Big Lens Discussion

[r.harris1]

I mostly hand-hold, though if I'm feeling ambitious I will get out my beast of a tripod and the gimbal, and images are usually much better. But I also try and keep the ISO lower so there's certainly a bit of threading the needle with a reasonable ISO and shutter speed. On the d850 I try to stay below 4k. Doing this on the tripod is much easier (for me).

 

[someoldguy]

Am I the only one who prefers handholding except for long exposures?

Nope , I'll handhold as much as possible . Usually I'm walking around looking for a subject , and carrying a tripod ,and setting up usually means the subject has fled elsewhere . Using my G9 and 50-200 ' s dual IS gives me a lot more slack re: exposure times as opposed to my Canon full frame and 100-400L . Picked up a new to me Pana/Leica 100-400 around 6 weeks back which has a learning curve to say the least .

 

[Ambrosia7177]

NYC is the photo captial of the world, and B&H Photo is the preeminent camera store...

Check these out...

Home > Tripods & Supports > Photo Tripods & Support > Photo Camera Tripods



I own something similar to this, and once you use it you'll never go back...

Manfrotto MT190XPRO3 Aluminum Tripod with 410 Junior Geared Head Kit


HTH.

 

[Clix Pix]

I'm a Gitzo girl myself, and have been for many years. I had a Manfrotto once but once I discovered Gitzo and also the Arca-Swiss clamp system I went with that and have never looked back.

 

[Apple fanboy]

NYC is the photo captial of the world, and B&H Photo is the preeminent camera store...

Check these out...

Home > Tripods & Supports > Photo Tripods & Support > Photo Camera Tripods



I own something similar to this, and once you use it you'll never go back...

Manfrotto MT190XPRO3 Aluminum Tripod with 410 Junior Geared Head Kit


HTH.

The OP is based in the U.K. I think we all know about B&H. Personally I prefer to support the local camera shop.
[automerge]1591772404[/automerge]

I'm a Gitzo girl myself, and have been for many years. I had a Manfrotto once but once I discovered Gitzo and also the Arca-Swiss clamp system I went with that and have never looked back.

Same here. But by Gitzo traveller is not really sturdy enough for my 200-500mm lens. My aluminium manfrotto is, but it’s heavy.

 

[Clix Pix]

The OP is based in the U.K. I think we all know about B&H. Personally I prefer to support the local camera shop.
[automerge]1591772404[/automerge]

Same here. But by Gitzo traveller is not really sturdy enough for my 200-500mm lens. My aluminium manfrotto is, but it’s heavy.

I agree, AFB on both counts! I much prefer to support my local camera shops as much as possible. Over the past five or six years we've lost several of them and part of the reason is that people would go to a shop, look at and experiment with the various cameras, pick the sales associates' brains about this camera vs that camera, this lens vs that lens, etc......and then go back home and go online and order the merchandise from an online store so that they could avoid paying state sales taxes. NOT cool, in my book!

That said, from time to time I do order from B&H when the local shop doesn't have a particular item either because they don't carry it at all or because it is temporarily out of stock, and that is when I get online and check out B&H. Nowadays we have to pay sales tax there and in all out-of-state retailers, whether or not they have a physical presence in our state, just as if we were buying locally, so they have lost that particular advantage. They do have some sort of credit card thingy where the consumer can save on the sales tax by using it, but I don't shop there often enough to bother with that.

My Gitzos are an older model that I have had for a number of years, harkening back to the days when they were still made in France. Heavy? Well....yes! I think the 3025 or something like that; they are definitely sturdy enough to support heavy long lenses, which is important. That was something I learned a long time ago, that a good, solid tripod is seriously needed when out in the field in varying weather conditions. The first time I went to Conowingo Dam to shoot eagles, I had only a 70-200mm lens and no tripod with me, and I learned by observing the guys with sturdy tripods, gimbal heads and 500mm or 600mm lenses and asking them questions, seeing how they got the kinds of results I later saw proudly displayed online.

