Tele for wildlife at DVinfo.net

Dave Tyrer · September 23rd, 2009, 02:10 AM

What Telephoto lenses are available for the EX3. I have a Nikon telezoom, but it's a pain to keep changing between that and the stock lens. To get even more reach I would need to go to the Nikon 600mm. Is there a long 1/2 or 2/3 lens that would suit wildlife, with a built in extender. I'm just looking at options.

Thanks

Steve Phillipps · September 23rd, 2009, 02:23 AM

You can put any 2/3" lens on the EX3 with an adapter, and being only 1/2" you'll get 1/3 more reach reach out of it. BUT, you're talking serious money!
The big guns from Canon at present are the HJ40 and the HJ18x28, costing £30k and £25k, and the similarly priced ones from Fujinon are the HA42 and HA25x16.
An HJ22x7.8 will be about £13k and will get you upto 350mm with the extender, which is OK but still a bit short for wildlife.
This is why people use stills lenses, as the cost of broadcast telephotos is so high and the fact that they're using an EX3 implies that budget is a factor.
Steve

Dave Tyrer · September 23rd, 2009, 03:04 AM

Steve thanks for that.

I've been looking at the CANON KJ20X8.5B KRS with x2 extender built in (5K) what would the 35mm equvalent be for that lens. The range is 8.5~170mm with extender.

Dave

Dave Tyrer · September 23rd, 2009, 04:55 AM

Actually...I just realised..that's a 2/3" lens...not sure that would work on the EX3.

Steve Phillipps · September 23rd, 2009, 07:41 AM

2/3" lenses will work with an adapter (you get an adapter with the camera that allows mounting 1/2" lenses, then there is an adapter that goes 1/2" to 2/3", sounds complicated but it works fine).
Never used the KJ20 but heard shocking things about it (hence the price!)
Be aware that the 1/2" to 2/3" converter has glass in it, and that if you use the 2x extender that puts more glass into the equation, plus 2/3" lenses resolve less than 1/2" ones, so I get the feeling the results would look pretty sludgy even from a good lens.
My recommendation would be Nikon 200-400 f4, about £5k. Or Sigma 120-300 f2.8 £2k.
Steve

Dave Tyrer · September 25th, 2009, 06:36 AM

Steve

I have the 200-400...looks like I'll be sticking with that. I may invest in something longer in the future e.g. Sigma 300-800.

Thanks All

Steve Phillipps · September 25th, 2009, 07:11 AM

What's the 200-400 like with 1.4 and 2x converter? Maybe that'd be a better bet. I'd have though 400 is plenty long enough for most things, then with a 1.4x when neccessary. The 300-800 adds so much weight and bulk, more prone to shake, needs probably bigger tripod, doubt if it's worth it myself.
Steve

Bo Skelmose · September 25th, 2009, 08:01 AM

One thing to consider, when using different lenses, is the direction to turn focus. I have stopped using my Nikon lenses and now only use Sigma. I started having trouble with decent focusing on my broadcast camera and lenses because my nikon lense focus turns the other way. Only way to get rid of that problem was to have lenses with the same way to turn focus - Sigma and my Canon broadcast works the same way.

Caleb Royer · September 25th, 2009, 04:55 PM

In 35mm photographic terms, what is the focal length on these lenses: HJ40 and the HJ18x28?

Steve Phillipps · September 26th, 2009, 02:47 AM

There are 2 HJ40s, one goes from 10-400 (800 with built in 2x), the other 14-560 (1120 with 2x), and the 18x28 goes upto 500 (1000 with 2x).
The 18x28 is becoming a favourite with many now for a couple of reasons; it's much lighter and more compact (2.8kg vs 5kg) and it's optically superior. Only thing you loose is the wider end, though even the 10-400 was never wide enough that it was a one-lens-suits-all proposition.
Steve

