Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photography Forum' started by Airdale, Feb 28, 2015.
That is one heck of a mix of divers Steve!
Yea how bout it. The ringer I can kinda see but goldeneye mixing it up on the water let alone in flight, that's just crazy.
Hmmm....may hold off awhile then. When you spend $1000 you expect to get a good return on your purchase. Not sure if I wanna spend close to $2k on an aftermarket lens. Maybe wait a couple years and see if a good used copy comes along much cheaper.
When you spend $1000 on Nikon or Canon glass, you know you are paying for quality. To spend that much on an aftermarket that "may" or "may not" live up to expectation is questionable.
Steve you take nice photos. Do you have a website?
Thanks Dave !!
Yeah "Airdale" Its a piece of junlk!!!!! You don't want that "aftermarket" Sigma.. Absolute Junk I say!!!!!!!!
What is your point? Where did I say "junk" and what is with my screen name in quotations?
For many of those on the forum, photography is a hobby, myself included. I make some money with photography but not wildlife photography, that's just a hobby.
What many people may not realize is that after market lenses, like Sigma and Tamron, do not hold their value nearly as well as OEM glass. A hobbyist will not get a financial return on their investment, they can only hope to get a portion of their money back if they decide to sell down the road. So to someone looking to get good quality images for their own enjoyment, $2,000 is a lot of coin. So I ask, what do you get with that purchase? An after market lens that may only work well stopped down to f/8 in good light? A lens that may not have the build quality of OEM glass? AF issues? Lack of sharpness? Just read reviews across the forums. Decent glass for the money, sure. But what exactly do we (the hobbyist) get for $2,000? So a couple years later you go to sell it and your lucky to get $700 on a good day?
I occasionally have a client ask about which camera or lens etc. I like to tell the story of when I was shooting Canon I not only made some money with my 400/5.6L but when I sold it to switch back to Nikon, I got 80% of my money back. Good luck getting that back on a a Sigma or Tamron, unless it's flying off the shelf like hot cakes. Can't get the reach you need? Then get closer. As a hobbyist you have to consider what you get for the money. For a pro, if you can make money from your $2000 purchase that's great. I want performance and resale value.
Not to say I wouldn't buy one of these lenses for my hobby, but it wouldn't be a fire from the hip decision just to get a little extra reach if it's useless for when most wildlife are most active (ie. Low light).
I have NO Interest Whatsoever in making MONEY from this . I did a long time ago and personally got tired of the "Rat Race". I'm not in it for the money but just my SANITY!!! With all of the crap going on in this world, taking pictures of nature is a breath of fresh air!!!!
I never was a PRO Nature Photographer nor ever will be for that matter. I was a PRO commercial photographer who specialized in Petroleum and Industrial as well as Aerial! SO this stuff is as new to me as it is to you!!!
I also spent 17 years with National Geographic Magazine in Digital Imaging, Photo Editing and Layout and Design but not as a photographer....
SO Easy Jersey!! I was only kidding!!! but easy with the word "Aftermarket". I wouldn't call a company with as many lenses and camera's "aftermarket", especially now with their new lines and the demand for them...
Not everyone out there can afford the prices of those big white primes although I'd love to have one!! But using that term, you are literally insulting and belittling us that cannot afford these expensive lenses. We do the best we can with what we have!
Both Nikon and Canon are under assault from what you may call aftermarket companies.. There is a waiting list for this new Sigma, especially for Canon.
Tamron is doing well with their product line as well as their quality has like Sigma increased ten-fold!
You cannot compare a Canon or Nikon 600mm prime to these lenses, they are not even in the same ballpark.
I am talking about the proven performance and reliability of the Canon 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and for now, the Nikon 300/4. Yes, they are shorter focal lengths, but see I like to make up for that in technique, in approach. You can't argue that 3/4 frame shot between the 400/5.6 and either the Sigma or Tamron are comparable. The Canon prime will blow those two away everytime, and you buy a brand new one well under $2k. Its 200mm shorter, oh well, get your butt closer.
The idea is you're paying $2k for the 600mm reach, but how useful is that 600 if you have to stop down to f8 for the sharpest quality? 400/5.6 with a 1.4TC and getting a bit closer yields a better result...and for less money and higher "resale" value of your equipment.
My whole point of starting this thread was to get some more opinions on how these lenses are performing. I've read a lot of good reviews and I've read some so-so reviews. Because I shoot a Nikon, my only affordable option is the 300/4. Which I am about to buy. But I wanted to get more info on these lenses first.