I've heard of the Gitzo Traveler, but it has been a long time since I've even thought much about buying a new tripod, since much of the time I tend not to use one anyway. With the current technology and the ability to shoot with much higher ISOs and much better resolution than we had in the past, not to mention the wonderful IBIS, in many situations it is far easier to get away without using a tripod than it used to be. However, yes, at times they are still absolutely necessary.....

 

[QuantumLo0p]

@Hughmac
Did your Contemporary come with a tele-converter and/or a usb dock?

Have you played with the len's custom settings via the usb dock? Depending on the type of shots you are after you can adjust the lens to suit. I highly recommend watching some youtube videos and Sigma probably has their own youtube channel. You can get some great improvements from tailoring the lenses characteristics to your shots!

Kudos for hand held and mono when needed but I recommend not writing off a tripod if you can stand lugging it around to get your good quality, long shots. Perhaps a nice, lightweight carbon fiber tripod should you ever consider one. I have the Sports which is a heavy beast so I cannot skimp on tripod weight capacity. I love the combo of a 600mm lens, 1.4X teleconverter and aps-c sensor; makes for very long shots! It sounds like you're a much more steadier photographer than I!

Some people prefer to use their 150-600 w/o a filter as a protective layer, saying they are getting a bit more sharpness but perhaps that's due to an inferior filter. I am not super experienced and some of you may be eye rolling at this so perhaps a more experienced photographer can chime in about it. The Contemporary and Sports 150-600's are not the sharpest lenses out there but are quite affordable compared to fast fixed counterparts so I tend to do whatever I can to get the most out of them.

The foot. I can't say I care one bit for the oem Sports foot because there simply isn't enough room to comfortably carry the lens with it. The C foots looks like it has the same clearance and is shorter than the Sports foot but honestly I have never held one so I can't say for sure. Sigma audaciously offers a better Sports foot for a steep price but thankfully there are some 3rd party feet available less expensively. If you need a better foot I recommend looking at aftermarket feet as well anything Sigma may offer for your C lens. Nothing out there appeals to me greatly so I may just make my own. I use Siemens NX cad/cam/cae software and just might manufacture a foot for myself with more clearance, finger groves and integrated arca swiss plate.

Have a good strap? I like my Black Rapid with a wide shoulder pad to make the Beast easier to carry.

My gear, although I cannot recall the brands of my pods. Perhaps Myphoto...not sure, they hold up my camers of the ground lol.
D7200
Sigma 150-600 Sports
Sigma 1.4X Teleconverter
Tripod w/gimbal (cheap overseas gimble, works suprising well on the cheap)
Monopod

 

[mpfuchs]

What I've noticed more than anything else with this lens, it really prefers good lighting conditions.
Can't speak to a Canon tele lens, as I've never used one, but I guess that's where the price difference comes from.

When I'm in questionable lighting conditions, my keeper rate isn't that great.
On the other hand, when the lighting is good, I even open up the aperture a bit to give myself more DOF so in case the camera is not dead on, it's still getting enough of the bird in there to get a decent shot.

Here are a couple bird in flight examples using the 150-600 C:

Here the light isn't ideal. ISO is already at 2500 and the shadow on the face is not helping...

I would describe this one as a perfect opportunity missed. Lighting is perfect, but sharpness is still lacking a bit.
For one I was kneeling on the ground for a while, so I was tired, but I could have probably remedied it a bit if I would have stopped down to f/8 instead of wide open. ISO is 500 so lots of potential there...

Here is one that's not in flight, but on a tripod with remote.
Wide open at 1/800 and ISO 5000; with full frame camera.
Lighting again wasn't great, overcast and into the darker trees. f/8 would have probably helped sharpness due to DOF, but I prefocussed manually anyways, so not sure how much it would have helped. Would have negatively affected shutter speed or ISO regardless.

This one was a setup shot again. But I'm using f/8 maybe that's why the bird seems sharper.
1/800 and ISO 8000 as the evening light was pretty much gone. Again full frame and some crop.

EDIT: wanted to add that on the trip where I took the first four pictures, I attended a birds in flight workshop of one of the Sigma ambassadors and he said he "never gets out of bed below ISO 1600"
Thought that was pretty telling!

