Zoom v. Fixed focal length

[Seajay]

Originally Posted by jonhawkins

I thought about this lens, it is somewhat more expensive than the Sigma 50-500 (£605 on Amazon). Your comment above leads me to believe that the Sigma might be a better choice.

Jonathan

I have owned the Sigma 50-500 Nikon fit. I have not owned a Nikon 80-400 but seen the quality shots it can produce. The Bigma, though an excellent lens does not compete with the Nikkor 80-400. Sigma lens are an excellent and cheaper alternative to Nikkor but don't make the mistake of thinking they are superior. In my opinion if you have Nikon cameras as far as budget allows stick to Nikkor lens. If you like Sigma lens have they not produced a dSLR? I remember reading a while ago something to that effect. Surely it would be best to sell your Nikon camera and buy that?

Colin

[Fourwings]

It really is a matter of personal choice.
Prime lenses are far superior to zooms in terms of image quality but there are three major things to consider about them;
1, The cost, a top quality prime will cost on average at least twice if not three times as much as a top quality zoom.
2, The size and weight, most large primes are seriously large and extremely heavy.
3, Minimum focusing distance, this was something that I had never thought about until I lay with a group of photographers on Salthouse beach a few weeks ago. These guys were all using large Canon L series primes, mostly 500 & 600mm. The Snow Buntings flock there was very confiding and the birds came incredibly close, the light was superb and I was merrily firing away when I noticed that the others were just lay there not taking any images, after a few minutes my curiosity got the better of me and I asked why, the answer, the birds were too close to focus on!! so whilst they could do nothing, I simply backed my Bigma off too 350mm and filled my CF cards with full frame images of Snow Buntings. The moral of this story, there are times when that zoom facility really comes
into its own!!



Yes, the Bigma needs good light at 500mm but, take it down to 400mm and it will perform superbly in most light conditions. It can't quite match the primes in terms of image quality but for its money there simply isn't a better lens available for anyone wishing to get into bird photography. I would not be parted from my Bigma, its versatile, fast, well made and it consistantly gives me quality images.
Oh, and if anyone ever says it cannot be used handheld at the top end (500mm) don't believe them, this was taken yesterday at 500mm with the Bigma purely hand held without a tripod or any form of support to lean on!


I hope this helps clarify your original question, the main thing is whatever lens you decide on just get out there, take loads of images and enjoy it.

[Seajay]

Sorry Jonhawkins, I went away from the original question of zoom v fixed.
The obvious advantage of the zoom is it's versatility. Birds don't stay still. They move towards and away from you and come in different sizes. A zoom can cope admirably with that so you don't need to move position or change lens hence lost shots. (I loose enough from being too slow never mind other factors). On a cheaper zoom quality may suffer as they are more difficult to design and manufacture, I am given to understand.
For nature I use the Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8 and the Nikkor 200-400VR f4 with Nikkor converters if I need them plus 2 cameras. If I was younger I could probably manage without a monopod but I'm not This means I can travel fast and reasonably light over just about any terrain.
The quality on these zooms is very acceptable to me and I personally can't see any difference between these and the primes though optically there must be.
I would not fancy carrying a 200, 300, 400 and 600 prime (although I would love the 600 and hug it all day)
If on a budget the Bigma (without a converter) is an excellent alternative and have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone. I also used to hand hold this lens for short periods so a young person should find it easy.

That's it really - can't think of owt else

Colin

[stephen p]

I have thought about this a lot over the past year.

I was going to save for a prime 300mm or 400mm, but the price was a bit of a killer for me and when i thought about how i take my photographs i felt a prime lens would be great but restrict what i can do.

So i needed to find a solution, so i came up with looking at a high quality zoom.

After loads of review readings and advice i have picked the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 APO HSM.
The reviews i have read and photo's i have seen are spot on for what i want to do.
It is highly rated lens and what i like is i will have the flexibility of the zoom and being F/2.8 i can use teleconverters when needed and still be a quick lens. Most people who have used this lens say the sharpness and picture quality is better than the prime Sigma 300mm and compare it with the Nikon and Canon equivalent

So this is what im doing, hope this helps in some way.

Regards,

Stephen

[jonhawkins]

It has been really helpful reading all the comments on this topic. I think the advantages of a zoom seem to outweigh the advantages of a fixed lens in terms of flexibility and I guess that means for me either the Bigma or the Nikon 80-400.

Unfortunately another round of possible redundancies means no capital expenditure for the time being!

Jonathan

[kennym]

hi,
has anyone any info/photos taken with tokina 80-400mm f4.5-f5.6,
i am thinking of getting one for wildlife to use with my canon 5d,

[Jason Green]

Welcome to WAB, Kenny!

Feel free to re-post your reply in a thread of its own so other people have the chance to see it who may not think of looking here...

Good luck!

[Chris_Johnstone]

I've only skimmed this thread but would like to offer my opinion in case you're weighing up people's comments.

I've been taking photos for about 2.5 years - not long at all but if you're serious about getting into it you'll want a prime lens at some point. I've satisfied myself with a zoom until now but find I'm hankering after more. Once you test/hire the lens you really want, there will be no turning back.

My advice is to save up and buy something really good. Either a 400mm prime or a 300mm f2.8 + 2x TC or a 500mm.

I think the bottom line is that (especially for bird photography) you can't beat the IQ with these options. It's an unfortunate truth.

Yes, it may take time to save up but if you can get buy with a mediocre lens in the meantime I think you'll definitely benefit. Lens are expensive right now but by the time you save up they'll have come down and you'll have extra money to spend. Lens don' depreciate in price very quickly either.

Lastly, always remember second hand!

Chris

[momji1971]

Hi there. There is always the Sigma 500 F4.5 and yes you can still use a 1.4x tele converter on it to get extra reach. Thats 700mm at F6.3, half a stop slower than the Nikon.

Believe me, there is NO quality difference detectable between it and the Nikon primes unless you print to posters sizes. It is however alot lighter AND cheaper!

It available for around £1700 used if you can find one.



shot in murky afternoon ligh, the sun just poking through.

Just a thought for big glass on a budget.

regards.
Stu.

[CordlessDave]

I think everything has more or less been covered but I am now going to mention one last thing from experiece.

One of the best lenses ever made is the Canon 300 F2.8 IS add a 1.4 TC and you have a 420 f4 without any noticeable drop in clarity. Add the 2 x TC and you now have a 600 f5.6 that with good long lens photography habits can give you excellent images with just a small drop in clarity.

What this gives you is a range from 300 - 600 and just a change in TC if required.

Just a thought, gives something to think about and the 300 does not weigh that much can be carried and focuses lightning fast so flight shots no problem.

DaveC