p.2 #1 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
anthony whitmo wrote:
If you look through his history of shots (And man there are a lot of them) Most of his BIF shots are with a 500 IS + 1.4x OR a 400 f/5.6 ... I'm sure there are some BIF with the sigmonster somewhere but everything I looked at were with a White lens.
I am aware of that. My posting was specifically in reply to: Sigma 300-800is not a very sharp lens according to most of the reviews.
The longer the lens, the more impractical it becomes for BIF, with or without IS.
p.2 #2 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
PS Even Canons Chuck Westfall will tell you avoid TEs for better photos. Also if you have good eyes try sticking a 2X on that 800 and a shutter releae and the mirror locked up. I don't do it often but I have for nest photod from about 6 to 700 feet and if I get the focus right they are awsome.But also lucky
BTW B&H has a used Canon 1200 5.6 used for sale. $99,000.00 rated at a 9
Lou
p.2 #5 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
lbuscher wrote:
PS Even Canons Chuck Westfall will tell you avoid TEs for better photos. Also if you have good eyes try sticking a 2X on that 800 and a shutter releae and the mirror locked up. I don't do it often but I have for nest photod from about 6 to 700 feet and if I get the focus right they are awsome.But also lucky
BTW B&H has a used Canon 1200 5.6 used for sale. $99,000.00 rated at a 9
Lou
Hell Lou.......I'll buy it. Ken, Cris want to chip in
p.2 #6 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
Chris Maccubbi wrote:
Lil:
For my 2cents...
I was just in the same position as you. After reading and research I was leaning toward the Sigma. Then I met with a camera club at Conowingo dam to shoot eagles. The guys there were some of the best photo people I ever met. I shot a Canon 400 2.8, 500 4.0, 500 4.5, and 600 4.0 and the big Sigma. After shooting probably 30 grand worth of glass and post processing, I bought a Canon 500 later that same week. It's not the Sigma was bad, but for "me" the 500 was the best fit. After 6 months, I do not regret my choice.
sorry for not getting back to this thread - - but as I put it..... Life got in the way. Oh I know, I'm not supposed to let anything get in the way of my photography & the computer, but unfortunately the pets & especially the horses disagree.... ;-)
Thanks, I've been recommended to go to a 500 f/4 I just feel too limited with a prime & most of the time - - zooms seem to fit my shooting style better.
Doing this research is paramount for me. I get feedback & recommendations. I will try to take my time & rent a few lenses to try them out. Lucky you to get to shoot with all those lenses all at once. What luck!!!
Thank you for your sweet comment on my humble web site. I believe it reflects me - - that's what it's all about for me.
p.2 #7 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
anthony whitmo wrote:
Lil,
I guess my opinion is a little different. I was in the same boat about 4 months ago. I was debating between the 500 IS , 600 IS, Sigmonster. The opinions posted here always lean toward the 500 IS. Reasons :
For the 500
Lighter
Excellent IQ
Easily portable
Handholdable for some. Others claim it's too heavy to handhold
600 Cons were that it was just to heavy and not hand holdable for BIF
800 Sigmonster > No IS, not hand holdable, RESALE WILL KILL YOU as you won't get what you paid for it unless you find a real bargain (WHich is even harder to come by)
I've been trying to find a bargain Sigmonster for 6 months and haven't found one yet.
After having a 500 now for 3 months plus I can tell you this..............
I ALWAYS have a 1.4x or a 2x on my 500 AT ALL TIMES
(SNIP)
The resale value of the 500 and 600 IS is Great. If you buy used you can pretty much get back what you bought it for. If you buy the 500 now you can always sell and get a 600 later >> Or Vise Versa. If you buy new you will of course take a bigger hit on resale........................
I say go for the 600 first >> If it's to much sell and move down.... I wish I had gone for the 600 first....... But that was my choice.............
Good luck with your decision and we'll look forward to your first post with a new toy.
maybe I should do a poll & see what the result actually comes in as..... Would be interesting don't you think. ;-) What do people actually use......