 

[mollyc]

What I've noticed more than anything else with this lens, it really prefers good lighting conditions.
Can't speak to a Canon tele lens, as I've never used one, but I guess that's where the price difference comes from.

When I'm in questionable lighting conditions, my keeper rate isn't that great.
On the other hand, when the lighting is good, I even open up the aperture a bit to give myself more DOF so in case the camera is not dead on, it's still getting enough of the bird in there to get a decent shot.

Here are a couple bird in flight examples using the 150-600 C:
View attachment 923066
View attachment 923067

Here the light isn't ideal. ISO is already at 2500 and the shadow on the face is not helping...
View attachment 923068

I would describe this one as a perfect opportunity missed. Lighting is perfect, but sharpness is still lacking a bit.
For one I was kneeling on the ground for a while, so I was tired, but I could have probably remedied it a bit if I would have stopped down to f/8 instead of wide open. ISO is 500 so lots of potential there...
View attachment 923069

Here is one that's not in flight, but on a tripod with remote.
Wide open at 1/800 and ISO 5000; with full frame camera.
Lighting again wasn't great, overcast and into the darker trees. f/8 would have probably helped sharpness due to DOF, but I prefocussed manually anyways, so not sure how much it would have helped. Would have negatively affected shutter speed or ISO regardless.
View attachment 923072

This one was a setup shot again. But I'm using f/8 maybe that's why the bird seems sharper.
1/800 and ISO 8000 as the evening light was pretty much gone. Again full frame and some crop.
View attachment 923074

EDIT: wanted to add that on the trip where I took the first four pictures, I attended a birds in flight workshop of one of the Sigma ambassadors and he said he "never gets out of bed below ISO 1600"
Thought that was pretty telling!

I think most of these look more than acceptably sharp, except for perhaps the third to last. Well, it's sharp enough for most people, but I see that it isn't tack sharp; I actually wonder if it was a SS issue? My S150-600C is not as sharp as either of my Z lenses, but definitely sharper than any other third party lens I've ever had, and I am using it at incredibly high ISOs most of the time. I was told not to shoot slower than 1/1000 with it, and I try to keep it at 1/1250 or higher, even if it means an insane ISO.

 

[mpfuchs]

I think most of these look more than acceptably sharp, except for perhaps the third to last. Well, it's sharp enough for most people, but I see that it isn't tack sharp; I actually wonder if it was a SS issue? My S150-600C is not as sharp as either of my Z lenses, but definitely sharper than any other third party lens I've ever had, and I am using it at incredibly high ISOs most of the time. I was told not to shoot slower than 1/1000 with it, and I try to keep it at 1/1250 or higher, even if it means an insane ISO.

Shutter speed on that one (Sandhill portrait) was 1/5000. It might have been that my focus point was slightly off, since I was shaky and there isn't much face to focus on. That why I think a wider DOF might have solved that issue...

 

[Hughmac]

@Hughmac
Did your Contemporary come with a tele-converter and/or a usb dock?

Have you played with the len's custom settings via the usb dock? Depending on the type of shots you are after you can adjust the lens to suit. I highly recommend watching some youtube videos and Sigma probably has their own youtube channel. You can get some great improvements from tailoring the lenses characteristics to your shots!

Kudos for hand held and mono when needed but I recommend not writing off a tripod if you can stand lugging it around to get your good quality, long shots. Perhaps a nice, lightweight carbon fiber tripod should you ever consider one. I have the Sports which is a heavy beast so I cannot skimp on tripod weight capacity. I love the combo of a 600mm lens, 1.4X teleconverter and aps-c sensor; makes for very long shots! It sounds like you're a much more steadier photographer than I!

Some people prefer to use their 150-600 w/o a filter as a protective layer, saying they are getting a bit more sharpness but perhaps that's due to an inferior filter. I am not super experienced and some of you may be eye rolling at this so perhaps a more experienced photographer can chime in about it. The Contemporary and Sports 150-600's are not the sharpest lenses out there but are quite affordable compared to fast fixed counterparts so I tend to do whatever I can to get the most out of them.

