Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Out of Focus area > For sale or wanted small ads

For sale or wanted small ads Advertise items you no longer need, as well as interest in items you are looking for. Non-commercial small-ads only. Buyers please take maximum precautions as we can offer no protection from fraudsters.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 18th September 2013
bilbo bilbo is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 255
Thanked 174 Times in 152 Posts
Likes: 148
Liked 205 Times in 110 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterBirder View Post
I now have a "frozen" left shoulder as a result of using mine hand held too much
Me too - keep doing the exercises! My frozen shoulder took more than 12 months to get to the point where it didn't bother me much. Although I still get twinges, I now have full movement in it... I sold my Bigma a couple of years ago.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bilbo For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013), PeterBirder (18th September 2013)
  #17  
Old 18th September 2013
Edman Edman is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Latvia
Posts: 161
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Likes: 1
Liked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

The 70-300 is a very good beginner lens and you can get some nice shots with it. But my god can it be frustrating, the AF isn't very good (its also a 1:2 macro without a focus limiter switch), its not bright wide open which makes you use some pretty grainy ISOs or more likely, you end up with motion blur.

That said, the Bigma isn't that much of an improvement. Soft from 400-500mm, IQ is about the same as the 70-300 and apertures are really low.

None of this stops you from getting a bunch of really nice shots, but you're also gonna miss A LOT of shots.

As for getting closer, you need to develop better birding technique. Most of those NatGeo pictures are taken with full frame cameras that have a joke for a range (how much was that Canon 600mm f/4?). We already have a lot of advantages with the 2x crop sensor and deeper depth of field.

The 70-300 doing what it does best:



__________________

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Edman For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #18  
Old 18th September 2013
Ian's Avatar
Ian Ian is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 11,399
Thanks: 414
Thanked 2,440 Times in 1,229 Posts
Likes: 825
Liked 1,644 Times in 736 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

The 70-300 is sharp (although some feel the sharpness falls off a bit at 300mm) but I have found that you need to be careful of ghosting in very bright conditions, which is probably a consequence of less exotic anti-reflection coatings in what is, after all, a budget lens.

Personally, I would be cautious about using an EC-14 on the 70-300 as it pushes the brightness down into diffraction softening territory, especially at the long end, but as has been demonstrated here it can work

The 70-300's other weakness is slow (and noisy) focusing but if focus is near correct the slowness isn't a great problem. If it starts to hunt though the long focus travel is frustrating thanks to the lens being a macro as well.

Ian
__________________
Founder and editor of:
Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)

Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/
NEW: My personal BLOG ianburley.com

Last edited by Ian; 18th September 2013 at 08:59 AM. Reason: Meant 70-300 and not 75-300
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ian For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #19  
Old 18th September 2013
David Morison's Avatar
David Morison David Morison is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fulbeck, Lincolnshire
Posts: 3,507
Thanks: 71
Thanked 588 Times in 472 Posts
Likes: 48
Liked 298 Times in 175 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

I once owned a Bigma and used it with an E30 and E5, then I changed to a 300mm f2.8 and the difference in IQ was, as expected, remarkable. I have since owned a 50-200mm which I used with the EC14 and was very pleased with the performance of this combination as I missed fewer shots due to it's lighter weight and mobility. I now use the m4/3 75-300 and it gives amazing results considering it's size and weight. I would never go back to a Bigma as it feels quite unwieldy and the extra reach it gives is to a certain extent nullified by the lower IQ compared with other options IMO.

Maybe my bias but I don't reckon any of the above give images up to the standard I can get with the 20 year old design Canon EF 400mm f5.6 using MF on the E-M5.

