Lens advice for a total novice

The Davestator · 18-04-2009 2:24pm #1

Total novice so advice appreciated. I have a 400d with the standard lens. I'm going to africa on safari and wanted to know what lens to get. I was thinking of this; SIGMA 70-300 mm F4-5.6 DG Macro Tele-zoom Lens. my question is, is it any good, do I need a UV filter or should i get something else?

RichyX · 18-04-2009 2:35pm

The Davestator wrote: »

Total novice so advice appreciated. I have a 400d with the standard lens. I'm going to africa on safari and wanted to know what lens to get. I was thinking of this; SIGMA 70-300 mm F4-5.6 DG Macro Tele-zoom Lens. my question is, is it any good, do I need a UV filter or should i get something else?

The Sigma 70-300mm is a well regarded lens, as is its Tamron counterpart (which I have and love).

I've never been on safari, but I would be worried that 300mm may not be long enough.
Unless you have serious money to spend, say €1000, for a 50-500mm, then the 70-300mm will probably be the best option.

Just make sure if you get the Sigma that it's the APO version.
The full name will be Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro.
It's supposed to be a lot sharper.

I don't bother with filters myself. If you keep the lens hood on then that should protect the lens quite well. Plus, unless you get a very good filter it can degrade the image quality.

Hope that helps.

af_thefragile · 18-04-2009 2:45pm

It is a great lens for its price.
It is a little soft while focusing (especially at the extreme ends, 70mm and 300mm) but some people like that soft focus (i quite like it myself) and its bokeh (the out of focus blur) is a little harsh but for the price it'll do as the next step up in quality for this type of lens costs about 3 times as much.

Its macro feature is pretty good too. Check out this set of macro-ish pics i took with that lens http://www.flickr.com/photos/afthefragile/sets/72157616471095248
Not the best, but should give you an idea of the image quality of the lens at full macro.

Oh and yeah, the auto focus is a little crap. Its pretty slow and so if you get this lens, i prefer you learn how to use the manual focus well. Though thats not saying the auto focus is useless, it does work but don't expect it to rival those ultrasonic focus lenses which cost about 6-7 times as much.

So coming back to the question, its a great lens for its price. If you're on a tight limited budget, go for it. If you have the money to spend there are better (and faster) options. But overall this is a great lens, you won't regret it especially considering its price tag.

And to your question about the UV filter, its good to have one. If not anything it protects your lens from scratches, dust and dirt. The sigma 70-300 lens uses the same size filter as the standard 18-55 kit lens so i'ld recommend you to get one UV filter and just switch it between the lenses when you're using it.

Wait, you're going to africa on a safari right?
Which means you might be using the lens at its telephoto end of around 300mm. You better have a tripod or a very steady hand cuz the lens doesn't have any Image Stabilizer so it'll get very shaky at the 300mm focus.

Here's a pic i took with the lens at 300mm focus. http://www.flickr.com/photos/afthefragile/3231328029/in/set-72157613476671735/
I was about 15-20ft away and didn't use a tripod. Just a steady hand and continuous shooting.
You can see the soft focus and the harsh bokeh, which isn't really too bad.
And mine is the non APO version which is still decent. You can go for the APO version which is slightly more expensive and it'll give you a sharper result with less chromatic aberration.

Rb · 18-04-2009 3:03pm

Given that the 400d has a cropped sensor, would they not be better off getting something like the 55-250mm IS telephoto lens?

The Davestator · 18-04-2009 3:03pm

wow - wasn't expecting that much help / advice. Thanks very much. Budget is limited so will prob go for the apo one and a tripod too. Hopefully, I'll stick some shots up when I'm back!

RichyX · 18-04-2009 3:59pm

The Davestator wrote: »

wow - wasn't expecting that much help / advice. Thanks very much. Budget is limited so will prob go for the apo one and a tripod too. Hopefully, I'll stick some shots up when I'm back!

If the Tamron 70-300mm is any cheaper it's the one to go for, bit sharper than the Sigma.

Have a good time and throw up a few shots when you get back!

Thirdfox · 18-04-2009 4:28pm

And to be honest, lack of OS/IS/VR (image stabilisation) isn't going to be much of an issue in the plains of Africa (not speaking from personal experience - but in bright places you'll be getting 1/750th+ sec exposures even at F8) at which point OS/IS/VR doesn't help anyway.

As you are a Canon shooter - you may want to have a look at the Canon 55-250mm IS. It's a bit shorter than the 300, but you get IS for when you come back to drab old Ireland and IS is needed... I hear they are relatively inexpensive too.

Tactical · 18-04-2009 5:15pm

Why not get a monopod inspead of the tripod, it'd be more useful if you're going to be pretty mobile and lighter to carry around.

Just make sure its speced to take he weight of the slr body and the lens. Also look for a quick release feature.

af_thefragile · 18-04-2009 6:58pm

You could also look into buying a 2x teleconverter if you find your subject isn't close enough to you. Though they're fairly expensive too (around £200) and very limited use. A 2x teleconverter would double the focus range but also halve the aperture size.
So a 55-250mm f4-5.6 lens would become a 110-500mm f8-11.2 lens and a 70-300mm f4-5.6 sigma lens would become a 140-600mm f8-11.2 lens.
Which is impressive telephoto but that aperture size will have very limited function here in Ireland!
Also i'm not sure how well it'ld work on a cheap sigma lens... Makes me think why i'm advising you this. But well, always good to know your options!

Ballyman · 18-04-2009 7:51pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

You could also look into buying a 2x teleconverter if you find your subject isn't close enough to you.

These only work on the more expensive EX sigma lenses and won't work on the 70-300mm

RichyX · 18-04-2009 8:17pm

Ballyman wrote: »

These only work on the more expensive EX sigma lenses and won't work on the 70-300mm

It'd work, it just wouldn't work very well.
Image quality would drop a lot.
I also doubt the lens would autofocus with it attached.

Ballyman · 18-04-2009 8:27pm

RichyX wrote: »

It'd work, it just wouldn't work very well.
Image quality would drop a lot.
I also doubt the lens would autofocus with it attached.

I'm afraid it won't, or at least the Sigma converter won't. There may be another make that might but the Sigma 1.4x and 2.0x will not work on a 70-300mm. It physically won't fit.

RichyX · 18-04-2009 8:51pm

Ballyman wrote: »

I'm afraid it won't, or at least the Sigma converter won't. There may be another make that might but the Sigma 1.4x and 2.0x will not work on a 70-300mm. It physically won't fit.

Nobody specifically mentioned the Sigma teleconverter.
I was thinking of the 3rd party teleconverters from Kenko.
Either way it's a waste of time with a cheap lens.

Kintarō Hattori · 18-04-2009 9:12pm

The Sigma lens is very good value for money and the macro function is a nice feature to have though I personally haven't used it too much. As mentioned above when using it at 300mm you'll definetly need a mono/tripod. Below are some photo's I've taken using the Sigma:

This one was taken at 300mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3433019446/

Again taken at 300mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/2765867937/in/set-72157602093506025/

Ehh and again:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/2647968214/in/set-72157602648704110/

Lens advice for a total novice

Comments