The foot. I can't say I care one bit for the oem Sports foot because there simply isn't enough room to comfortably carry the lens with it. The C foots looks like it has the same clearance and is shorter than the Sports foot but honestly I have never held one so I can't say for sure. Sigma audaciously offers a better Sports foot for a steep price but thankfully there are some 3rd party feet available less expensively. If you need a better foot I recommend looking at aftermarket feet as well anything Sigma may offer for your C lens. Nothing out there appeals to me greatly so I may just make my own. I use Siemens NX cad/cam/cae software and just might manufacture a foot for myself with more clearance, finger groves and integrated arca swiss plate.

Have a good strap? I like my Black Rapid with a wide shoulder pad to make the Beast easier to carry.

My gear, although I cannot recall the brands of my pods. Perhaps Myphoto...not sure, they hold up my camers of the ground lol.
D7200
Sigma 150-600 Sports
Sigma 1.4X Teleconverter
Tripod w/gimbal (cheap overseas gimble, works suprising well on the cheap)
Monopod

I have no teleconverter and don't really feel the need for one, but I have bought the Sigma Dock - the first job being to update the firmware.
I haven't delved around in the software yet as I wasn't sure any adjustment was necessary, but from what's been said above and examples given I think the results are typical of this lens.
I just think I was expecting too much so I'm much more happy with my own shots.

I don't use UV filters for protection as they might detract from the photo (I think a decent 95mm one would be quite expensive as well ), and I have quite a steady hand for holding the lens up and just need to get the speed up.
I do have a mono and tripod, medium quality Manfrotto ones but I don't like carrying or using them. If I shoot a long exposure landscape I will use the mini tripod I have for the purpose.

What I've noticed more than anything else with this lens, it really prefers good lighting conditions.
Can't speak to a Canon tele lens, as I've never used one, but I guess that's where the price difference comes from.

When I'm in questionable lighting conditions, my keeper rate isn't that great.
On the other hand, when the lighting is good, I even open up the aperture a bit to give myself more DOF so in case the camera is not dead on, it's still getting enough of the bird in there to get a decent shot.

Here are a couple bird in flight examples using the 150-600 C:
View attachment 923066
View attachment 923067

Here the light isn't ideal. ISO is already at 2500 and the shadow on the face is not helping...
View attachment 923068

I would describe this one as a perfect opportunity missed. Lighting is perfect, but sharpness is still lacking a bit.
For one I was kneeling on the ground for a while, so I was tired, but I could have probably remedied it a bit if I would have stopped down to f/8 instead of wide open. ISO is 500 so lots of potential there...
View attachment 923069

Here is one that's not in flight, but on a tripod with remote.
Wide open at 1/800 and ISO 5000; with full frame camera.
Lighting again wasn't great, overcast and into the darker trees. f/8 would have probably helped sharpness due to DOF, but I prefocussed manually anyways, so not sure how much it would have helped. Would have negatively affected shutter speed or ISO regardless.
View attachment 923072

This one was a setup shot again. But I'm using f/8 maybe that's why the bird seems sharper.
1/800 and ISO 8000 as the evening light was pretty much gone. Again full frame and some crop.
View attachment 923074

EDIT: wanted to add that on the trip where I took the first four pictures, I attended a birds in flight workshop of one of the Sigma ambassadors and he said he "never gets out of bed below ISO 1600"
Thought that was pretty telling!

I can't say your examples are more or less sharp than my experience with this lens so far, and do seem to have come out pretty well, so as above I have concluded I was probably expecting too much of it.

It's a learning curve which I am enjoying, so I shall carry on experimenting and get that speed up!

This thread was never intended to be just about me, so everyone please chip in with your own questions, experiences and tips

Cheers

Hugh

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

This pesky thread has renewed my interest in the P100-400. My budget says no, yet my credit card is still trying to climb out of my wallet. I keep telling myself that I’m holding out for the rumored 100-400 from Olympus that is coming.

