Advice on a purchase!

[Tintype_18]

Bear with me here. I was going to spend about $400 on two items for my workshiop. Have gone for years without them so I decided to go in another direction. Had a conversation with the CEO of the organization. OK to spend the money if it will be used and not collect dust. As I indicated in another post, I can take macro photos with the wife's camera which would be mainly fishing flies. Not looking to get real close for photos of insects, etc. My thought is to take wildlife photos for sale to publications, separate or with articles. East Tennessee has many places for wildlife photography. We have taken a number of photos out the kitchen window as we have a number of birds who stop by for a snack; rabbits and squirrels in the back yard, too. My Canon EOS Rebel T7 has a 75-300mm lens. Good but could be better. I was considering the "multiplier" to increase it to 600mm. New or reconditioned is OK. Is any aftermarket brand/product acceptable? Your advice is most appreciated as always. Thanks two bunches!

[ebiggs1]

"We have taken a number of photos out the kitchen window as we have a number of birds who stop by for a snack; rabbits and squirrels in the back yard, too."

I am really not trying to throw water on your parade but having been in this business for several decades now I have to know.

Where in the world did you find, or work for a pub, that pays for photos shot out of your kitchen window? I know our Kansas Wildlife magazine will not.  They want all natural habitat photos of wildlife and birds in natural settings.  Plus extremely sharp ones too. Don't get me wrong here as you don't need the fantastic gear Rodger has but you do need adequate gear for the job.

OK, you have $400 bucks to put toward a tele lens. One that will work and do the job.  You have to shop the used market and a very good candidate might be the Sigma DG 150-500mm F/5-6.3 APO HSM SLD DG RF OS Lens.  This is an older lens no longer in production.  It is a lens that if you get a good one it is very good.  Best part I have seen good ones in the $400 dollar range or slightly above it, perhaps $450. This lens will give you an equivalent of 800mm on the long end more than enough to shoot wildlife and birds.

[Tintype_18]

Haven't sold any bird photos, as Credence Clearwater would sing, "out my backdoor." Our kitchen window overlooks the deck. We have a suet feeder right outside the window. If we hae the lights off, we can sneack some photos. There is an additional suet feeder on the deck rail. I can use the 300mm for that and get some good photos without any clutter in the backround. The feeder is low enough that the back part of the yard, neighbor's fences and houses aren't in the photo. Black and white warbler was taken on the deck rail and is an untouched jpg on cloudy day. Will look at the Sigma lens and see what I can come up with. Thanks for the info in it.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Tintype_18 wrote:

Haven't sold any bird photos, as Credence Clearwater would sing, "out my backdoor." Our kitchen window overlooks the deck. We have a suet feeder right outside the window. If we hae the lights off, we can sneack some photos. There is an additional suet feeder on the deck rail. I can use the 300mm for that and get some good photos without any clutter in the backround. The feeder is low enough that the back part of the yard, neighbor's fences and houses aren't in the photo. Black and white warbler was taken on the deck rail and is an untouched jpg on cloudy day. Will look at the Sigma lens and see what I can come up with. Thanks for the info in it.

---

That is a great shot.  You say this a JPG straight out of the camera.  Impressive.  Learn how to save RAW files, and then use Canon's free Digital Photo Professional software to create JPG files.  This is sort of the digital equivalent of converting a film negative into an actual print.

My advice is to steer well clear of the Sigma 150-500mm lens.  It is  an older design form the 2000s, which worked welll with 4 MP cameras of its' time, but will not work so well with today's 24MP cameras.  It has a number of other issues, which I will not itemize, but I will point out that it is a beast of a lens.  Most new users are not ready for a lens of its' size and weight.

A decent quality telephoto lenses is really outside of your stated $400 budget.

[Tintype_18]

Many thanks for all your replies and advice.FWIW, my wife has asked for 48 years, "Where are you going to get a cheap hobby?" I don't thing there is one. I'm willing to wait to buy a quality lens by setting aside the $400 and any I get from writing. Waddizzle, I went back, right-clicked on the photo and tweaked it a bit. This was not done on DPP4; I'm in the learning process. Lots of YT videos and Canon has a "learning center" for it, too.

[wq9nsc]

Tintype, nice photo!

