Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are All Lenses Compatible with All dSLR Cameras?
- Thread starter SolracSelbor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're likely not selling a lot of images. I own the Sigma 50-500, as well as the Nikon 80-400VR, and I can unequivocally say that the images I get from the Nikon 400/2.8 AFS-II are well worth the difference. If you start shooting birds professionally, you'll find that a lot of your best shots will happen near dawn, and f/6.3 (a) Gives a really crappy DoF for anything that isn't flying, (b) won't let you shoot until an hour or so after the birds are up and farther away (c) won't give you the ability to use a teleconverter when you need the reach (and for warblers, you need the reach,) and (d) won't give you the AF speed you'll want consistently for flight shots. Anyone who's selling you that line is also probably willing to sell you a large orange bridge on the West coast.
If you're shooting professionally, the return on investment (ROI) on even a $8000 lens really isn't that big a deal. You're going to shoot it for about ten years, so you need an ROI of $800/year. Now take all those animals and birds you couldn't shoot in their natural habitat because it was way too dark for your lens and you're pretty much in a no-win situation commercially if you choose the slow option.
Open it up beyond birds and you're screwed at f/6.3 in the pre-dawn to post-dawn hours when wildlife is most active. Trust me, when I was a hobbyist, I missed hundreds of good shots with the Bigma and 80-400 because they simply couldn't make the shots around dawn. I'd hate to count the blurry mammal shots I missed due to slow glass, but it's a substantial number.
Backyard shots in a feeder, sure- large birds in daylight, absolutely- but outside of that you're going to be shooting in animal parks or zoos a lot, and you're not going to get the selective DoF that sells lots of shots- not to mention not being able to sell zoo shots without a contract.
Everyone I know or have met who shoots birds for a living or for part of their living with the exception of one guy who shoots for Audbon is shooting with f/2.8 long glass and occasionally a shorter 2.8 lens (the Audbon guy is shooting with a Sigma 300-800mm and the DoF is fine for his client.)
Don't get me wrong, the 50-500mm is an excellent lens for the price- that's why I still have mine- but it's not a professional lens. I've gotten many salable images from it, but they pale in comparison to the images I get from the 400mm prime in terms of absolute image quality, sharpness, bokeh, contrast, etc. In fact, I get better sharpness from the 400mm prime with a 1.4x TC than from the Sigma on its own- it's a toss-up when I pull out the 1.7x, but the Sigma may be a touch better. When it was all I could afford, I shot the heck out of it, but I knew what I was missing and didn't delude myself into thinking otherwise. Compared to other "prosumer" lenses like the Nikon 80-400VR or Canon 100-400IS it's indeed a bargain, but don't believe it's a "pro" lens or comparable to one.
Finally, you meter the bird, not they sky, and two and a half more stops of shutter speed with a moving lens and subject make quite a bit of difference in the resultant image- take it from someone who's actually shot thousands of frames with the Bigma and a 400mm prime, most of them birds.
I wasn't saying it can't take good pictures. My point is the claim that it "doesn't get much better for birding" is a bit overboard and misleading. Nearly all pros doing professional assignments are using the big, expensive pro lenses.
The Sigma is popular because is can be obtained for a lot less money, not because it has some other redeeming quality compared to the big pro glass, which was what was implied by the post I responded to.
I started with slower consumer-oriented glass, and migrated to pro glass as I could afford it, so I understand the allure of the 50-500 and similar lenses.