 

[Hughmac]

This pesky thread has renewed my interest in the P100-400. My budget says no, yet my credit card is still trying to climb out of my wallet. I keep telling myself that I’m holding out for the rumored 100-400 from Olympus that is coming.

Who wouldn't want 200-800mm? The Olympus will likely cost a lot more when it comes out

Have I helped?

Cheers

Hugh

 

[someoldguy]

This pesky thread has renewed my interest in the P100-400. My budget says no, yet my credit card is still trying to climb out of my wallet. I keep telling myself that I’m holding out for the rumored 100-400 from Olympus that is coming.

It's a slippery slope , and we're all on it !!!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Who wouldn't want 200-800mm? The Olympus will likely cost a lot more when it comes out

Have I helped?

Cheers

Hugh

lol, from what I hear, the Oly is going to maybe be slower, but it’s definitely going to be a non-pro lens. They are also supposed to bring a pro 150-400, and that one I’m sure will break the bank and the back. Part of the issue with the PL100-400 is that it’s a little hefty, but also that the zoom ring is stiff. I tried a used copy and it definitely doesn’t feel anywhere near as smooth as my other 2 Pana-Leicas. Maybe the copy I tried was more abused, but it does seem to be a common greivance against the lens among users. It takes great pictures though.

 

[Clix Pix]

This afternoon went out again and as I was walking along the boardwalk, saw my buddy GBH arriving. This time I walked on around to the other side of the lake, and thus was closer and that made a huge difference, even though the lighting at times was changing from cloudy to sunny back to cloudy. Thank goodness for Auto ISO! Still working on the images but so far I am very, very pleased with my new Sony 100-400mm lens -- it's a keeper!!

 

[robgendreau]

I love handholding too; that's why I use a M43 for a long of long reach shots. But I can't ever get as many keepers that way. But as others have noted to get good wildlife etc shots you have to be both a planner, and say stalk and use a tripod, and be a bit spontaneous, since just walking through the wilds something might pop up suddenly.

And frustratingly, some of the best shots seem to become possible AFTER I've put the camera away...sigh.

And speaking ball heads, yeah, they can be a pain. I had a tilt head for my monopod, and finally figured out that for my uses mounting the tilt on a panning base was better than the ballhead.

 

[Clix Pix]

My skin is paying the price for my standing outside in the hot sun for quite a while this afternoon while watching and shooting the GBH.... It never occurred to me to put on some sunscreen before leaving the house, nor did I plan to be outside as long as I was. Oops! Got a wee bit of sunburn now as a souvenir!

Ballheads are fine for small, lightweight lenses and the typical uses that those are meant for; when it comes to long, heavy lenses a gimbal or, as also mentioned, a tilt head with a panning base, is much more practical and a bit safer. There is no way I would put either of my long lenses on my ballhead, I just don't trust that the lens wouldn't go flopping around.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The trouble with a heavier lens on a ball head is when you try to move it a tiny bit, it often moves a lot! That said I have a ballhead on my Gitzo because it’s lighter.
On my Manfrotto which mostly gets used at home, it came with a threeway head, but a couple of years back I changed it to a geared head. More accurate for my one very demanding client!

 

[Clix Pix]

Yes, my one Gitzo has a ballhead and the other Gitzo tripod will soon have the Wimberley gimbal on it once I get it assembled this afternoon. I've never tried a geared head, but I have heard that they are quite effective, and much easier to control and more precise than a ballhead.

 

[kallisti]

Yes, my one Gitzo has a ballhead and the other Gitzo tripod will soon have the Wimberley gimbal on it once I get it assembled this afternoon. I've never tried a geared head, but I have heard that they are quite effective, and much easier to control and more precise than a ballhead.

I have the Arca-Swiss Cube head. It is absolutely awesome. One of the best photography purchases I have ever made.

Getting back to the thread topic, I'd offer that you might want to consider Topaz Labs software for post. Gigapixel AI, Sharpen AI, DeNoise AI are all pretty amazing for this type of image where you are pushing your lens/camera to its limits. They are updated very, very frequently (to the point that if you haven't used them in a couple of weeks, there might be a newer version available when you fire it up). Even if you have checked them out before, the most recent versions work significantly better than prior versions.

