Lens question

[TheChad23]

I have been looking for a camera that will be able to take closer pictures then the current lens which is a 28 x 135. I found this lens on craigslist and they give "sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG telephoto zoom lens" as its description and I believe they are selling it for $130.  So do you think they lens would give me what I want which is a camera that will be able to take pictures of wildlife without getting too close to it and is that a good price.  I will give you an example of what my camera takes now at full zoom and also I will post the amazon link the person on craigslist posted.

This is what my camera takes for full zoom. It is hard to see but it is two coyotes and we about 150-200 yards away from them.


This is what I did when i got home and cropped and zoomed on a picture editor. The picture is blurry but would the 70x300 lens give me this without going into a program and editing? Would the picture be closer or further with the new lens? Would the picture quality be good zoomed all the way in?


Here is the link they posted for a reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000ALLMI8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286029157&sr=8-1

Any feedback would be nice to help me determine if I would like to buy this lens.

[Skyvalhunter]

I have a sigma lens of the same size. First if you are not too concerned about the sharpness or clarity then go for it. It is ok for just messing around, but if you want clarity then the lens is where you are going to have to pay for it like $2000 +/-

[raekmike]

  $2k

[Skyvalhunter]

Yea ask Boneaddict how much he has invested in his Lenses

[raekmike]

Yes is stuff is freakishly good!   

[boneaddict]

I wouldn't buy anything worth buying off of craigslist.  You can get ripped off so quick its disgusting.  Sigma is a decent aftermarket company especially with Canon stuff.  I have a 400mm Sigma, 5.6 I believe that I paid $1500 for back in the day.  It took great pics but light was always an issue.  I still have the lens and would sell it for $150.   Not saying that to sell you the lens but giving you an idea of what to expect.  Great lens come with a price.   I took ALOT of pics including the one for teh WDFW cover with that sigma.  Get max glass for what you can afford. 

[TheChad23]

This is all great feedback. Does the camera have a lot of effect on picture quality or is it the lens that matters more.  Also, I'm a college kid that is just looking for a cheap lens to mess around with, I might later look into to buying a nice camera and lens but for now It isn't something that I would put too much money into.

[boneaddict]

The lens matters more than the camera does.    There are some really nice camera bodies out there that aren't that expensive such as the 20D and 40D Canon.  They have come down in price dramatically as they are older versions but still take great pics. 

Get the best you can afford and go from there.  THats all I did.  Like I said, I have taken a lot of photos.  I started with an old AE-1 and have gone from there. 

There are some really good point and shoots out there that take great photos.  Such as the Panasonic lumix line.   The glass is Lieca and is 2.8.  Two features that can't be ignored.   There are versions out there $200-500 NEW

[TheChad23]

I use a EOS Rebel T2i EF-S 28-135mm IS, it is my moms, but I am trying to find a better lens to take pictures from farther away.  Still think the clirty and quality will be bad with the lens?

here is a link http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_rebel_t2i_ef_s_18_55mm_is_kit#ServiceAndSupport

[grandpawrichard]

With almost any telephoto lens without Image Stabilization you are really going to need a good tripod to get crisp and clear photos or you need Good, Steady hands or something to brace yourself against, unless you use high speed shutter settings.

When I first got my Canon 30D it came with kit lenses. The results were fair to poor, especially with the 70-300 Non IS telephoto lens. I personally feel that lens was a piece of Garbage! I found a sucker that wanted it more than I did, so I sold it to him. Then I went out and dropped $500 on a Canon 70-200 L series lens and started taking Great Photos!

Next I went to a $1000 Canon 400 non IS L series lens and I am loving it! I can hand hold that lens with great results, but to make absolutely fantastic shots I put the lens and camera on a Tripod and use an electronic shutter release.

When I purchased and added a 1.4X extender I found out that my 26 year old tripod just wasn't cutting it for holding the heavy lens and camera properly to get the proper results. So, I ended up buying a Professional Grade Tripod that will handle up to 26 pounds of camera gear.

My camera gear Is Not Cheap, but it sure is Fun to use and it provides me a LOT of Enjoyment and it gets me Out in the Fresh Air and I get a pretty good work out.

What I am getting at in this long winded post is "Don't Go Cheap On Your Lenses!" They are what the camera uses as eyes. If your vision was so bad that you had a hard time seeing, you wouldn't pay $1.00 for a set of glasses at a Dollar Store would you? Same goes for camera lenses!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Dick

[Wazukie]

I'd go for that Sigma that Bone has.  That would be a great starter lens.  I know with Nikon, you have to be careful what lens you buy because the cheaper, D40, D3000, D5000, and others wont AF with anything but AF-s lenses.  A 400 5.6 for $150 would be a great place to start.

[Dmanmastertracker]

 I second the Sigma. I recently bought a 500mm Sigma with vibration control. It's comparable to the more expensive VR Nikon lenses (yes the 2+k lenses). It does depend somewhat on what kind of wildlife you want to shoot. If your shooting birds, you need something faster and lighter than say for big game from long-distance. Tough to find an all-in-one in that respect.