I wasn't clear if it was shot in RAW or you are taking JPG directly out of camera.  If in RAW, while you are in DPP try backing the highlight gain down several steps.  I think the highlights are slightly blown on part of the white areas of the bird (VERY easy to do with birds that have high contrast plumage), backing down the highlights will probably reveal a little more detail in those areas.

Depending upon how you have your DPP 4 setup, you may need to click on the advanced arrows under gamma adjustment to reveal the additional sliders that include highlight and shadow gain adjust.

If you have highlight warning turned on in DPP, it will show the overexposed areas in red.  In my experience with DPP, the red indicates SEVERE clipping of highlights and in many cases additional detail will be revealed by a further 1/3 to 1/2 stop in exposure reduction AFTER the red highlight warning is no longer displayed.  You will have to balance overall exposure gain with either global or area specific control of contrast, shadow, and highlight gain for best final output of an image with this sort of issue.  The automatic adjustment in DPP is sometimes good, the Photoshop algorithms are better for a lot of images, but for severely challenged initial images you can also count on having to do some manual final touchup.

Sometimes the DPP auto adjustment algorithm will make things far worse, it is generally biased towards bringing up shadows and will sometimes make lost highlight detail even worse so depending upon the subject it may create more issues than it solves.

Rodger

[Tintype_18]

Both warbler photos were jpg photos. They were edited by right clicking on the photo>edit>adjustments>sliding the bars for color, light, contrast, etc. Just editing and sent five photos of my grandson fly fishing for the first time. Wife's SX530 HD on jpg. Doesn't have RAW. Turned out good. I've been taking both RAW and jpg photos with my T7 for funsies. As I mentioned, working on learning DPP4. Got some of the basics but looking to beyond them.

Thanks to all!

Edit- Went back an re-read Rodger's reply. Was looking at a tutorial where it showed the highlighted red and how to adjust for it. My goal is to look at these tutorials more than once to get it locked in memory. Hopefully, avoiding senior mements.

[ebiggs1]

"My advice is to steer well clear of the Sigma 150-500mm lens.  It is  an older design form the 2000s, which worked welll with 4 MP cameras of its' time, but will not work so well with today's 24MP cameras."

Hard to explain then, why the doll's head photo I shared is so sharp.  It was taken with my 1Ds Mk III which is a 21 MP camera. The lens is capable of producing perfectly good and sharp usable photos.

"A decent quality telephoto lenses is really outside of your stated $400 budget."

The constraint of $400 dollars puts a limit on what the OP can purchase. But the Siggy 150-500mm does meet both criteria. Plently sharp and around $400 bucks.

"Most new users are not ready for a lens of its' size and weight."

This is such an elitists with attitude thing to say. Just because you believe you've made it has no bearing on the OP.  Everybody was a "new user" at some point.  Most of us managed and survived and some even thrived.

[Tintype_18]

ebiggs1, will go back and search more for the Siggy lens. Will keep "track" as prices varied from $499 and up in price on eBay.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Tintype_18 wrote:

ebiggs1, will go back and search more for the Siggy lens. Will keep "track" as prices varied from $499 and up in price on eBay.

---

I paid $600 for one in 2015.  The lens really isn't worth more than $400.  I still advise against pairing with a Rebel SL body.  I would not recommend the current iteration 150-600mm of the lens, either, with a Rebel SL body.

[ebiggs1]

"...prices varied from $499 and up in price on eBay."

That's too much.  I think $450 is a top price I would pay. You might make an offer if you find one you want.  All they can say is "no" but they might say OK.

Don't be fooled by what the other guy said. This lens is a direct forerunner of the extremely popular 150-600mm super zoom that Sigma currently in its lens line up.

Now bare in mind this is a big lens.  It has to be and all the other lenses in this category are big too.  This is what it takes to construct a good super zoom.  It is also why your 75-300mm is not so good. You might be able to sell it to offset the new purchase. Take another look at the doll's head sample.  You can see for yourself it is a sharp and capable lens.

The big problem area for this model is the OS or image stabilization.  Since it is an early design the OS is not as good as it has become in today's current lenses. But your 75-300mm doesn't have it at all !  The Siggy was a thousand dollar lens when it came out. Keep looking and shopping and you will find one.

The fact you may be a new user or beginner has no baring here as we all were there at one time. You can learn how to use it and how it works best.