As an example, DeNoise AI was a little wonky in the past by having "sharp" areas next to "blur" areas that weren't natural at all and required effort to adjust the sliders to find the sweet spot (and you often couldn't find the sweet spot). The most recent version fixes this to the point that I run most of my "keepers" through DeNoise AI if the ISO is over 800 in the pic.

Gigapixel AI does an amazing job upscaling heavy crops. Works better for some images than others. But pretty impressive in general.

It's always best to get it right at the time of capture, but the Topaz Labs softwares are amazing tools in post.

 

[Clix Pix]

Thanks, Kallisti! I quite agree about Topaz and their wonderful software. Right now I’ve only got Sharpen AI, have had it for about a year, but am looking at getting Gigapixel AI and also DeNoise AI as well one of these days..... Sharpen AI with its wonderful “Stabilize” function has been a real gem in how it can work wonders on an image that isn’t quite sharp enough but otherwise would be OK......

Not familiar with the Arca-Swiss Cube Head; have to check that out! (My bank account is already yelling at me, “no, no, not right now!”). Anyone who has not discovered the Arca-Swiss system and how their clamps truly ARE “quick release” needs to investigate and to experience what a difference it makes. Just stick an Arca-Swiss compatible plate or foot and the appropriate QR clamp on your lens and tripod, and there you go.....

ETA: just had a quick look at a description of the Arca-Swiss Cube Head. Yeah, I want one! Oh, boy, it had me at the magic word “macro.....”. Not going to be getting one this month, though, already having shot my wad and then some on the new Sony 100-400mm GM lens, the Wimberley gimbal head and the Sony 1.4x teleconverter! Maybe in a couple of months I can once again succumb to GAS......

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I’ve been pretty impressed with the Sharpen and Definition sliders in Photos on my iPad. They both seem to work well without overdoing it.

 

[Clix Pix]

You bring up a good point, Darmok! It is all too easy to overdo it with sharpening and with some other effects that are possible in software..... Most often our lenses and cameras themselves do a really good job of sharpening images, and when we get a little too vigorous with applying various editing tools in PP, it can tip things over the edge.....

 

[Erehy Dobon]

No post-processing tool in the world can replace lost data. That's basic physics. You can use filters and sharpening to create the illusion of a cleaner image to untrained human eyes but you can't replace actual image data.

The computer guys have an expression for this: GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. With digital post processing, you can do a better job of concealing the garbage, but it essentially still is garbage.

That's why there are still tripods.

This isn't some new discovery either. Pretty much all of this was formally codified in optical physics terms in the nineteenth century.

The main benefit to digital cameras is that you can take 10+ images per second and just maybe one of those handheld shots is clearly that the rest. That was not cost effective 20+ years ago when a 36-exposure roll of slide film & the requisite E-6/C-41 processing totalled $20-30.

The pro 35mm SLRs from that era had mirror lockup (MLU) to reduce the image degration from the vibration caused when the reflex mirror flipped up. It is also why there were remote cable shutter release cords.

Even today, not all tripods are created equal. Tripods have different performance characteristics based on size, weight, construction material. A heavy Gitzo metal tripod with fewer leg segments is going to transmit less vibration than a flimsy lightweight carbon fiber tripod.

For those of you who say "I can get great handheld shots with my 600mm honker", I believe you. I'm also convinced that you deleted 50-100 crummy shots on your dSLR. In the old days, you would have burned through $100 of film/processing. Even if you could shoot at 10fps on the best SLRs, you'd still have to reload.

High-capacity digital storage cards have changed the game. In the old days, professional underwater photographers dived with 10-12 SLRs in waterproof housings because each SLR body was only useful for 36 exposures.

For the best final image quality, you need to start with good source material.

There's a reason why Olympic biathletes and other shooters use support. Even a tenth of a millimeter movement during a camera shot can result in a lot of blur particularly in telephoto images. Again, this topic has been beaten to death for decades upon decades.