New Lens-Camera Manufactuers or 3rd Party

You would think that by purchasing a Canon or Nikon lens to go with your body you would be getting the best possible quality in both build and image but thats not always the way and sometimes you can get better IQ buy purchasing a lens from a 3rd party manuafactuer and it will also save you money, I dont think you will get better IQ in long lenses than from the camera manufactuers but Sigma do make some different focal lengths than usual like their 120-300F2.8 and their Sigmonster 300-800 both are very good lenses, Not as fast focusing maybe but have very good IQ and are very versatile and nowhere near the cost of a Canon or Nikon, I certainly would say both are well worth a look and i would be happy to have the 120-300 in my camera bag, I read an English camera mag the other day and whilst most things have been written before or are somebody else's words rewritten i do tend to read camera and lens reviews, The review i read was about macro lens in the 100mm range, I used to own the Tamron SP90 and it was a great lens and i doubt you would find a sharper lens, In the review the new Tamron SP90 wiped the floor with Canon and Sigma and just pipped the new Nikon 105VR to take top marks which is amazing, Last year when i renewed all my gear i chose the Sigma 180mm Macro over Nikon's own 200mm macro as i believe Sigmas 150 and 180mm macros are top of the macro pile for that focal length, I would have made the same decision if i had stayed with Canon, not that Nikon's and Canons macros are bad as they are well built and give good results but i can get just as good results or better with a lens that's half the price and probably faster focusing in Canons case , So what am i saying-well don't be blinkered into thinking that because you have a Canon body that you need to use a Canon lens to get the best results,also if you ask for advise on a certain lens on a forum beware of people who have that particular lens and will tell you how good it is without knowing what other lenses in that range are like, i see it all the time and one persons 'pin sharp image' is another persons 'soft' image, Lenses are something that will last for years unlike camera bodies so take your time to make sure that you make the right decisions

Dave

Low and Mid range Lenses

Not everybody can afford or needs pro lenses but everybody wants to have good quality images, So if your budget is in the low hundreds rather than thousands what should you buy-do you stick with Canon or Nikon or do you look at 3rd party lenses like Sigma,Tamron or Tokina, Well in the past i have used some of Sigmas EX range and had very good results and would have no hesitation in recommending them against the mid range lenses from Canon and Nikon and if you are looking cheaper still then i would buy Sigmas and Tamrons over the Camera Manufactuers lenses, The Quality of 3rd party lenses has increased over the last 10 years and hold their own against low and mid budget lenses from Canon or Nikon, Late last year i replaced all my kit and chose the Sigma 180mm Macro over Nikons macro offerings,Both Sigmas 180 and 150mm Macro lenses are excellent and way below the cost of Canon or Nikons lenses, I used Tamrons 90mm Macro for years and it was as sharp as any Macro lens i have come across, So dont think that as you have a Canon or Nikon body that the lenses have to come from the same as there are some excellent lenses out there are a fraction of the cost

Dave

Long Lens - Part 4 - Protection

So you have shelled out loads of money and bought your cherished big lens, and you now have a zonking great big white or black lens that will attract plenty of attention - learn to live with it.

However, you might want to be a little less obtrusive if only to the wildlife - so what options do we have?

Cheapest option has got to be tape - I have seen black gaffer tape all over lenses, or maybe you might prefer some camo tape. Make sure that if you go this route you think about how you are going to remove any sticky residue. However, this simple and cost effective solution does work. I know Dave used it for many years on his Canon 500F4 IS L, and that it did the job and was as good as new when removed and cleaned up.

I opted for the neoprene LensCoat for my 500 when I got it a couple of years back. If you are in the UK, you can get them from Warehouseexpress.com, there is usually a link in the Google ads on the blog.

As you can see from the image, these are made up of a number of elements, that are a bit a tight squeeze to get on, and they do leave gaps usually at the junctions of the moving parts. Additionally, you get a clear window over the controls so you can see what you are adjusting easily - you will note that my distance limiter was set to 4.5 - 10 m, as I had been trying to get some images around the reflection pool in my garden.

Below the 500 is my 300f2.8 with the Wildlifewatchingsupplies version.

As you can see these sections butt up to each other and there is no clear panel, which is a bit more of a pain, but the benefit is that this system is much cheaper for UK buyers certainly as it is UK made. It makes it a little stiffer to swivel the lens on the mount when going from landscape to portrait mode, but I think part of that problem is a different design of mount as well.

Now my main reason for buying these covers is simply to protect the lens from knocks, bumps and scrapes, particularly when operating from hides and the car (and protect the car paintwork too). The Lenscoat is less good at dust and weather protection due to the gaps, but that is where the next system comes in.

Again at exceptionally good value for money from Wildlifewatching supplies are the lens and body covers. The image to the left shows the lens cap, main lens cover and body cover. These are the double sided versions to give some decent weather protection. I use these when there is rain, dust or spray about. The lens hoods are particularly good, as I quickly realised that I was going to lose the Canon plastic clunky cover, and at that price it was something that I did not want to do. These hoods are in the early teens of pounds, so not the end of the world when I lose it - and I have already once.