Hand holdable - - hummmmm - - none of these will be hand holdable for me. I'm about 5'7" & weigh about 125lbs. I'm a little old girl. Either way I'm in for figuring out how to transport & carry around such a large lens while on location.... Some kind of cart will be a necessity for sure. Or I have to rethink yet again.
Based on this.... I'm almost looking at a 500mm with a TC no matter what. I might as well go back to my original choice....
It'll be shorter, but I might be able to do it with a TC....
p.2 #8 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
Ted ellis wrote:
Hi lil. My swans and hawk shots last two week were all with the 300mm and the 1.4 tc, I shot all my eagle shots with the 100-400 and never once zoomed out. I justed wanted to echo the other wise photographers. Lastly birds in flight, practice, practice and more practice.
Ted
Thanks Ted,
the thing I'm thinking about it the use of the lens for the horses as well. Then zooming & having such a huge range is great. I have my cheap Tamron which is a 200-500mm zoom. It's OK, but not sharp the way I like, though I feel I've gotten pretty good with it. I'll post some new shots later.....
I'm just a zoom person. But I may well have to go to the 500mm f/4
p.2 #9 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
thehotel wrote:
Hi Lil, another opinion. I find the 500 with a 1.4 converter to work best for me. I use a BushHawk 100% of the time and I find it makes in flight shots at least 5 times easier for me.
What ever you decide best of luck and like every one has said it is a matter of practice.
Wacky roger
Hi Roger,
I'm fairly sure a 500 f/4 will be too heavy for me to hold even with a BushHawk. I will no matter what, be limited to a tripod & Wimberley Gimbal or Sidekick. BUt I would probably increase my success rate with one with my 300mm f/4 . . . . . Something to think about..... Thanks Roger, that might just help to start with. At least with the BIF shots.
p.2 #10 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
Tim Kuhn wrote:
Lil, for what it is worth I would have to cast another vote for a prime. Which prime is dependent on your wallet. I would have to really push you to try a bushhawk, I absolutely love mine.
Tim
Hi Tim,
boy how I love having a support group. Just the greatest thing a gal can have. I've just decided, I'm going to get a BushHawk to use with the 300mm f/4 to start practicing BIF shots. It'll give me a larger area to work with instead of the limited field with a longer lens.
So that's one of the things I need to order. That and a stool to sit on. I'm done standing all day. Last shoot lasted for 8 hours & yes I was crawling on the ground half the time..... But being able to sit comfortably would have been nice.
"I own a good number of L lenses for my Canon digital bodies and I can truthfully say that this is the sharpest (with the possible exception of my 200/1.8) lens in my arsenal."
etc., etc., etc.
Lil, be sure and check out Liquidstone's review and visit the links he has posted.
Tony
Hi Tony,
it's the reviews here on FM & one other site which made me even think of this lens. That & shooting with it Saturday. It's huge & I know it. But as a zoom person..... It's up my alley to say the least. Also, I keep wondering how the primes with TCs will hold up compared to it. I've read a review where the owner owns both the 500mm f/4 & 600mm f/4 & says it's just as sharp.
The big issue is really size & weight...... I may be strong, but weightlifting's really not my thing.
p.2 #12 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
anthony whitmo wrote:
If you look through his history of shots (And man there are a lot of them) Most of his BIF shots are with a 500 IS + 1.4x OR a 400 f/5.6 ... I'm sure there are some BIF with the sigmonster somewhere but everything I looked at were with a White lens.
Not to say it can't be done > But for long focal lengths IS Helps.
p.2 #13 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
lbuscher wrote:
Lil Tony is right as for the zooming part; you just never have the time. OK I have both the Canon 500/4 and the Sigma 800MM 5.6 HSM EX (No zoom) in my opinion a zoom of this size is a waste of time for BIF but OK for filling a frame when your to close to a stationary subject. Here is a squirrel I am following for the F&W here in Ma. and both taken with the 800 off a tripod with my 1dm2n. The sharpness is there, as I have owned two of these lenses. As for BIF it’s a bit tougher as you must shoot with a tripod and tracking with a tripod is always harder but I still have many eagle photos that I have taken with the 800 off of my converted surveyors tripod made from hard maple. I have also laid my 800 on the roof of my wagon in a blanket and took still nest subjects with a 20D on it and had one used for a magazine story on the nesting pair.