Bo Skelmose · September 26th, 2009, 04:18 AM

I use the Sigma 120-300mm tele for my ex3. Makes great pictures. What I miss is the zooming capability when looking for flying birds. You cannot find them fast enough in the sky. The same with insects in grass or similar. You can zoom a little with the sigma lens but not really enough - and the focus (Backfocus) isent the same at different zoom factors. Often you want to take 3-4 shots in different sizes of the same situation and it takes too long to change the lens. I sometimes use a canon 8x20 lens with the fujinon adaptor. Mostly it give ok pictures - but not when there is to much backlight - the backlight produces some strange magenta shadows. Guess it comes from the adaptor and the extra glass in it. The same artifacts are there with my hj22x7,6. A 1/2" tele would probably not have these problems. The HJ40's are great for sports and has a image stabilizer that could be very handy in the wind - I have not tried it. The 18x28 has no image stabilizer.

Steve Phillipps · September 26th, 2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo Skelmose

. The HJ40's are great for sports and has a image stabilizer that could be very handy in the wind - I have not tried it. The 18x28 has no image stabilizer.

The IS on the HJ40 is only any use for locked off subjects, you can't pan and tilt with it - but yes, locked off in the wind it is useful. But I don't miss it and would have an 18x28 any day of the week.
Steve

Ed Kukla · October 14th, 2009, 05:56 PM

Are the sigma lenses discussed here all metal lenses? Do they focus cleanly without any wiggle of the image during focus?

I have a 70 - 300 sigma and the focus jumps around like crazy

Kin Lau · October 14th, 2009, 09:16 PM

The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a monster of a lens, yes all metal construction, internal zooming (it doesn't change it's length when zooming). I have the 120-300/2.8 and also have the Sigma 70-300, and you cannot compare the quality btwn those two at all... one is a $200- lens, the other is $2000-.

The 300-800/5.6 mentioned is scary huge and expensive. Also internal zooming and focusing, built like a tank.

Tony Davies-Patrick · October 15th, 2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Tyrer

Steve

I have the 200-400...looks like I'll be sticking with that. I may invest in something longer in the future e.g. Sigma 300-800.

Thanks All

The Sigma 300-800mm AF zoom, although heavy, is quite a sharp zoom lens, especially considering the range, price and reach,

The Nikon Ai-S Zoom-Nikkor 180-600mm f/8.0 ED is very sharp if you can find one on.

I prefer prime lenses Dave, and would steer you towards the Nikkor 600mm F/4 EDIF (older MF or later AF models) or the smaller and lighter 600mmm f/5.6 EDIF - all have superb handling and very sharp optics.

September 23rd, 2009, 02:10 AM	#1
Dave Tyrer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: UK Posts: 174	Tele for wildlife What Telephoto lenses are available for the EX3. I have a Nikon telezoom, but it's a pain to keep changing between that and the stock lens. To get even more reach I would need to go to the Nikon 600mm. Is there a long 1/2 or 2/3 lens that would suit wildlife, with a built in extender. I'm just looking at options. Thanks

September 23rd, 2009, 03:04 AM	#3
Dave Tyrer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: UK Posts: 174	Steve thanks for that. I've been looking at the CANON KJ20X8.5B KRS with x2 extender built in (5K) what would the 35mm equvalent be for that lens. The range is 8.5~170mm with extender. Dave Last edited by Dave Tyrer; September 23rd, 2009 at 04:55 AM.

September 25th, 2009, 04:55 PM	#9
Caleb Royer Regular Crew Join Date: May 2009 Location: Ozarks, Missouri, USA Posts: 109	In 35mm photographic terms, what is the focal length on these lenses: HJ40 and the HJ18x28? __________________ 5D Mark II, 70-300mm IS lens, 28-135mm IS lens, 50mm f/1.8 lens, Canon HG20, 503HDV head, Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium

September 23rd, 2009, 02:23 AM	#2
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	You can put any 2/3" lens on the EX3 with an adapter, and being only 1/2" you'll get 1/3 more reach reach out of it. BUT, you're talking serious money! The big guns from Canon at present are the HJ40 and the HJ18x28, costing £30k and £25k, and the similarly priced ones from Fujinon are the HA42 and HA25x16. An HJ22x7.8 will be about £13k and will get you upto 350mm with the extender, which is OK but still a bit short for wildlife. This is why people use stills lenses, as the cost of broadcast telephotos is so high and the fact that they're using an EX3 implies that budget is a factor. Steve

September 23rd, 2009, 04:55 AM	#4
Dave Tyrer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: UK Posts: 174	Actually...I just realised..that's a 2/3" lens...not sure that would work on the EX3.

