I’ll admit to being a little photo oriented, as you can
probably notice from this site. However, it seems to me that some people suffer
as naturalists because of this (the “let’s take a picture of this now, then
identify and learn about it later” phenomena – I have been a victim of this
before, certainly) – but I like photos to support findings and to replace
specimens in taking records (imagine if all bird records needed to be
substantiated with a specimen!). I usually do my birding without my camera at
the ready – it usually resides in my backpack waiting for something good. But
in December, my trusty lens, the Canon 100-400/4-5.6L, died unexpectedly and I
was left without even the option of taking pictures of birds…
Chilean Swallow, Tachycineta meyeni, i.e. the reason I am here |
A group of ornithologists from Cornell was coming down to
Chiloe at the beginning of January and very kindly agreed to carry a lens down
here for me. So the question was: which one to buy? The choices were: Canon
100-400/4-5.6L, 400/5.6L, or Sigma 150-500/5-6.3. The price for the Sigma was much
lower than either of the Canons and it seemed to be garnering good reviews
recently and I could not resist the 500mm range – I am not a professional, so
the slight image quality reduction was not worth the nearly $800 price
difference (to me) and I thought the slight reduction in speed would be OK.
Black-faced Ibis |
So after two trips to Caulin bay and some walks around the Senda with it, here is my very unprofessional review:
The first thing I noticed was: it is
heavy and large. Not so heavy that it is unusable, but heavy enough that continuous
use probably would lead to strong forearms and biceps, i.e. a little bit
heavier than the 100-400. The autofocus and image stabilizers are VERY QUIET –
much more so than the Canon. Having had two months of only using a macro, on my
camera it felt like I was aiming a telescope – I had trouble finding the birds
at 500mm.
The minimum aperture of 6.3 (at 500mm) lets in less light, thus forces
a slower shutter speed than the 100-400, a disadvantage for birds and a real
disadvantage with my quite old camera body (a 30D) which is not good at
high ISO. But regardless, I have been satisfied with the image quality - though using a higher ISO, my photos have been noisy - and because it is slower, I have to bump the ISO up a level or two. It is reasonably sharp and improves as you move from 6.3 to 7.1 to 8 - the speed is more of an issue to me than the sharpness - it is fine for my purposes.
Fire-eyed Diucan, Senda Darwin. |
Physically, I like it better than the Canon. A nice feature of
this lens is to zoom you turn a ring on the lens, not like the Canon which
slides (or doesn’t, depending on how it feels) between focal lengths. That was
my least favorite part of the Canon, the other that the lens caps and the hood
would not stay on well – the Sigma seems to have no trouble in that respect,
though when I bought the 100-400 it was well-used, and the Sigma is brand
spanking new. Both lenses are built very solidly, which is nice, as should be
expected in mid-range lenses and certainly a plus for field photography.
Sedge Wren, Caulin |
For those that like to take pictures of butterflies and
dragonflies while birding – this lens focuses to 2.2 meters – the 100-400 to
1.8m – but at 500mm, this is fairly comparable (though you get more shake and a
lower aperture at 500 than 400, so perhaps it is much worse). I have gotten
fair photos of dragonflies with it, though I have not played with this all that
much yet.
All in all, I have only had the lens a week, but I am
satisfied with it – whether I keep it or the 100-400 after repair remains to be
seen, but it will be spending the remainder of Chile with me and heading out to
Peru as well.
South American Snipe, Caulin (near the bridge) |
We sympathize with the loss of your lens, Eric, but so glad you were able to get a replacement! It's so frustrating when equipment dies unexpectedly--this happened to us on our trip and we were camera-less for over a month. Photos with your new lens look great! How much longer in Chile? And where in Peru?
ReplyDeleteI read that episode on your blog (before I met you guys), it's such a bummer and the prices for everything down here are simply absurd (when you get it, of course).
ReplyDeleteA couple more weeks in Chile, then back up to the Chiclayo area of Peru until May.
Best,
Eric