Finally, the best protection is to keep it in your bag when moving from location to location. Dave has already shared how he does it in this blog. In the next part of the Long Lens series, I will share details of my custom made '500 with lens hood fitted the right way round, plus body, ready to shoot straight out of the bag' bag

Martin

Long Lens - Part 2 - Which BIG one?

In the first part, I talked about a progression path through a number of the smaller lenses that many people find themselves on. In Part 2, I am going to explore some of the thinking that you might have gone through if you already are an owner of one of the big 'uns, or some of the things you need to think about before you part with a lot of money.

I will talk about the Canon primes today essentially, although the same basic logic will also apply to the Nikon offerings too, as I am sure Dave will agree.

The first issue most amateurs go through is the justification of such a significant amount of money - but before you get your mind set on your dream lens at a particular price, you need to think about how you are going to carry this prized bit glass around and how you are going to support it. Your tripod and head that you have been happy supporting anything below something like the 300f2.8 will probably not be anything like sufficient for your 500 f4 or 600f4!!. Dave's article here sets out some of the main things you need to think about. As a guide, I spent almost a further £1000 on tripod, head and Wimberley Sidekick to support my 500f4 before anything else.

But nevertheless, you understand that and you NEED a long lens. So what are your choices?

From the most practical point of view in terms of cost, weight, support, carry-ability and size, the 500f4 offering is probably the most popular choice for wildlife. They are substantially lighter than both the 600f4 and 400f2.8 models from either range. They can be used hand held for short periods of time, and their cost is relative more affordable than the others.

As we have said before, reach is everything in wildlife, and to that end the 600f4 will give that extra reach, meaning less cropping of images for distant subjects. I would like one of these but the majority of people I have spoken to who use them, never carry them that far. So if you believe you will never need to venture far from your car, then the 600 f4 would be the kiddie for you.

When I took the pictures of the Short Eared Owls here, I could have taken all these with a 600 if I had one, as I was never more than 10 metres from the car.

All of these primes lenses work exceptionally well with the Canon 1.4EFTC, and it is possible to get some images with the 2X, but more of that in another part at a later date.

One great offering that Nikon have in their range is the 200-400f4VR zoom, something that would do quite well in the Canon range if only they would make it. Dave will do a more detailed review of this lens at a later date no doubt, but I do know he is enjoying using the flexibility and quality that gives him.

In terms of portability, the Canon 500f4 IS L weighs in at 3.87Kg whereas the 600f4IS L comes in at a hefty 5.36Kg, which is substantial. I have no problems carrying my 500, plus body plus a few other bits in my bag all day and hiking up mountains with it.

The other consideration is the bag you use, particularly if you wish to travel overseas by air. Again the 500 is easily manageable with carry-on bag allowance, both in terms of weight and size. Although, make sure you check specifically with your individual carrier, and Do NOT rely upon them adopting universal carry on allowances particularly here in the UK

So, you pay your money and you take your choice. The 500 is generally the best compromise for wildlife photographers, certainly judging by the numbers that I see out in the field being used, and numbers of images posted on forums.

Martin

Gear we use and abuse - Dave's Kit Review

My current photographic equipment:
Bodies:
Nikon D3 -Full Frame
Nikon D300-Cropped Sensor
Lenses:
Nikon 14-24F2.8
Nikon 24-70F2.8
Nikon 200-400F4 VR
Nikon 600F4 VR
Sigma 180F3.5 Macro
Nikon 1.4x extender
Nikon 1.7x extender
Flash-Nikon SB900 and Better Beamer
Binoculars-Nikon Monarch 10x36
Gitzo 1548Tripod with Gitzo self levelling base
Wimberly Mk2 Gimbal head
Arca Swiss B1 ball head

Lenscoat protection to Nikon 200-400 and 600 lenses
Bags-Lowepro Pro trekker and Nature trekker
For landscapes-Lee filters Polariser and ND Grad filters 1, 2 and 3 stops
Studio Equipment:
Elinchrom D Lite 4 kit with Elinchrom 135cm Octa softbox
Sekonik 358 handheld light meter

I changed from Canon to Nikon in Sept 2008 for many reasons but mostly as had been an early adapter of the Canon 1D MK3 , I had all kinds of problems with the AF which has been well documented, Canon Suisse (I lived in Switzerland at the time) were next to useless in dealing with the problem and it was only after I showed files from the 5D against the MK3 did they exchange the body. I had had the body over a year by then and it was too little to late as far as I was concerned-a real shame as when I got it right it was a terrific camera. The other reason I changed was that I was about to move Stateside and decided it would be better to sell all my equipment in Europe and with a healthy exchange rate buy new in the States.

This then gave me options as I had a fist full of dollars and could choose what would suit me best at that time-which turned out to be Nikon. A decision that wasn’t taken lightly as I had shot with Canon for 14 years and knew the camera like the back of my hand but its just a tool and one that you need 100% confidence in. Nikon's wide angled lenses have always been great as is their flash system but with the new D3 body and new Long lenses (if you can get them) meant that they had a total system. I am awaiting the new 70-200 F2.8 to fill the gap I have in my lens collection. The current model will work perfectly with the D300 but isn’t so good with the new Full Frame models, but as I would like it for general photography and portraiture as well as wildlife I will wait.

So its all still new to me and I still find myself trying to twist the lens the wrong way when talking off the camera and zooming out rather than in but I am getting there and am so far extremely impressed with the overall quality feel of the equipment and the results that I have been getting from it. The D3 was an easy choice as its had such rave reviews, with consistant AF , great build quality, good ergonomics (once you get used to it) and a battery that lasts forever. The downsides so far are a loud shutter (I miss the quiet mode of the Canon), no dust removal (The Canon wasn’t perfect but every little helps) and no live histogram which is a feature that I loved on the Canon (if there is one can somebody tell me where it is please) - All in all though a truly great camera body. The image quality is top notch and the high ISO is legendary, but I needed a back up camera and after spending weeks deliberating I decided on the D300 as seemed a well spec’d camera at a reasonable price with the advantage of having a cropped sensor for more distant subjects. The thing that really surprised me was just how good the D300 really is. The image quality is excellent and now with the latest firmware upgrade the AF is as good as the D3 with the added benefit of the AF points covering a larger part of the frame-great for composing a shot. The AF really is excellent and from people who have both Canon and Nikon systems working side by side they say that the D300 out performs anything Canon currently has on offer and I have to agree-for the money it has to be the best camera on the market. Now nothing is perfect and I will only shoot the D300 up to ISO 800, above this and its D3 territory which excels at ISO’s up to 1600 and above without need for noise reduction software. When I go out for wildlife I find that I take the D3 attached to the 600 and have the D300 attached to the 200-400 and add extenders if required
.

If the birds are distant then a quick swap over of the bodies gives maximum reach. The 200-400 has been around for some time and has always been regarded as a brilliant lens, I have never understood why Canon hasn’t bought out a similar model and feel they are really missing out here. It was one good reason to change to Nikon. A pricey lens like all Nikon Pro lenses but for wildlife its brilliant, as it is light enough to handhold and with a very good range for general wildlife shooting, working well with extenders and has great IQ-What more could you want in a lens. The 600 is a true beast of a lens-huge is one word and after using a 500F4 for years bulky-not for handholding unlike the 500 and not the best lens if you hike, but the new Nikon 600F4 VR (nano crystal model) focuses down to 5m which is an incredible feat and a bonus for shooting small birds from a hide. It is incredibly expensive but the quality shines through in both IQ and build quality-will last for many years unlike my back. Both cameras work well with a 1.4x attached but I find that the 1.7x does slow the AF down enough to be a pain for birds in flight and try to avoid using it in those situations.

I have only used the wide lenses for interiors and portraiture and a couple of sunsets so haven’t really had a chance to put them through their paces. What I can say is that in a studio, the 24-70 is a dream giving great portraits with lots of detail and great sharpness when used with the D3. You can see the sunset taken with the 24-70 in the blog. The 14-24 has had rave reviews from everybody that use it and even some Canon photographers are using it with an adapter, I have only had a play really and have shot some interior images and some test shots which are really sharp right to the edges but will need to use it more to give a better review. The down side of having this lens is the bulbous front element making use of filters next to impossible. The only chance I have had of using the Sigma 180 Macro was when my dog walked in from the garden with a preying mantis stuck to his beard, I managed to get the mantis onto a stick and take a few shots before it went on his way. Depth of field is incredibly small when using this lens at 1:1 so a very small aperture needs to be used so make sure your D3 sensor is clean (its only real drawback) but the images proved to be very sharp and have a nice contrast. Why the Sigma and not the Nikon? -well I have seen some truly great images taken with this lens on forums that I visit and know some pro’s that use it and at the price it’s a bargain.

Nikon have always had a good reputation for their flash system. The SB900 came out as I was about to make the switch and while it seemed expensive, you do get diffusers and filters with the gun which you don’t get with other makes and its also large compared to the previous version the SB800. What limited time I have had using the gun with a Better Beamer have given good results but as I say I haven't used it enough to get a good feel from the gun. There have been reported problems with over heating and am sure that it will sorted soon, it’s a problem I have yet to encounter. I have plans to shoot the possum and grey fox that hang around my garden at night so will be needing to purchase at least another 2 flashguns but will either get second hand SB800 or 600 models for this.
So to round up, so far so good - everything works better than expected and I had high expectations, I feel that I made the right choice at the time of purchase. No system is perfect but for me this as close as it comes. As time goes on I will add to this general over view of the system and see what else shines or doesn’t. Keep watching this space.

Dave