September 23rd, 2009, 07:41 AM	#5
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	2/3" lenses will work with an adapter (you get an adapter with the camera that allows mounting 1/2" lenses, then there is an adapter that goes 1/2" to 2/3", sounds complicated but it works fine). Never used the KJ20 but heard shocking things about it (hence the price!) Be aware that the 1/2" to 2/3" converter has glass in it, and that if you use the 2x extender that puts more glass into the equation, plus 2/3" lenses resolve less than 1/2" ones, so I get the feeling the results would look pretty sludgy even from a good lens. My recommendation would be Nikon 200-400 f4, about £5k. Or Sigma 120-300 f2.8 £2k. Steve

September 25th, 2009, 06:36 AM	#6
Dave Tyrer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: UK Posts: 174	Steve I have the 200-400...looks like I'll be sticking with that. I may invest in something longer in the future e.g. Sigma 300-800. Thanks All

September 25th, 2009, 07:11 AM	#7
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	What's the 200-400 like with 1.4 and 2x converter? Maybe that'd be a better bet. I'd have though 400 is plenty long enough for most things, then with a 1.4x when neccessary. The 300-800 adds so much weight and bulk, more prone to shake, needs probably bigger tripod, doubt if it's worth it myself. Steve

September 25th, 2009, 08:01 AM	#8
Bo Skelmose Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 495	One thing to consider, when using different lenses, is the direction to turn focus. I have stopped using my Nikon lenses and now only use Sigma. I started having trouble with decent focusing on my broadcast camera and lenses because my nikon lense focus turns the other way. Only way to get rid of that problem was to have lenses with the same way to turn focus - Sigma and my Canon broadcast works the same way.

September 26th, 2009, 02:47 AM	#10
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	There are 2 HJ40s, one goes from 10-400 (800 with built in 2x), the other 14-560 (1120 with 2x), and the 18x28 goes upto 500 (1000 with 2x). The 18x28 is becoming a favourite with many now for a couple of reasons; it's much lighter and more compact (2.8kg vs 5kg) and it's optically superior. Only thing you loose is the wider end, though even the 10-400 was never wide enough that it was a one-lens-suits-all proposition. Steve

September 26th, 2009, 04:18 AM	#11
Bo Skelmose Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 495	I use the Sigma 120-300mm tele for my ex3. Makes great pictures. What I miss is the zooming capability when looking for flying birds. You cannot find them fast enough in the sky. The same with insects in grass or similar. You can zoom a little with the sigma lens but not really enough - and the focus (Backfocus) isent the same at different zoom factors. Often you want to take 3-4 shots in different sizes of the same situation and it takes too long to change the lens. I sometimes use a canon 8x20 lens with the fujinon adaptor. Mostly it give ok pictures - but not when there is to much backlight - the backlight produces some strange magenta shadows. Guess it comes from the adaptor and the extra glass in it. The same artifacts are there with my hj22x7,6. A 1/2" tele would probably not have these problems. The HJ40's are great for sports and has a image stabilizer that could be very handy in the wind - I have not tried it. The 18x28 has no image stabilizer.

October 14th, 2009, 05:56 PM	#13
Ed Kukla Major Player Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: All over, USA Posts: 512	Are the sigma lenses discussed here all metal lenses? Do they focus cleanly without any wiggle of the image during focus? I have a 70 - 300 sigma and the focus jumps around like crazy

October 14th, 2009, 09:16 PM	#14
Kin Lau Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 385	The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a monster of a lens, yes all metal construction, internal zooming (it doesn't change it's length when zooming). I have the 120-300/2.8 and also have the Sigma 70-300, and you cannot compare the quality btwn those two at all... one is a $200- lens, the other is $2000-. The 300-800/5.6 mentioned is scary huge and expensive. Also internal zooming and focusing, built like a tank.