David
__________________
PBase Galleries:-http://www.pbase.com/davidmorisonimages
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to David Morison For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #20  
Old 18th September 2013
Chevvyf1's Avatar
Chevvyf1 Chevvyf1 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 12,269
Thanks: 1,744
Thanked 1,281 Times in 1,112 Posts
Likes: 1,169
Liked 522 Times in 392 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Peter Drury (local to me) has great success with BIGMA

http://www.imageinuk.com/Test-Images...14738585_TaEJP

He also posts details of his chosen settings

I found the BIGMA too heavy and sold it on to our Keith

I can recommend hire of the big lenses from Ian - after all why would you want £4,ooo sitting on a shelf in your Den for 36 weeks a year ?

IF the new m4/3 75-300 is any good with the OM-D EM-1 it will knock spots off these heavy lenses and £'s too I suspect In more than just the £cash but also 1/3rd of the weight Lb's

Personally, I find a tripod or monopod too restricting - but then I am *rap at Bif and probably using a 'pod too
__________________
.
.
[I].
.
I Lurve Walking in our Glorious Countryside; Photography;
Riding Ducati Motorbikes; Reading & Cooking ! ...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomagicf1_chevvy/sets/

the ONE photo album
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chevvyf1 For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #21  
Old 18th September 2013
Chevvyf1's Avatar
Chevvyf1 Chevvyf1 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 12,269
Thanks: 1,744
Thanked 1,281 Times in 1,112 Posts
Likes: 1,169
Liked 522 Times in 392 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Morison View Post

Maybe my bias but I don't reckon any of the above give images up to the standard I can get with the 20 year old design Canon EF 400mm f5.6 using MF on the E-M5.

David
__________________
.
.
[I].
.
I Lurve Walking in our Glorious Countryside; Photography;
Riding Ducati Motorbikes; Reading & Cooking ! ...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomagicf1_chevvy/sets/

the ONE photo album
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chevvyf1 For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #22  
Old 18th September 2013
Chevvyf1's Avatar
Chevvyf1 Chevvyf1 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 12,269
Thanks: 1,744
Thanked 1,281 Times in 1,112 Posts
Likes: 1,169
Liked 522 Times in 392 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post

The 75-300's other weakness is slow (and noisy) focusing but if focus is near correct the slowness isn't a great problem. If it starts to hunt though the long focus travel is frustrating thanks to the lens being a macro as well.

Ian

Ian, did you mean 75-300 ??? or 70-300
__________________
.
.
[I].
.
I Lurve Walking in our Glorious Countryside; Photography;
Riding Ducati Motorbikes; Reading & Cooking ! ...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomagicf1_chevvy/sets/

the ONE photo album
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 18th September 2013
Ian's Avatar
Ian Ian is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 11,399
Thanks: 414
Thanked 2,440 Times in 1,229 Posts
Likes: 825
Liked 1,644 Times in 736 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevvyf1 View Post
Ian, did you mean 75-300 ??? or 70-300
Sorry - we're discussing the 70-300

Ian
__________________
Founder and editor of:
Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)

Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/
NEW: My personal BLOG ianburley.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 18th September 2013
timmypreston's Avatar
timmypreston timmypreston is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 1,673
Thanks: 148
Thanked 249 Times in 219 Posts
Likes: 40
Liked 260 Times in 121 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

An interesting thread developing.

I pretty much eradicated the focus hunt at 300mm by focusing at the lower end first and then half pressing the shutter button as I increased the range steadily.

Slower but quieter and more effective.
__________________
Thanks
Tim

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33153464@N07/
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 18th September 2013
bilbo bilbo is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 255
Thanked 174 Times in 152 Posts
Likes: 148
Liked 205 Times in 110 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

There are two things here.
  • The quality of the kit
  • The ability of the photographer

I think that's probably wide enough to catch everything

This guy has both in spades:
http://marcopesaresi.com/

I think I could source his equipment for about £8,000. But his talent? I don't think so.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bilbo For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #26  
Old 18th September 2013
timmypreston's Avatar
timmypreston timmypreston is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 1,673
Thanks: 148
Thanked 249 Times in 219 Posts
Likes: 40
Liked 260 Times in 121 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
The 70-300 is sharp (although some feel the sharpness falls off a bit at 300mm).

