x513

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 16:28:13 No.2924976 Report

Quoted By: >>2925248

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 19:22:03 No.2925077 Report

Quoted By: >>2925134

>>2923875
just get an 800mm telescope and a T2 adapter
:^)

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3456.jpg, 216KiB, 1000x563

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Wed 14 Sep 2016 20:35:08 No.2925134 Report

Quoted By:

>>2925077

>not using 2800mm f/10

Just use the panning technique, and you can get perfect cloaca shots mid-flight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 21:12:03 No.2925157 Report

Quoted By:

You are probably better off with one of those super zoom cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 21:12:38 No.2925158 Report

Quoted By:

>>2924936
Depending on the quality of the superzoom, a cropped photo taken with a 300mm f4 can most certainly be sharper. And have better contrast and less chromabs. And have better AF to boot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 23:37:08 No.2925248 Report

Quoted By: >>2925250

>>2924976
This one actually looks pretty cool(lock mode, new more fluid design, etc...) Might get one sometime after it's release.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Sep 2016 23:38:57 No.2925250 Report

Quoted By: >>2925869

>>2925248

>not getting one before its release

Fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 00:47:24 No.2925290 Report

Quoted By:

>>2923875
Check the sigma site itself they have refurbed ones at 800ish

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 00:47:54 No.2925291 Report

Quoted By: >>2925292 >>2925535

>>2924964
>Shooting deers mating after hours hidden
>has to move back because they're too close
>Even the smallest soud scares them
>muh primes

Just accept the fact that for some purposes a prime is not the best choice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 00:49:29 No.2925292 Report

Quoted By: >>2925341

>>2925291

Post the pics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 02:18:23 No.2925341 Report

Quoted By:

>>2925292

The entire scenario only took place in his mind

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 08:46:19 No.2925535 Report

Quoted By: >>2925907

>>2925291
If a prime is too tight for your situation you can go for small detail shots. It doesn't mean primes suck, it only means you are shit as a photographer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 13:10:36 No.2925648 Report

Quoted By: >>2925653

These lenses have dogshit auto focus and iq compared to canon or nikon teles.

There's 2 scenarios:

>buy this lens
>"oh wow I can take shots of pigeons and children in the park from my car"
>after 3 months the plastic gets cracked
>bunch of your shots have tons of noise and low iq if the pidgeon is out in the evening and it's even slightly dark
>sunlight blows the highlights the fuck out, which is fine if it's consistent, but it's not and some shots come out in janky colours

Or

>buy used canon 100-400 MARK 1
>solid workhorse lens
>consistent quality
>won't be disappointed in 6 months

I've rented the Sigma/Tamron, and both the mark 1 & 2 canon lenses. On a 7dii the Sigma ruined what's a good af system and gave me janky quality. I'd also be terrified of even the slightest bump.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 13:12:41 No.2925653 Report

Quoted By: >>2925655

>>2925648

But 400 is less than 600. And also it doesnt look as cool.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 13:13:41 No.2925655 Report

Quoted By:

>>2925653
Nigger detected

White is clearly better than black

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Sep 2016 19:02:46 No.2925869 Report

Quoted By:

>>2925250
I don't have the money.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Thu 15 Sep 2016 20:24:24 No.2925907 Report

Quoted By:

>>2925535

When I first started shooting with primes, I had all the typical fears, and quickly realized they are unwarranted.

You just adapt. I never worry, whether at 200 or 600, because you can always come up with decent composition as long as there's something in the background.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 09:59:25 No.2926274 Report

Quoted By: >>2926286

>>2923918
Sir, i own the contemporary version, i must say it is the best 1,700 ive spent on any lens, the lack of speed can be countered with a flash and a extender on it such as better beamer or a DIY one.

I highly recommend this lens, havent tried the sport version but the C version is still fantastic, sharp, focus's quickly, good zoom range, low CA, and great stabilizer, ive gotten some good shots at 1/15th with the stabilizer on

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 10:51:48 No.2926286 Report

Quoted By:

>>2926274

All this bait... nope.

Post some shots with exif.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_5215.jpg, 2MiB, 3000x2000

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 10:53:50 No.2926287 Report

Quoted By: >>2926291 >>2926318 >>2926322

Don't listen to these brainwashed Americans. They've been told throughout their lives that buying more expensive things will solve all their problems. Absolutely fucking pathetic.

The lens is great bang for the buck, well built, has effective IS and is sharp in the centre (not so much in the corners) throughout the zoom range. You will have fun with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 10:59:00 No.2926291 Report

Quoted By:

>>2926287

Now there's some fast action.

Just go to Flickr and have a look. Lots of chromabs and grainy shots in less than ideal situations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 11:03:39 No.2926292 Report

Quoted By:

>>2923875

I have the tamron sp 150-600 f5-6.3. Not pro nikkor-tier sharp, but good for its price. Works great on my d3s. Recently did an airshow and had to use 1/1000s+ to get sharp pics at 600mm, so be prepared to up the iso.
Also, at 600mm atmospheric conditions will most likely make your pics blurry too, so take care.

I recommend it if you have a nice camera and desire more range.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 12:01:16 No.2926318 Report

Quoted By:

>>2926287
how will it perform on my eos m?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 12:14:51 No.2926322 Report

Quoted By: >>2926328 >>2927664

>>2926287

Useless under a tree canopy. Useless in the evening. Useless for action on overcast days.

Unless you like ISO 6400.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 Sep 2016 12:38:43 No.2926328 Report

Quoted By: >>2927656

>>2926322
yup OP listen basically it's 600mm f/4L IS II or bust. The lens is practically useless

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 18 Sep 2016 10:33:58 No.2927656 Report

Quoted By:

>>2926328
great advice fucker

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 18 Sep 2016 11:14:21 No.2927664 Report

Quoted By: >>2927707

>>2926322
>Unless you like ISO 6400
Not everyone uses Canon, for most of us the image doesn't fall apart to noise, banding and mushy nodetails at ISO 6400.

!P3141593qY

!P3141593qY Sun 18 Sep 2016 11:31:44 No.2927671 Report

Quoted By:

>>2924846
buy a ND filter

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 18 Sep 2016 12:38:45 No.2927707 Report

Quoted By:

>>2927664

Know what looks even better than ISO 6400 on any system?

ISO 1600. Which is pretty much your average max for f/4.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches