Anyone on /p/ have any experience with budget super teles?

Slow as shit.

>>2923918
i'm an enthusiast, I don't want to pay 5K+ to get this focal length

>>2923922

What are you shooting? You'll get much nicer shots with 300 f/4.

>>2923926
want a nice telephoto for travel,

Wildlife, landscape etc etc.

zoom with that focal length and range at just 2kg is amazing.

>>2923929

It's not amazing, though. You're sacrificing image quality and speed.

600mm needs high shutter speeds. You will be pushing your ISO a lot, believe me. Even average lighting conditions may force you to not only raise ISO, but also lower your exposure time.

Just saying... it is cheap for a reason.

Nikon 200-500 is fixed at 5.6, 1/3 darker than 4. is this a nice option?

Wow it's not like there isn't a thread for just this sort of thing

If only people weren't borderline braindead and could read the sticky and lurk moar

>>2922026

>>2923989

>1/3 darker

Kek.

>>2923875
Just get a cheap mirror lens.

>>2924003

fuck off cuck

>>2923989

It's twice as dark, sweetie.

I have the tamron 200-500.
It's OK for birding in broad daylight I guess.

Honestly my 28-300 has good enough image quality to crop and provide a better close up most of the time, plus have enough range to take most any photo I want. (Thanks Ken)

>>2923950
I live in a sunny country and I'm tired of shooting at f8 iso100 1/2000 on the street.

In average light conditions f6.3 is more than enough to shoot at iso 100-800 with shutter speeds of more than 1/1250 anyday. If you need more iso than that you live in fucking norway during winter; and if your camera gets noise so bad it's hard to stand even after post production your sensor is shit or you're a pixelpeeping gearfag.

And even if you're one of those, in both cases chances are you can afford an 80d/d7200 if you're looking at 1k zoom lenses for birding.

>>2924846
Also sigma and tamron has superb stabilization nowadays.

>>2923875
not worth it and for a lot of valid reasons already listed here.

this logic applies to all lens purchases, but the supertele lenses especially: the value of the investment increases exponentially the more you're willing to invest. you get what you pay for with sigma and tamron's "budget" super teles.

Canon's 100-400mm II will get you a much, much better image at a more consistent rate (aka AF) and with far better handling if you're willing to wait for used varieties to start popping up on craigslist. It shouldn't cost you much more if you're patient.

Sigma has awful AF and if that doesn't bother you you may as well buy an older and sharper manual superprime for a fraction of the price.

>>2924846

>strugglig to justify at all costs

If you want to buy an ultra pleb level lens no matter what, go ahead. Stop coming here to ask questions you will only dismiss the answers to.

The sun is bright everywhere on the globe, retard. But I know that with wildlife there is never enough light, and f/4 at a lower focal length will get you more shots than that joke.

Enjoy the consistently subpar shots.

>>2924846

Just a bit of advice:

A bright day for a super tele is very different than with a wider lens, because you are taking in so much less of the scene.

It can be as bright as possible, but the bird on the side of a tree or the face of a bear is only going to reflect so much of that light, even if it is direct. It makes a huge difference.

On a budget, 300 f/4 is king for wildlife.

>>2924887
I'm not op smartass. And yes, those lenses are fast enough and focus fast enough for any enthusiast that want good results.

And no, a 300mm pcroppedicture taken at f4 will never, or almost never be sharper than a 600mm shot at f6.3, not to mention that you need to move to frame subjects in situations that you cant (i.e. hiding in a bush, silently awaiting an animal to pass by) and pay almost 400$ more for that prime.

And if animals move fast you just use the panning technique to follow and get them sharp.

You're like those that say that kit lenses are bad because they can't overcome their gear limitations with knowledge and ability.

>>2924936

Let's see all your stellar results.

>>2924936

>can't get closer
>can't compose with primes

Oh, yeah. You should be giving advice, Protog.

>>2923875
just get an 800mm telescope and a T2 adapter
:^)

File: 3456.jpg (216KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1000x563px

>>2925077

>not using 2800mm f/10

Just use the panning technique, and you can get perfect cloaca shots mid-flight.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

You are probably better off with one of those super zoom cameras.

>>2924936
Depending on the quality of the superzoom, a cropped photo taken with a 300mm f4 can most certainly be sharper. And have better contrast and less chromabs. And have better AF to boot.

>>2924976
This one actually looks pretty cool(lock mode, new more fluid design, etc...) Might get one sometime after it's release.

>>2925248

>not getting one before its release

Fag.

>>2923875
Check the sigma site itself they have refurbed ones at 800ish

>>2924964
>Shooting deers mating after hours hidden
>has to move back because they're too close
>Even the smallest soud scares them
>muh primes

Just accept the fact that for some purposes a prime is not the best choice.

>>2925291

Post the pics?

>>2925292

The entire scenario only took place in his mind

>>2925291
If a prime is too tight for your situation you can go for small detail shots. It doesn't mean primes suck, it only means you are shit as a photographer.

These lenses have dogshit auto focus and iq compared to canon or nikon teles.

There's 2 scenarios:

>buy this lens
>"oh wow I can take shots of pigeons and children in the park from my car"
>after 3 months the plastic gets cracked
>bunch of your shots have tons of noise and low iq if the pidgeon is out in the evening and it's even slightly dark
>sunlight blows the highlights the fuck out, which is fine if it's consistent, but it's not and some shots come out in janky colours

Or

>buy used canon 100-400 MARK 1
>solid workhorse lens
>consistent quality
>won't be disappointed in 6 months

I've rented the Sigma/Tamron, and both the mark 1 & 2 canon lenses. On a 7dii the Sigma ruined what's a good af system and gave me janky quality. I'd also be terrified of even the slightest bump.

>>2925648

But 400 is less than 600. And also it doesnt look as cool.

>>2925653
Nigger detected

White is clearly better than black

>>2925250
I don't have the money.

>>2925535

When I first started shooting with primes, I had all the typical fears, and quickly realized they are unwarranted.

You just adapt. I never worry, whether at 200 or 600, because you can always come up with decent composition as long as there's something in the background.

>>2923918
Sir, i own the contemporary version, i must say it is the best 1,700 ive spent on any lens, the lack of speed can be countered with a flash and a extender on it such as better beamer or a DIY one.

I highly recommend this lens, havent tried the sport version but the C version is still fantastic, sharp, focus's quickly, good zoom range, low CA, and great stabilizer, ive gotten some good shots at 1/15th with the stabilizer on

>>2926274

All this bait... nope.

Post some shots with exif.

File: IMG_5215.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

Don't listen to these brainwashed Americans. They've been told throughout their lives that buying more expensive things will solve all their problems. Absolutely fucking pathetic.

The lens is great bang for the buck, well built, has effective IS and is sharp in the centre (not so much in the corners) throughout the zoom range. You will have fun with it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5616
Image Height	3744
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:16 12:52:43
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	600.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2926287

Now there's some fast action.

Just go to Flickr and have a look. Lots of chromabs and grainy shots in less than ideal situations.

>>2923875

I have the tamron sp 150-600 f5-6.3. Not pro nikkor-tier sharp, but good for its price. Works great on my d3s. Recently did an airshow and had to use 1/1000s+ to get sharp pics at 600mm, so be prepared to up the iso.
Also, at 600mm atmospheric conditions will most likely make your pics blurry too, so take care.

I recommend it if you have a nice camera and desire more range.

>>2926287
how will it perform on my eos m?

>>2926287

Useless under a tree canopy. Useless in the evening. Useless for action on overcast days.

Unless you like ISO 6400.

>>2926322
yup OP listen basically it's 600mm f/4L IS II or bust. The lens is practically useless

>>2926328
great advice fucker

>>2926322
>Unless you like ISO 6400
Not everyone uses Canon, for most of us the image doesn't fall apart to noise, banding and mushy nodetails at ISO 6400.

>>2924846
buy a ND filter

>>2927664

Know what looks even better than ISO 6400 on any system?

ISO 1600. Which is pretty much your average max for f/4.