Anthony also brought up a good point and that being plan on keeping it, as you will never get your money back like you would for a Nikon or Canon glass but I still use mine in a lot of situations, as I don’t need to add any TEs. Remember one other thing and that being on a hot hazy day the power can be a problem as the lens will pick up a lot of junk in the air the same as a scope. I think it’s a good glass for the money as long as you have a use for it.
Lou
thanks for input. No time to zoom ..... No, but I would have a better chance to zoom out, locate my subject & start tracking while shooting off shots. Once I zoom out & locate I'm far better at tracking. If I have my 300mm with a TC at 500mm I simply never even locate my subject. There the zooming would help me. I do it with the Tamron 200-500 & it's very helpful for me with it.
BIF is not my main interest - - getting closer to the birds is. So the focal length is more important to me than BIF if I put it that way. Also, I'm planning to keep the 300mm f/4, which would probably be a good starting BIF lens....
I've located a cheap Sigma. I know Nikkor/Nikon & Canon lenses keep their value better.... They're also normally when of this caliber - - far superior to any Sigma etc lenses.....
Trust me, my husband keeps standing over me telling me "It's not as sharp as a Nikon lens".....
Yes, I'm a Nikon shooter.
What I have realized in this forum more than anything is that brand at this stage means nothing... Nikon, Canon - - big deal. If you know how to shoot with your camera is all that matters.
My husband is pushing for the 200-400VR from Nikon. That's the lens Ray shoots with. I've however been told it doesn't hold up with a TC. So I've asked Ray. Ray's answer was simple - - he sent me links to his TC shots with both the TC-14 & TC- 17. It holds up. Not everyone can shoot like Ray with that lens. But he's got it nailed to the bone.
a friend who shoots a 800 SIGMA sent me this posting last night .... but i'm just finishing a craft room for my gf that hit 8K and we're going to Merritt Is. next Thursday for a week to shoot birds, so I'm gonna take a breather before buyin' a big Tele ............ don't know this Ebayer, won't vouche for him, just showin' what a friend sent me .. yadda yadda ..
a friend who shoots a 800 SIGMA sent me this posting last night .... but i'm just finishing a craft room for my gf that hit 8K and we're going to Merritt Is. next Thursday for a week to shoot birds, so I'm gonna take a breather before buyin' a big Tele ............ don't know this Ebayer, won't vouche for him, just showin' what a friend sent me .. yadda yadda ..
Thanks for the heads up - - but I think a 800mm prime is too limited for me. In that case I'd probably go 500mm.....
p.2 #19 · Guys - Ignore this post it's OLD. Calling out to any Sigma 300-800 Wildlife photographers there.
Lil Judd wrote:
I've not ever worked with a limit focus lock..... Would someone explain how to work with it to me?
Please....
Lil
Lil - It cuts down the AF search/lock time b/c the lens doesn't have to go from MFD to infinity.
Personally, I find it difficult to track FIB when my setup is on a tripod. For static subjects, tripod is the way to go. But many times, things happen so quick that tripod is not an option for me.
In addition, the weight is also an issue for lenses at this size. I used to own the 600 USM but sold it after 3 months and opted for the 500 IS. My back could not handle a 13lbs plus lens on long hike/walk.
I've also found that sigma lenses are usually not as sharp at wide open. I almost always have to stop down by 1 fstop to get equivalent sharpness. This is unacceptable to me. With long lenses, every fstop counts especially for that golden hour in the early morning and/or late afternoon.
But being able to sit comfortably would have been nice. 