Ian
Agreed, an example below; For this shot I was rock solid leaning against a tree and the lens was against the side of the tree too so no movement. Its a nice record shot but it hasn't got the wow factor regarding detail or sharpness. Its nearly there but not quite.

Jay Dothill by Tim J Preston, on Flickr

I have had some success at full stretch but limited. My very best results have come 15-20ft from the subjects at around 200mm with a crop. This usually results in nice feather detail.

It also struggles (might be me) with white birds such as Swans and Herons. It has a tendency to blow whites. This is something I never fathomed out. I even practiced on a white football I put at the bottom of the garden with no joy

What impact would the EC14 have on the 50-500 has that been tried/shown?
__________________
Thanks
Tim

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33153464@N07/
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to timmypreston For This Useful Post:
Hemlockwood (18th September 2013)
  #27  
Old 18th September 2013
bilbo bilbo is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 255
Thanked 174 Times in 152 Posts
Likes: 148
Liked 205 Times in 110 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmypreston View Post
It has a tendency to blow whites. This is something I never fathomed out. I even practiced on a white football I put at the bottom of the garden with no joy
Do you use exposure compensation?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 18th September 2013
Chevvyf1's Avatar
Chevvyf1 Chevvyf1 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 12,269
Thanks: 1,744
Thanked 1,281 Times in 1,112 Posts
Likes: 1,169
Liked 522 Times in 392 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
Sorry - we're discussing the 70-300

Ian


PHEW ! Thanks for this the 75-300 is one of the lenses I order with the EM-1
__________________
.
.
[I].
.
I Lurve Walking in our Glorious Countryside; Photography;
Riding Ducati Motorbikes; Reading & Cooking ! ...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomagicf1_chevvy/sets/

the ONE photo album
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18th September 2013
Edman Edman is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Latvia
Posts: 161
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Likes: 1
Liked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo View Post
There are two things here.
  • The quality of the kit
  • The ability of the photographer

I think that's probably wide enough to catch everything

This guy has both in spades:
http://marcopesaresi.com/

I think I could source his equipment for about 8,000. But his talent? I don't think so.
Ability includes talent, but that's not all. IMO, wildlife pictures are less about the talent, and more about simply putting in the work.

A lot of the work in wildlife pictures means sitting out there on the field at 5:30AM waiting for something to happen. Or tracking animals for hours, until you get close enough or they do something interesting. Often in cold and rain. Or building a hide and playing the waiting game. And sometimes you come back with nothing to show for.
__________________

Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Edman For This Useful Post:
bilbo (18th September 2013), Hemlockwood (18th September 2013), PeterBirder (18th September 2013), Wee man (21st September 2013)
  #30  
Old 18th September 2013
bilbo bilbo is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 255
Thanked 174 Times in 152 Posts
Likes: 148
Liked 205 Times in 110 Posts
Re: Do I need a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edman View Post
Ability includes talent, but that's not all. IMO, wildlife pictures are less about the talent, and more about simply putting in the work.

A lot of the work in wildlife pictures means sitting out there on the field at 5:30AM waiting for something to happen. Or tracking animals for hours, until you get close enough or they do something interesting. Often in cold and rain. Or building a hide and playing the waiting game. And sometimes you come back with nothing to show for.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teleconverters (EC14),E5, 70-300m and bird photography dkayuk Converters, adapters and extension tubes 6 13th May 2013 09:45 PM
help with bird photography crimbo Foto Fair 6 25th November 2009 01:13 AM
"Bird Photography" shenstone Foto Fair 5 9th April 2008 10:00 PM
Nature / Bird photography courses in South Wales... theMusicMan The lounge 6 23rd March 2008 01:06 AM
New to bird photography... theMusicMan Foto Fair 14 31st December 2007 01:31 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 PM.


The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger